Despite PB.com's seemingly boundless confidence in Lord Ashcroft's poll findings (shades of Angus Reid pre the 2010 GE, never to ber heard of on the site since), it's very difficult to believe that the LibDems will win more than around 20-25 seats maximum should they remain on their present 6%-8% share of the vote.Time is fast running out.
Remember the excitement when the Eastleigh by election was called and the certainty expressed by many on here that this was an easy blue victory. In the end they slumped to a pathetic 3rd well below any of the polls.
I rejoiced in Huhne out but had posted about the deficiencies in Eastleigh Conservatives. An organisation put into special measures about 3 years before and lacking members with almost no delivery networks.
I am not an expert on psephology, as others on this site obviously are, but I wonder whether the polling figures for the minor parties might be overstated. In May we will be having a large number of local and mayoral elections on the same day as the General Election. I very much suspect that many people will protest vote in the locals but stick to the more conventional choices in the main event. Any opinions?
It could happen, I suspect particularly with the Greens who will more obviously be no hopers in almost all the seats they are standing in. For UKIP I'd put it to happen for sure, but at nowhere near the same rate - they've topped a national poll in the Euros, they've won a couple of by-elections, so protest vote or enthusiastic support, those saying they intend to vote for them now are much less likely to see it as a wasted vote as they might have last time and so more likely to stick with them for the GE.
I am not an expert on psephology, as others on this site obviously are, but I wonder whether the polling figures for the minor parties might be overstated. In May we will be having a large number of local and mayoral elections on the same day as the General Election. I very much suspect that many people will protest vote in the locals but stick to the more conventional choices in the main event. Any opinions?
Greens getting a lot of students who rarely vote. The usual effect is that at a time of the GE the governing party tends to do better in locals because voters have kicked them at locals outside of the GE year. Rage is vented...
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
It would seem that BBC Current Affairs can't get enough of the old jailbird, and his ex wife.
Its the BBC 'avin a laff. Its in the BBC's interest to show politicians in a bad light. The BBC need to keep their personal gravy train running. The last thing they want is to see politics taken seriously.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
Of course if the Governing folk in Scotland wanted to really save hundreds of thousands from an early death they should put their efforts to the shameful early deaths in parts of Glasgow where the average life expectancy is as bad as the worst in Africa. But heck, two people saved from death on the roads each year is more important than the thousands dying early every year in Glasgow.
Or is that the fault of the NHS run from Westminster?
They have introduced the Smoking Ban (first in the UK), Alcohol Bonus Offers (first in the UK) and now the 50mg limit (first in the UK). The widespread acceptance and popularity of the programme does seem to hint that it might work. We will know in 30 years.
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
You have to factor in the decline of the duopoly. Both major parties have crashed over the past 10 years.
But still, the Tories will be pleased with where they are today, relative to Labour, and under nutty FPTP the flight of voters to other parties will hardly register...
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
I was about to suggest that the Tartan Taliban might just like to ban the brewing or distilling of grain, but then I thought better of it!
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
You can ask. Its the tories who have had to implement billions in cuts and for what its worth implement the £20 billion in efficiency savings in the NHS that were in Labour's manifesto. The Tories are the ones faced with events. Labour on the other hand cannot face up to being coherent.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
If you go to the pub between work and home every night, there may be a problem. In fact, there is probably a problem. It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub. But that is TGOFHs argument.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
I was about to suggest that the Tartan Taliban might just like to ban the brewing or distilling of grain, but then I thought better of it!
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
You have to factor in the decline of the duopoly. Both major parties have crashed over the past 10 years.
But still, the Tories will be pleased with where they are today, relative to Labour, and under nutty FPTP the flight of voters to other parties will hardly register...
Despite PB.com's seemingly boundless confidence in Lord Ashcroft's poll findings (shades of Angus Reid pre the 2010 GE, never to ber heard of on the site since), it's very difficult to believe that the LibDems will win more than around 20-25 seats maximum should they remain on their present 6%-8% share of the vote.Time is fast running out.
Remember the excitement when the Eastleigh by election was called and the certainty expressed by many on here that this was an easy blue victory. In the end they slumped to a pathetic 3rd well below any of the polls.
I'd hardly call it pathetic. It was the closest 3-way by-election in 92 years...
And the LibDems were polling significantly higher nationally at the time of the Eastleigh by-election than they are now.
Despite PB.com's seemingly boundless confidence in Lord Ashcroft's poll findings (shades of Angus Reid pre the 2010 GE, never to ber heard of on the site since), it's very difficult to believe that the LibDems will win more than around 20-25 seats maximum should they remain on their present 6%-8% share of the vote.Time is fast running out.
