Sunil I believe so, and India's space programme. Indeed, while we are shutting libraries and theatres, sacking soldiers and policemen, raising tuition fees, slashing legal aid and welfare, and the NHS and social care are facing ever more pressures, it was gratifying to see DFID civil servants went on a £1 billion spending spree of taxpayers' money to ensure they did not underspend and fail to meet Cameron's target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11349411/Civil-Servants-spent-extra-1billion-in-eight-weeks-to-hit-aid-target.html
The article points out that 40% regularly occurs in the last to months of the year. Its points for instance to 1999, which had nothing to do with Cameron.
Opinium/Observer Lab 34% Con 32% UKIP 15% Green 8% Lib Dem 7%
Perhaps the "Ed is Crap" meme has been pushed so hard and long the public no longer take notice of it.
I certainly don't see how it could result in a sudden increase in the Tory vote and still more falls in the Labour vote if it hasn't managed it by now, and that is what is needed.
50% think it would be a bad thing if SNP were part of coalition after election, only 16% a good thing
Among Labour supporters 37% would support a Labour deal with SNP, 38% would be opposed
I don't see what Labour would have to lose by ruling out a coalition with the SNP, the SNP have said it's very unlikely that they'd be up for it, so it wouldn't look opportunistic by Labour. Neither party wants a coalition. Judging by some Scottish polls, people in Scotland seem to think it's actually a viable option.
Confidence and supply on some issues and abstention on others would suit both Labour and the SNP. Once a minority government is formed the general public aren't going to be interested in who votes through each individual bill.
It could destroy the Union. labour would never govern England again.
Strange how Mike so delights in referring to "the Tory near collapse in England", when just three months before the General Election, such well informed individuals as Peter Kellner of YouGov and Stephen Fisher together with organisations such as Ladbrokes, Sporting Index, etc, etc, all have the Tories winning in excess of 280 seats,compared with the 306 seats they won in 2010 ..... hardly a "near collapse" in most people's eyes. Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
Opinium/Observer Lab 34% Con 32% UKIP 15% Green 8% Lib Dem 7%
Perhaps the "Ed is Crap" meme has been pushed so hard and long the public no longer take notice of it.
Keep in mind how little politics filters through to most people, I suspect there is essentially no such thing as a flogged to death message in politics. In May 2013, days after the local elections and associated media coverage, only 77% of people could even name Ed Miliband when shown a photo of him and told he was a prominent politician.
(Cameron was 95%, which is pretty good. But it still means 1 in 20 people don't recognise the PM despite significant priming.)
Strange how Mike so delights in referring to "the Tory near collapse in England", when just three months before the General Election, such well informed individuals as Peter Kellner of YouGov and Stephen Fisher together with organisations such as Ladbrokes, Sporting Index, etc, etc, all have the Tories winning in excess of 280 seats,compared with the 306 seats they won in 2010 ..... hardly a "near collapse" in most people's eyes. Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
I note Mike didn't put up the ± figures. The Tories may be down by 6.5% (and Labour up by 7) although we shouldn't generalise from a single poll etc etc... but the Lib Dems are down by 17%, ie they stand to lose 70% of their vote. Now that's what I call a near-collapse.
Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what do with one if I caught it! I just... DO things.
Strange how Mike so delights in referring to "the Tory near collapse in England", when just three months before the General Election, such well informed individuals as Peter Kellner of YouGov and Stephen Fisher together with organisations such as Ladbrokes, Sporting Index, etc, etc, all have the Tories winning in excess of 280 seats,compared with the 306 seats they won in 2010 ..... hardly a "near collapse" in most people's eyes. Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
Fisher thinks EICIPM is a 56% chance these days.
Compared to a few months ago Fisher has moved in the opposite way to the betting markets.
A majority for either party is now remote unless Mr Crosby is correct.
Strange how Mike so delights in referring to "the Tory near collapse in England", when just three months before the General Election, such well informed individuals as Peter Kellner of YouGov and Stephen Fisher together with organisations such as Ladbrokes, Sporting Index, etc, etc, all have the Tories winning in excess of 280 seats,compared with the 306 seats they won in 2010 ..... hardly a "near collapse" in most people's eyes. Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
The problem for the Tories is where they are starting from. Even if they only fall to 280 seats, and even if they are the largest party, they are not going to be able to form the next Government - which may actually be a good thing for them in the long run.