Remember the excitement when the Eastleigh by election was called and the certainty expressed by many on here that this was an easy blue victory. In the end they slumped to a pathetic 3rd well below any of the polls.
I think the Lib-Dem position has become somewhat more critical than it was when Huhne was put in the clink...
The Lib's Euro meltdown and subsequent ferret in a sack act seemed to be a blow so grievous they appear unable to recover?
Of course if the Governing folk in Scotland wanted to really save hundreds of thousands from an early death they should put their efforts to the shameful early deaths in parts of Glasgow where the average life expectancy is as bad as the worst in Africa. But heck, two people saved from death on the roads each year is more important than the thousands dying early every year in Glasgow.
Or is that the fault of the NHS run from Westminster?
The Tories need to play the role of political insurgent in Scotland. Lab LD SNP - what good have they ever done? And what do they have in common? Left wing... socialist.
Quick question - Would Twickers be lost to the Tories STRICTLY ON UNS ?
The Tories need a 10.2% swing to win the seat, so if you assume the Con share overall won't be higher than 35% and the LD lower than 7%, the national swing from LD to Con won't be higher than 7-8%. So UNS would mean a definite LD hold on that basis.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
You have to factor in the decline of the duopoly. Both major parties have crashed over the past 10 years.
But still, the Tories will be pleased with where they are today, relative to Labour, and under nutty FPTP the flight of voters to other parties will hardly register...
You'd think, but I'd still predict nothing happens with the voting system as a result, though it might be talked about a bit more at least.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
If you go to the pub between work and home every night, there may be a problem. In fact, there is probably a problem. It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub. But that is TGOFHs argument.
If I stop off at the pub on the way home from work every evening then I am likely to drink 5 pints a week which is hardly a problem. Someone who isn't driving of course has the opportunity to drink a lot more. I suppose you are going to breathalyse bus passengers as well? And if you can't understand why people might like a refreshing beverage and a chat to wind down after a day at work, then you are obviously some sort of alien.
Quick question - Would Twickers be lost to the Tories STRICTLY ON UNS ?
The Tories need a 10.2% swing to win the seat, so if you assume the Con share overall won't be higher than 35% and the LD lower than 7%, the national swing from LD to Con won't be higher than 7-8%. So UNS would mean a definite LD hold on that basis.
Unless Dr Vince has a bigger swing against him than UNS?
Of course if the Governing folk in Scotland wanted to really save hundreds of thousands from an early death they should put their efforts to the shameful early deaths in parts of Glasgow where the average life expectancy is as bad as the worst in Africa. But heck, two people saved from death on the roads each year is more important than the thousands dying early every year in Glasgow.
Or is that the fault of the NHS run from Westminster?
The Tories need to play the role of political insurgent in Scotland. Lab LD SNP - what good have they ever done? And what do they have in common? Left wing... socialist.
The way they like it up there it seems, or think they do at any rate given it is my understanding actual research into the political views held on either side of the border show pretty marginal differences on most topics. But peoples' perceptions of their own position and how they should vote don't need to match up with the realities offered by various parties it would seem.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will thisy?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
I was about to suggest that the Tartan Taliban might just like to ban the brewing or distilling of grain, but then I thought better of it!
So what is it? Scotland should accept lower life expectancy or Scotland should do something about it?
If Scotland wants to improve its life expectancy, then 1.3 fewer deaths is not going to do it. It is just the sort of tokenistic thing that politicians like to do so that they can pretend that they are doing something.
The solution is not to force the poor (for it is them who die prematurely) to stop smoking, drinking and eating salty sugary fat, the solution is to look at why, for so many, these are the only feeble pleasures of life.
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later. Labour's current standings are pathetic and reflect the pathetic nature of their leadership. Current polls are only showing parity if you squint. Labour are barely showing better than 2010.
Er! Forgive me for a asking, but if Labours standing is pathetic, what does that make the Tories?
You have to factor in the decline of the duopoly. Both major parties have crashed over the past 10 years.
But still, the Tories will be pleased with where they are today, relative to Labour, and under nutty FPTP the flight of voters to other parties will hardly register...
You'd think, but I'd still predict nothing happens with the voting system as a result, though it might be talked about a bit more at least.
I'd hope all smaller parties give a pledge to refuse to enter into coalition, etc. without a change to the voting system.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
just 7 tory leads in the last 38 polls. All well within moe except that mad Ashcroft.
And there was that mad Populus with a labour lead of 5 so I think that evens out. And you forget the MOE is now ±3% either side of a Labour lead of a mere 0.5%. You will have to do better than that.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later.