Opinium/Observer Lab 34% Con 32% UKIP 15% Green 8% Lib Dem 7%
Perhaps the "Ed is Crap" meme has been pushed so hard and long the public no longer take notice of it.
Keep in mind how little politics filters through to most people, I suspect there is essentially no such thing as a flogged to death message in politics. In May 2013, days after the local elections and associated media coverage, only 77% of people could even name Ed Miliband when shown a photo of him and told he was a prominent politician.
(Cameron was 95%, which is pretty good. But it still means 1 in 20 people don't recognise the PM despite significant priming.)
As a libertarian I would be happy with the idea that people couldn't name politicians because they have very little contact with Government. Unfortunately I think it's because the man on the Clapham omnibus is more interested in Celebrity Big Brother, Carlsberg, Premiership football and the tits on page 3.
JohnLilburne The average person is more interested in their career, love life, family, hobbies and holidays to pay much attention to politics, although most still vote. Yet more people could probably name Cameron, Miliband and Boris than 3 premiership footballers, or 3 celebrity big brother contestants
JohnLilburne The average person is more interested in their career, love life, family, hobbies and holidays to pay much attention to politics, although most still vote. Yet more people could probably name Cameron, Miliband and Boris than 3 premiership footballers, or 3 celebrity big brother contestants
Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what do with one if I caught it! I just... DO things.
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
The answer to OGH's question is that there won't be a uniform swing in England. There'll probably be big swings to Labour in London, Manchester, Sheffield, etc. and a smaller swing in the middle-England market towns where the election will be decided.
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
Not completely off track, but perhaps like Mike Smithson, you might consider taking a more rounded view of the polling data. BTW welcome to PB.com.
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
No, the 19/1 is simply massive. I'd put the true odds somewhere around 7s.
The market is out of whack with polling, the tory surge appears to based on the assumption that people who are planning on voting Labour now will suddenly realise that Ed is an out of touch north london jewish weirdo who can't eat a bacon sandwich properly and gave 2p to a tramp.
People already know this. The media have told everyone that Ed is a bit crap for the last 4 years. It's an accepted fact, people are still going to vote Labour despite Ed.
Constantly going after Ed now is a flawed strategy, everyone that is going to be deterred by him is already deterred. They need to divert their attack to the brand and the wider party.
Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what do with one if I caught it! I just... DO things.
So...why so serious?
:-)
I believe whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger!
JohnLilburne 687,430 people attend Premier League Matches every week, and non-league football averages 162,500. 16 million voted in last year's Euro elections 2.53 million watch Match of the Day. 2.7 million watch Question Time
3.27 million watch Celebrity Big Brother, 9.4 million watched the 2010 debates
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
Constantly going after Ed now is a flawed strategy, everyone that is going to be deterred by him is already deterred. They need to divert their attack to the brand and the wider party.
They are attempting that of course by doubling down on Ed M to make him be the personification of the Labour brand (as he is Leader it should not be that difficult), but it isn't working, as you say. They have nothing else to throw at Labour at this point that would not already be working, if it was going to at all.
Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing Opinion Polls. I wouldn't know what do with one if I caught it! I just... DO things.
So...why so serious?
:-)
I believe whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger!
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
No, the 19/1 is simply massive. I'd put the true odds somewhere around 7s.
The market is out of whack with polling, the tory surge appears to based on the assumption that people who are planning on voting Labour now will suddenly realise that Ed is an out of touch north london jewish weirdo who can't eat a bacon sandwich properly and gave 2p to a tramp.
People already know this. The media have told everyone that Ed is a bit crap for the last 4 years. It's an accepted fact, people are still going to vote Labour despite Ed.
Constantly going after Ed now is a flawed strategy, everyone that is going to be deterred by him is already deterred. They need to divert their attack to the brand and the wider party.