Every 50 years is quite unusual, my trolly friend, and there had been two elections in between that time.
Sometimes I agree with your posts, sometimes not, but you always remind me of the most Stalinist colleagues of my Marxist years, earnestly denouncing every form of deviation. Sometimes you should criticise Tory policy on fish fingers or something, just to give us a change.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
What has a pint on the way home from work have to do with alcohol dependency? Last night I had a pint and a steak after going to the gym. Does that make me an alcoholic?
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
Do the terms "relaxation", "social life" mean anything to you?
If Scotland wants to improve its life expectancy, then 1.3 fewer deaths is not going to do it. It is just the sort of tokenistic thing that politicians like to do so that they can pretend that they are doing something.
The solution is not to force the poor (for it is them who die prematurely) to stop smoking, drinking and eating salty sugary fat, the solution is to look at why, for so many, these are the only feeble pleasures of life.
The solution is to persuade that it's not the best way to continue, much of the SNP policy does this. But as I said, it's effectiveness won't be known for years. This shows a pretty progressive government, perhaps why they are so popular. Thinking about 30 years down the line rather than Osborne's "TAX CUT FOR THE ELECTION" seems much better politics.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
Night bus from a golf club ? Bloody central belt metropolitan elite....
Ah so being able to drink drive is a rural right. Bollocks.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Absurd bigotry. Grow up and get a life instead of trying to live other peoples for them. Overwhelmingly accidents are just that - accidents and involve people who are cold stone sober. The notion that people are dying as a result of the current limit is bogus. Failing to educate people to the stupidity of smoking eating and drinking themselves to death in their own homes is lost on the scottish govt.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
Actually, someone calling into a pub every evening on the way home from work, and staying within the drink-drive limits, is doing exactly what the health lobby say we should be doing: drinking a little every day rather than a big session once or twice a week.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
AMS would be supported by pretty much ever party except the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and DUP. Which pretty much means it is a long way off no matter how touch 2015 is to get a majority and no matter how low a percent a governing party gets.
Anyone know whether Cameron still goes to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament on 30th March?
Given we have a fixed term, doesn't Parliament just kind of dissolve itself? A bit like the Lib-Dems when they went into coalition?
Under the Septennial Act (obviously, as amended) I think it just dissolves itself. An election then needs to be called, but I think that under that Act or another, there is no flexibility not to do so.
Anyone know whether Cameron still goes to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament on 30th March?
Given we have a fixed term, doesn't Parliament just kind of dissolve itself? A bit like the Lib-Dems when they went into coalition?
Dissolving parliament is no longer a royal prerogative, so no need to go and get the OK from HM.
That's what I thought.
Hopefully the next government (whoever it is) will kill off the fixed term Parliament and we can get back to business as usual.
I rather like it. we need to give our Executive less power, not more. The ability to call an election when it suits it is not a power the Government should have.
Do the terms "relaxation", "social life" mean anything to you?
They mean a great deal, yet it is hard to see how leaving work, stopping at the pub for a drink or two, then going home to your family fits in with a social life. It fits in with a "social life" where that means getting pissed. As I said, that may indicate a problem.
Anyone know whether Cameron still goes to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament on 30th March?
Given we have a fixed term, doesn't Parliament just kind of dissolve itself? A bit like the Lib-Dems when they went into coalition?
Dissolving parliament is no longer a royal prerogative, so no need to go and get the OK from HM.
That's what I thought.
Hopefully the next government (whoever it is) will kill off the fixed term Parliament and we can get back to business as usual.
I rather like it. we need to give our Executive less power, not more. The ability to call an election when it suits it is not a power the Government should have.
I thought that when it was first introduced, but as the Parliament has gone on the more risk's I see with it.
Imagine being stuck with an utterly mad Labour/Green/Plaid/SNP/Sinn Fein coalition government for five years because there's no way of getting rid of them with a fixed term...
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
AMS would be supported by pretty much ever party except the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and DUP. Which pretty much means it is a long way off no matter how touch 2015 is to get a majority and no matter how low a percent a governing party gets.
Do the terms "relaxation", "social life" mean anything to you?
They mean a great deal, yet it is hard to see how leaving work, stopping at the pub for a drink or two, then going home to your family fits in with a social life. It fits in with a "social life" where that means getting pissed. As I said, that may indicate a problem.
Well, it doesn't, because we are talking about drivers, and you can't (legally) get pissed on the way home from work if you are driving. You can have one or at most two. But we don't all fit in with your stupid little moralistic world view.
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
Plenty of people have a drink after work, if you reduce the DD limit to 50mg they will probably start doing it at home and that's when they may start drinking a lot more.