If nothing else, 19/1 is probably a decent trading bet. You might lose it if the polls either swing Tory; quickly would raise the prospect of a blue majority whilst slowly would reinforce a hung parliament's chances. But if the polls stay Labour leads for a few more weeks then a single freak lead of 5-6% could bring Lab majority down to 5/1 or so.
Disclaimer: I don't think that's likely enough and I don't like trading bets. I have not taken the 19/1 on a Lab majority.
If Ed Miliband is on course to become PM, why is Andy Burnham on manoeuvres, why are Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair hurriedly engaged in a damage-limitation exercise, and why is morale so poor amongst Labour MPs?
Would you vote for Ed if it put your job at risk? If it put the value of your house at risk? If it increased your taxes? If it condemned your children and their children to decades of paying off their reckless borrowing? If it hugely pushed up the cost of your mortgage? If it drove away from the UK the companies and individuals we rely on to fund the NHS? If it bound the UK much more tightly to Brussels - without even giving you the chance to vote on that? If it opened the doors to unlimited immigration like they did last time they were in power?
These are the questions that pollsters should be asking. Because this is how the debate will get framed when the campaign really kicks off.
Strange how Mike so delights in referring to "the Tory near collapse in England", when just three months before the General Election, such well informed individuals as Peter Kellner of YouGov and Stephen Fisher together with organisations such as Ladbrokes, Sporting Index, etc, etc, all have the Tories winning in excess of 280 seats,compared with the 306 seats they won in 2010 ..... hardly a "near collapse" in most people's eyes. Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
The problem for the Tories is where they are starting from. Even if they only fall to 280 seats, and even if they are the largest party, they are not going to be able to form the next Government - which may actually be a good thing for them in the long run.
All that may be perfectly true, but it still doesn't amount to a "near collapse" as claimed by Mike Smithson (doubtless through gritted teeth).
If Ed Miliband is on course to become PM, why is Andy Burnham on manoeuvres, why are Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair hurriedly engaged in a damage-limitation exercise, and why is morale so poor amongst Labour MPs?
Beats me. There does appear to be a morale problem among Labour to some degree, and not entirely due to the potential horror show that is their Scottish heartlands being ravaged, but I can see no reason for such despondency. Sure they could and probably should be doing better and winning easily given the Tories still being hurt by UKIP more etc etc, but those factors are still in play and should result in a Labour win. Perhaps they cannot believe they cannot possibly be this lucky, given their poor leader, and so are preparing for the worst regardless.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
JohnLilburne The average person is more interested in their career, love life, family, hobbies and holidays to pay much attention to politics, although most still vote. Yet more people could probably name Cameron, Miliband and Boris than 3 premiership footballers, or 3 celebrity big brother contestants
Three premiership footballers seems an awfully high bar to set. I honestly don't think I can even name one premiership footballer.
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
Welcome to PB! I should be publishing my ELBOW tomorrow morning
These are the questions that pollsters should be asking. Because this is how the debate will get framed when the campaign really kicks off.
But not how most people will take in the debate, as they apparently don't believe the worst case scenarios of a Labour or Tory premiership even when they are warned about them, seeing it as scare stories or at the least not inevitable as a result of one choice or the other, as most people do not think things could really go so badly wrong just from picking the wrong party I suspect. If Greece were to collapse as a result of Syriza's policies maybe it would filter through to here a little and people would see it can make a significant difference.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
Indeed. Assuming that eventually there must be such movement (as it is 'fair' given Labour's positions it seems), that people will suddenly wake up to Ed M being crap, and that some punters believe the Tories are better favoured, appear to be the only counters, none of which is convincing.
People convicted of homophobic, transgender or disability hate crime would be put on a “blacklist” to warn future employers of past misdemeanours under new proposals by Labour.
I'm sure not being able to get jobs afterwards will help them learn the error of their ways rather than seeing no point in reforming as they'll still be screwed either way.
Whatever happened to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
A silly policy. Why is a homophobic crime aggravated but not, say, a crime done because the assailant hated Catholics?
If Ed Miliband is on course to become PM, why is Andy Burnham on manoeuvres, why are Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair hurriedly engaged in a damage-limitation exercise, and why is morale so poor amongst Labour MPs?