But I really don't know why I am typing this because I am not sure if you are some sort of bizarre troll, a spoof or just Mork from the planet Ork.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
You do know that moderate drinkers live longer than either Teetotalers or heavy drinkers?
It appears you equate "going to the pub" with "a problematic need for alcohol" which does seem a rather limited view of the experience......
How do you (or do you at all?) socialise with colleagues outside the work environment?
Anyone know whether Cameron still goes to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament on 30th March?
Given we have a fixed term, doesn't Parliament just kind of dissolve itself? A bit like the Lib-Dems when they went into coalition?
Dissolving parliament is no longer a royal prerogative, so no need to go and get the OK from HM.
That's what I thought.
Hopefully the next government (whoever it is) will kill off the fixed term Parliament and we can get back to business as usual.
I rather like it. we need to give our Executive less power, not more. The ability to call an election when it suits it is not a power the Government should have.
I thought that when it was first introduced, but as the Parliament has gone on the more risk's I see with it.
Imagine being stuck with an utterly mad Labour/Green/Plaid/SNP/Sinn Fein coalition government for five years because there's no way of getting rid of them with a fixed term...
There are still ways of having a No Confidence vote and an election. So the FTPA doesn't stop an involuntary early dissolution (ie loss of effective majority) but it does stop said utterly mad government going for an election at the point where it things it can get an increased majority.
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
None of which requre you to be drinking alcohol.
Im a smoker and a drinker. Yet even I don't have a problem with the SNP policy, because I understand it. They want to raise Scottish life expectancy, which many here have condemned (and rightly so).
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
I don't deny that Scottish and English culture is overly dependent on consuming alchohol as a pastime.
On the other hand I find your somewhat illiberal stance almost as problematic.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
The LDs clearly settled for AV as the Tories wouldn't wear PR. The LDs were a small part of a coalition; the agreement was what they could negotiate. If they didn't there was a good chance the Tories would have gone for a minority government.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
The LDs clearly settled for AV as the Tories wouldn't wear PR. The LDs were a small part of a coalition; the agreement was what they could negotiate. If they didn't there was a good chance the Tories would have gone for a minority government.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
"The Irish system of PR"
You mean the English (invented by Thomas Wright Hill), which we kindly gave to Ireland and Malta!
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
None of which requre you to be drinking alcohol.
Im a smoker and a drinker. Yet even I don't have a problem with the SNP policy, because I understand it. They want to raise Scottish life expectancy, which many here have condemned (and rightly so).
Well, again, stopping people having one drink on the way home from work (or after a round of golf) will do nothing for life expectancy, it is simply illiberal, blowhard political posturing.
It appears you equate "going to the pub" with "a problematic need for alcohol" which does seem a rather limited view of the experience......
I was referring to TRGOH assertion that this should not be discouraged. It should. It seems very problematic. It has no imperative. It really is an either or. Allow Scotland's alcohol consumption and early death rate to continue or implement policy to try and reduce it. Personally, as a smoker and drinker, I'm pretty neutral. From the response there seems to be a lot of people projecting their own worries about their own alcohol consumption.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
The LDs clearly settled for AV as the Tories wouldn't wear PR. The LDs were a small part of a coalition; the agreement was what they could negotiate. If they didn't there was a good chance the Tories would have gone for a minority government.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
The Lib Dums were not forced to go with the Tories, they had a choice of Coalition with the Labour Party and some others, The Tories, if they wanted to govern, were in the bind. The Lib Dums gave their position up to get a referendum on a Third Party Biased electoral system, not PR, and over which they had complete control.
It was the Lib Dums choice. Now they are going to be destroyed and they deserve to be destroyed. Because it nothing else. their core belief has always been PR. And given the choice, they refused it.
Thin gruel indeed Nick. Given the continued unpopularity of the Tories and austerity in general and given the lack of any other credible leftwing alternative, you'd have thought a substantial Labour lead would be expected at this stage in the cycle, no?
I'm not sure what I'd expect - with UKIP, the SNP and the Greens roaming around we are in uncharted territory. But to have been in power for 13 years, then lose, then recover to have a decent shot at winning is quite unusual. If you'd offered me 2015 parity in 2010 I'd have taken it like a shot.
There is nothing unusual with being in power for 13 years and being in with a shot at winning 5 years later. Labour won in 1964 and then lost in 1970, less than 6 years later.
Every 50 years is quite unusual, my trolly friend, and there had been two elections in between that time.
Sometimes I agree with your posts, sometimes not, but you always remind me of the most Stalinist colleagues of my Marxist years, earnestly denouncing every form of deviation. Sometimes you should criticise Tory policy on fish fingers or something, just to give us a change.
Oh bah humbug, troll off yourself. In terms of 13 year periods just how far back should we go to identify a pattern? We have 3 recent instances of parties being in power for 13 years or more. Beyond that we have to go back to before the war. In 1 case they, Labour,came back to power inside 6 years in another they, the Tories, waited for another 13. In this latter case BTW Labour followed Tory economic spending after inheriting a sound economy. Now we see in the most recent example the recently defeated party, Labour this time struggling for parity. There is no pattern, 13 years is meaningless.
Why not make an argument based on facts rather than 'troll' about marxist deviation. Why not consider that Labour's ratings have shrunk the closer the election has become. Labour may of course gain some sort of win but they will be breaking no sort of historical precedent. In see nothing wrong in pointing out there is no basis in fact for what someone says.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
The LDs clearly settled for AV as the Tories wouldn't wear PR. The LDs were a small part of a coalition; the agreement was what they could negotiate. If they didn't there was a good chance the Tories would have gone for a minority government.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
"The Irish system of PR"
You mean the English (invented by Thomas Wright Hill), which we kindly gave to Ireland and Malta!
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
Im a smoker and a drinker.
One of which has no 'safe level of consumption' .......
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
You do know that moderate drinkers live longer than either Teetotalers or heavy drinkers?
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
None of which requre you to be drinking alcohol.
Im a smoker and a drinker. Yet even I don't have a problem with the SNP policy, because I understand it. They want to raise Scottish life expectancy, which many here have condemned (and rightly so).
Well, again, stopping people having one drink on the way home from work (or after a round of golf) will do nothing for life expectancy, it is simply illiberal, blowhard political posturing.
Perhaps you don't really get how it works.
I'm 43. I love drinking alcohol and do so regularly. Yet I have grown up in an environment where 1. drinking and driving is unacceptable (dont agree but accept) 2. drinking every day is unacceptable (kind of agree for health but not wholly but accept_ 3. that consistent drinking is indicative of dependency (supported by evidence).
All the SNP policy has been aimed to focusing drinking away from the "it's normal" attitude. they've been pretty successful, not completely but it has worked, alcohol consumption has dropped (as has smoking). Will it work in the long term? As I said we will know in 30 years.
But the low life expectancy and the fact the SNP will pass legislation to improve it is probably one of the reasons the SNP are so popular today.
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
Im a smoker and a drinker.
One of which has no 'safe level of consumption' .......
But limitations of both are criticisms of the SNP.
It appears you equate "going to the pub" with "a problematic need for alcohol" which does seem a rather limited view of the experience......
I was referring to TRGOH assertion that this should not be discouraged. It should. It seems very problematic. It has no imperative. It really is an either or. Allow Scotland's alcohol consumption and early death rate to continue or implement policy to try and reduce it. Personally, as a smoker and drinker, I'm pretty neutral. From the response there seems to be a lot of people projecting their own worries about their own alcohol consumption.
Any evidence that Pubs cause problem drinking?
Normalization of drinking at home may be more of a problem?
"That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics."
The LDs are in favour of STV and always have been, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
There is no fucking difference in single constituency seats.
Which is what the Lib Dems proposed. Both are biased for Third Parties and neither are PR.
Honestly it is ridiculous to find anyone supporting how the Lib Dums acted in 2010. They gave up EVERYTHING to desert their principles purely for party gain. It was abominable.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
That will depend on the party. The Lib Dems refused PR because it would have fucked them. So they wanted AV. Utterly pathetic party-based politics.
Yeah, right. The Tories offered the LDs a referendum on PR but Clegg demanded AV instead? You really are on a different planet tonight.
I'm sorry at which part of the Coalition process did the Lib Dums not give up every single principle on which they stood for election?
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
The LDs clearly settled for AV as the Tories wouldn't wear PR. The LDs were a small part of a coalition; the agreement was what they could negotiate. If they didn't there was a good chance the Tories would have gone for a minority government.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
"The Irish system of PR"
You mean the English (invented by Thomas Wright Hill), which we kindly gave to Ireland and Malta!
So why isn't it used here?
It is, in Scottish and NI councils, NI Assembly and NI Euros.
The LDs should have simply demanded it for local elections in 2010, harmonizing the UK. I hope they don't make the same error again.
They should also sort out the Euro list system (either to STV or some kind of compensatory list or biproportional list system, preferably open)
Incidentally, regular posters might be interested to know that a good friend described me today as someone who looks and sounds startlingly like Nigel Farage.
That is to say, a former good friend.
Were you both having a pint down the golf club?
That's still legal in England..