All good questions but the answer is surely that those in the Westminster bubble have persuaded themselves that history is some sort of master not a source of information. I suspect that the more you know about Ed the less you think of him. Fortunately for Labour 30 odd million of us will barely know him at all.
People convicted of homophobic, transgender or disability hate crime would be put on a “blacklist” to warn future employers of past misdemeanours under new proposals by Labour.
I'm sure not being able to get jobs afterwards will help them learn the error of their ways rather than seeing no point in reforming as they'll still be screwed either way.
Whatever happened to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
A silly policy. Why is a homophobic crime aggravated but not, say, a crime done because the assailant hated Catholics?
Trying to rehabilitate people? So last century apparently.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
Would you vote for Ed if it put your job at risk? If it put the value of your house at risk? If it increased your taxes? If it condemned your children and their children to decades of paying off their reckless borrowing? If it hugely pushed up the cost of your mortgage? If it drove away from the UK the companies and individuals we rely on to fund the NHS? If it bound the UK much more tightly to Brussels - without even giving you the chance to vote on that? If it opened the doors to unlimited immigration like they did last time they were in power?
These are the questions that pollsters should be asking. Because this is how the debate will get framed when the campaign really kicks off.
I must say that the prospect of Milliband in charge when an IS atrocity happens does not fill me with confidence.
Would you vote for Ed if it put your job at risk? If it put the value of your house at risk? If it increased your taxes? If it condemned your children and their children to decades of paying off their reckless borrowing? If it hugely pushed up the cost of your mortgage? If it drove away from the UK the companies and individuals we rely on to fund the NHS? If it bound the UK much more tightly to Brussels - without even giving you the chance to vote on that? If it opened the doors to unlimited immigration like they did last time they were in power?
These are the questions that pollsters should be asking. Because this is how the debate will get framed when the campaign really kicks off.
Voters will not fall for such desperate tripe IMO.
Evening all, tell me, have we seen the swingback of Cameroonian proportions with a touch of Rod/Jack/Croby,Still and Nash posting their Election predictors showing 100% chance of a Tory majority tonight?
Never forget....January the crossover month, FebruarY the pulling away month!
People convicted of homophobic, transgender or disability hate crime would be put on a “blacklist” to warn future employers of past misdemeanours under new proposals by Labour.
I'm sure not being able to get jobs afterwards will help them learn the error of their ways rather than seeing no point in reforming as they'll still be screwed either way.
Whatever happened to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
A silly policy. Why is a homophobic crime aggravated but not, say, a crime done because the assailant hated Catholics?
So there will be a mandated checkbox where you have to answer the question "I am a homophobic bigot, Yes/No"?
As you say, silly. If they have an offence, which hasn't cleared under the rehabilitation act, then it should be disclosed. The employer can then ask the potential employee the specifics, and if they are not satisfied, they don't hire them. Not sure what needs to be changed.
StevenWhaley I know some on this site like their footie, but most will get more excited by the latest by-election results and opinion polls than the Saturday final scores, so you are not alone
As I've posted before, I really don't understand the LD attitude. Marching towards the sound of gunfire, as Jo Grimond advised, is all very well, but not when those manning the guns can see the whites of ones eyes!
Perhaps this would be a good new theme tune for the LibDems?
"We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming. There wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago; We fired once more and they began a-running; all down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico"
The power of PB.com - the price to back a Labour Maj with Betfair has shortened by a full point over the past half hour. At this rate, it'll be an even money shot by tomorrow morning!
People don't like CEOs in tax havens intervening in UK politics 73% felt Boots boss Pessina's intervention unacceptable
Yes, that's what I've heard locally - opinion largely divided between people who feel it was fine for him to comment but who cares what a bloke in Monaco thinks, and people who think he should shut up. The Nottingham Post gave me a column on it today (where I took the former view).