And legal in Scotland. But get the Night Bus home to avoid breaking the law.
.
Is there a detectable decrease in risk for the lower limit? If so how many in Scotland will benefit? Will this outweigh the negative economic impact on Scotland's rural pubs, clubs, eateries and tourist industry?
In all honesty, the law has nothing to do with deaths from drink driving. It is to stop as OTGOH said earlier "you can't even stop off at the pub on the way home from work before you go home".
And that is a very desirable outcome.
Unless you want people to have a social life and want pubs to remain viable economically.
A drink between work and home is nothing about social life, it is purely about alcohol dependency, which is a deep rooted problem in Scotland. As for pubs remaining open, especially rural pubs, well we don't have an Agrarian economy any more.
Alcoholics would be above the old limit, so what benefit? Rural pubs and hotels are not just important to locals, but also to the tourist industry.
I said alcohol dependency which is a path to alcoholism.
It seems hard to understand why you would want to go from work to home via the pub.
None of my business, but on what personal experience (eg years worked & commuted) do you base your difficulty in understanding?
Considerable years of work and the idea of anyone feeling a need to go to the pub between work and home doesn't just seem strange, it seems very problematic.
You do know that moderate drinkers live longer than either Teetotalers or heavy drinkers?
Define "moderate"
Someone who does not drink more than their doctor! ;-)
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Interesting Jim Murphy quote - he only talks about 'get[ting] David Cameron out of Downing Street' - no mention of who he'd like to see in Downing St in his place.....
The fact is that come the UK election here in Scotland in May it's really a choice of whether David Cameron hangs on to power or whether we can get David Cameron out of Downing Street, and by voting SNP, unfortunately, a lot of Scots if they do so, run the risk that by accident they ensure that David Cameron holds onto power.'
I think we should have a 'Miliband Watch' - note how many times an Ed Miliband's Labour spokesman mentions Ed Miliband.....and how many times they don't......
Re. the Scottish situation, I was mulling in the bath last night. What must irk many Scots about Miliband is how incredibly London-centric he is. In almost every respect he is the epitome of that London metropolitan elite.
Tony Blair might have got right up a lots of Scottish noses, and was rising middle class, but he could at least claim some Scots identification, born in Edinburgh and schooled there, with roots in Glasgow. Actually even David Cameron has Scottish roots.
Miliband is far away, both physically and metaphorically. It's astonishing to me that he didn't get this and see it as an issue. With Gordon Brown off with the fairies and Alastair Darling standing down there's another link broken to the Blair Scottish cabal, and every time it happens Labour looks more London-centric and cut off from Scotland.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
Maybe read the article you're linking to next time and not the nonsense MSM headline.
The article states:
"As the former leader of a minority administration himself, he suggested that he was well-placed to understand the negotiations that go into such arrangements."
Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober They end up in bed He asks if she wants sex She says yes They make love The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea She goes to the police and presses charges How does he prove consent ?
Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober They end up in bed He asks if she wants sex She says yes They make love The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea She goes to the police and presses charges How does he prove consent ?
Naughty O:-)
You would not be thinking of Miliband/Sturgeon would you? You know that will just set off Dire again.
Here is a modern-day conundrum which arose today with a fellow business in our office suites.
A recent graduate having a good degree in geology (from a student loan) is unable to find a job locally (there are no local companies who could employ him). However, he wants to stay in the area as he likes it and so is quite happy to live (and has plans for a family) on benefits.
In previous times he would have moved and obtained a job where he was employable, as probably his forebears did..
So should this employable person be allowed to live at ease on the public purse?
I hardly think he will be living the high life on £70 a week
Just read on Twitter than Syriza are forcing out the Bank of Greece governor.
If these guys can't get euros I would not put it past them to print their own.
They do possess a printing press in Greece. May as well get involved with some QE of their own.
They won't and if you read up on Varoufakis you will see why - the guy might be the one to fix it.
But if they did, would that be wrong? In the UK Quantitative Easing transferred several hundred billions pounds of wealth from future taxpayers to today's bankers. They would have had a better effect sending a cheque for £2k to each adult in the UK. A much better effect.
But then the UK is a corrupt country and transferring wealth to their friends is Westminster policy.
You don't really understand what happened do you?
Yes we know , you erses lent yourselves our money and we are paying for it whilst you cash in.
I recon, however bad it gets for labour, they'll still have a 10%+ lead over the SNP in at least one constituency in May.
Yes, but which one?
If I was looking for a decent Hedge on Scottish Labour I would go for North Ayrshire and Arran.
Katy Clarke gives a very, very good impression of being left wing, probably the most left wing Labour MP. She voted with the SNP on Austerity, Trident and Fracking. Until recently even I was fooled and wondered if she might be a candidate to defect to the Greens. (The reality is she is a 100% careerist Labourite but she really does convince she isnt).
I'm not sure it will be enough to save her, but if any decent value Labour incumbent exists, it is probably her but I can't find any odds being offered anything over 15/8 would be value.
Hopefully Labour finally get chucked out of North Ayrshire, they have run it forever and managed to make it into a desert.
Actually Labour has only held North Ayrshire since 1987 when they won the former Bute and North Ayrshire from the Tories.
The seat was known as Cunninghame North, and was mostly the former North Ayrshire and Arran.
The seat was Bute and North Ayrshire until 1983 held by John Corrie. It then became Cunningham North in 1983 and John Corrie won it once losing to Brian Wilson in 1987. North Ayrshire and Arran was only created in 2005 and is held by Brian Wilson's successor Katy Clark.
I think 30 years is a long time and certainly feels like "Forever" if you live in Ayrshire. Not been many Tories in the shire for many a year , wishful thinking.
Comments
The usual effect is that at a time of the GE the governing party tends to do better in locals because voters have kicked them at locals outside of the GE year. Rage is vented...
Its in the BBC's interest to show politicians in a bad light. The BBC need to keep their personal gravy train running. The last thing they want is to see politics taken seriously.
West Berks UA Purley On Thames Con hold
Con 936
Lab 172
UKIP 163
LDem 104
Previous result 2011 2 seats
Con 1621/1536
Lab 512/318
LDem 282/226
But still, the Tories will be pleased with where they are today, relative to Labour, and under nutty FPTP the flight of voters to other parties will hardly register...
Get Burns on the subject of Scotch drink:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/scotch_drink/
Its the tories who have had to implement billions in cuts and for what its worth implement the £20 billion in efficiency savings in the NHS that were in Labour's manifesto. The Tories are the ones faced with events. Labour on the other hand cannot face up to being coherent.
The Lib's Euro meltdown and subsequent ferret in a sack act seemed to be a blow so grievous they appear unable to recover?
A merry night to all.
The solution is not to force the poor (for it is them who die prematurely) to stop smoking, drinking and eating salty sugary fat, the solution is to look at why, for so many, these are the only feeble pleasures of life.
And no, the retention of one majoritarian system over another majoritarian system in 2011 hasn't put the issue to bed...
Sometimes I agree with your posts, sometimes not, but you always remind me of the most Stalinist colleagues of my Marxist years, earnestly denouncing every form of deviation. Sometimes you should criticise Tory policy on fish fingers or something, just to give us a change.
Given we have a fixed term, doesn't Parliament just kind of dissolve itself? A bit like the Lib-Dems when they went into coalition?
As do the electorate.
So the SNP keep winning.
AMS would be supported by pretty much ever party except the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and DUP. Which pretty much means it is a long way off no matter how touch 2015 is to get a majority and no matter how low a percent a governing party gets.
Hopefully the next government (whoever it is) will kill off the fixed term Parliament and we can get back to business as usual.
Imagine being stuck with an utterly mad Labour/Green/Plaid/SNP/Sinn Fein coalition government for five years because there's no way of getting rid of them with a fixed term...
For a start, many people live on their own and may quite like some social interaction on their way home. Others, even if they do have a family, may wish to interact with friends and associates outside the family. Tradesmen may wish to catch up with business contacts. etc.
Plenty of people have a drink after work, if you reduce the DD limit to 50mg they will probably start doing it at home and that's when they may start drinking a lot more.
But I really don't know why I am typing this because I am not sure if you are some sort of bizarre troll, a spoof or just Mork from the planet Ork.
They claim to want PR. They didn't propose PR, they proposed AV (a third party biased system). If they wanted PR the least they would have done was DEMAND it - not set it as a referendum and still discard their entire political future.
AV is an unfair system to anyone except the third party. It's as broken as FPTP. AMS would have given the UK a decent system, allowed the ridiculous size of the Commons to be reduced and reflected the will of the people. The Libs refused to propose it.
It appears you equate "going to the pub" with "a problematic need for alcohol" which does seem a rather limited view of the experience......
How do you (or do you at all?) socialise with colleagues outside the work environment?
Im a smoker and a drinker. Yet even I don't have a problem with the SNP policy, because I understand it. They want to raise Scottish life expectancy, which many here have condemned (and rightly so).
On the other hand I find your somewhat illiberal stance almost as problematic.
The LDs clearly enunciated the principle that they would be prepare to form a coalition, initially with whichever party did best in the election. Anyone who voted for them expecting them to do otherwise is an idiot.
Personally I agree we should reduce the HoC (to about 400 members), and get rid of the appointed upper chamber, but I would probably go for the Irish system of PR rather than AMS as I don't like list systems.
You mean the English (invented by Thomas Wright Hill), which we kindly gave to Ireland and Malta!
It was the Lib Dums choice. Now they are going to be destroyed and they deserve to be destroyed. Because it nothing else. their core belief has always been PR. And given the choice, they refused it.
Now we see in the most recent example the recently defeated party, Labour this time struggling for parity. There is no pattern, 13 years is meaningless.
Why not make an argument based on facts rather than 'troll' about marxist deviation. Why not consider that Labour's ratings have shrunk the closer the election has become. Labour may of course gain some sort of win but they will be breaking no sort of historical precedent. In see nothing wrong in pointing out there is no basis in fact for what someone says.
On a lighter note:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11374144/How-to-drink-like-Winston-Churchill.html
I'm 43. I love drinking alcohol and do so regularly. Yet I have grown up in an environment where 1. drinking and driving is unacceptable (dont agree but accept) 2. drinking every day is unacceptable (kind of agree for health but not wholly but accept_ 3. that consistent drinking is indicative of dependency (supported by evidence).
All the SNP policy has been aimed to focusing drinking away from the "it's normal" attitude. they've been pretty successful, not completely but it has worked, alcohol consumption has dropped (as has smoking). Will it work in the long term? As I said we will know in 30 years.
But the low life expectancy and the fact the SNP will pass legislation to improve it is probably one of the reasons the SNP are so popular today.
The LDs are in favour of STV and always have been, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Normalization of drinking at home may be more of a problem?
Which is what the Lib Dems proposed. Both are biased for Third Parties and neither are PR.
Honestly it is ridiculous to find anyone supporting how the Lib Dums acted in 2010. They gave up EVERYTHING to desert their principles purely for party gain. It was abominable.
The LDs should have simply demanded it for local elections in 2010, harmonizing the UK. I hope they don't make the same error again.
They should also sort out the Euro list system (either to STV or some kind of compensatory list or biproportional list system, preferably open)
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that she will personally take charge of any coalition talks about the general election. At a briefing at Westminster she said she would lead the talks, even though she is not and won’t be an MP, and that Alex Salmond, the former leader who is standing for election, would “have a part to play”. Previously Salmond has suggested that he would be the lead figure in these talks.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jan/28/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2917866/Islamic-State-rounds-15-pigeon-breeders-Iraq-deciding-Islamic-birds.html
Alex Salmond has suggested he could act as kingmaker - and possibly Deputy Prime Minister - in the event of another hung parliament at Westminster.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/salmond-i-could-be-kingmaker-in-coalition-at-westminster.25753111
Eck off Alex! Sturgeon tells Salmond SHE will decide if the SNP shares power with Labour after election
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930063/Nicola-Sturgeon-tells-Alex-Salmond-decide-SNP-shares-power-Labour.html#ixzz3QB4ySrCh
The fact is that come the UK election here in Scotland in May it's really a choice of whether David Cameron hangs on to power or whether we can get David Cameron out of Downing Street, and by voting SNP, unfortunately, a lot of Scots if they do so, run the risk that by accident they ensure that David Cameron holds onto power.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2930063/Nicola-Sturgeon-tells-Alex-Salmond-decide-SNP-shares-power-Labour.html#ixzz3QB7xYVmz
I think we should have a 'Miliband Watch' - note how many times an Ed Miliband's Labour spokesman mentions Ed Miliband.....and how many times they don't......
Tony Blair might have got right up a lots of Scottish noses, and was rising middle class, but he could at least claim some Scots identification, born in Edinburgh and schooled there, with roots in Glasgow. Actually even David Cameron has Scottish roots.
Miliband is far away, both physically and metaphorically. It's astonishing to me that he didn't get this and see it as an issue. With Gordon Brown off with the fairies and Alastair Darling standing down there's another link broken to the Blair Scottish cabal, and every time it happens Labour looks more London-centric and cut off from Scotland.
Little wonder the SNP will cull them.
Although in the case of this headline, the reality of "Nicola tells the Daily Mail your full of shit" might not have worked for their editorial.
"As the former leader of a minority administration himself, he suggested that he was well-placed to understand the negotiations that go into such arrangements."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
They end up in bed
He asks if she wants sex
She says yes
They make love
The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
She goes to the police and presses charges
How does he prove consent ?
You would not be thinking of Miliband/Sturgeon would you? You know that will just set off Dire again.
Must be a bad hangover morning.
Not been many Tories in the shire for many a year , wishful thinking.