However, it’s also right that when a viewpoint is put forward by someone who no longer lives in this country
Stefano has never lived in the UK. He grew up in Rome, moved to Milan for university and then moved to Monaco about 30 years ago when he separated from his wife.
does not pay taxes here
Not really accurate. He pays VAT and all sorts of other taxes. I'd assume (but have never asked) that he has PAYE applied to his Boots salary. But Alliance Sante (the source of his wealth) was always based outside the UK - it was a pan-European company based in Luxembourg that was set up to acquire ASI (his father's company) and the Spanish business that was his first international acquisition)
does not pay taxes here and is therefore not a contributing member of our society, that this is also highlighted
Bullshit. You can be a contributing member of society regardless of whether you pay tax or not. Society is not the same as the State.
Can I suggest you employ a fact-checker?
That Labour refused to stop the transfer of head office jobs and control outside the UK of pretty much every large business that exists in the UK is not a good thing. Pretty much every large business in the UK that would have had several hundreds of high paid head office jobs in the UK has offshored their employment and/or tax under New Labour.
50% think it would be a bad thing if SNP were part of coalition after election, only 16% a good thing
Among Labour supporters 37% would support a Labour deal with SNP, 38% would be opposed
I don't see what Labour would have to lose by ruling out a coalition with the SNP, the SNP have said it's very unlikely that they'd be up for it, so it wouldn't look opportunistic by Labour. Neither party wants a coalition. Judging by some Scottish polls, people in Scotland seem to think it's actually a viable option.
Confidence and supply on some issues and abstention on others would suit both Labour and the SNP. Once a minority government is formed the general public aren't going to be interested in who votes through each individual bill.
Labour would lose their last 3 or 4 seats in Scotland and democratically compel Full Fiscal Autonomy. 30 SNP seats at Westminster removes any political legitimacy that Westminster has over ANY decision in Scotland. Including budget and defence.
People convicted of homophobic, transgender or disability hate crime would be put on a “blacklist” to warn future employers of past misdemeanours under new proposals by Labour.
I'm sure not being able to get jobs afterwards will help them learn the error of their ways rather than seeing no point in reforming as they'll still be screwed either way.
I think it is all fart and no follow through.
If you're applying for a job that requires a CRB or DBS check, it would show up already.
It's part of the "let's make people unemployable if they have broken the law" meme. Unfortunately means the rest of us will continue to provide them with a living through the benefits system.
Ah, so another plot to increase the size of the Benefits dependent Labour client vote
Incorrect pensioners are the biggest group of benefit claimants they predominantly vote Tory
Complete non-sequitur.
But, in any case, you are obviously happy with the idea that criminals should be supported for the rest of their lives by the state.
It's hardly a non-sequitor when it is the core problem with the UK budget.
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
No, the 19/1 is simply massive. I'd put the true odds somewhere around 7s.
The market is out of whack with polling, the tory surge appears to based on the assumption that people who are planning on voting Labour now will suddenly realise that Ed is an out of touch north london jewish weirdo who can't eat a bacon sandwich properly and gave 2p to a tramp.
People already know this. The media have told everyone that Ed is a bit crap for the last 4 years. It's an accepted fact, people are still going to vote Labour despite Ed.
Constantly going after Ed now is a flawed strategy, everyone that is going to be deterred by him is already deterred. They need to divert their attack to the brand and the wider party.
I think the main reason for their complacency is the assumption that because Cameron's lead in approval ratings will at some point translate into a Tory surge as people 'have to choose a PM' . It may do, but it also is a very dangerous game because Cameron isn't very popular himself, he's the tallest dwarf when it comes to approval ratings. That's dangerous because voters might indicate a preference for Cameron over Miliband but not regard it as the most important factor in how they vote as they aren't fans of either - they might be those who are jumping to UKIP because 'they're all the same', or be voting Labour because of fears about the Tories' underlying nature.
Related to this is another reason - the huge disparity between different groups of people's view of Cameron. That a leader is marmite is of course nothing new - look at Maggie, however Cameron is disproportionately popular among the type of people who tend to write for newspapers, and is viewed with far more scepticism outside the South East. He's less Maggie, more the girl from 'Common People' playing at understanding their concerns and then sniggering with his chums when out of earshot. The same people might not view Miliband as a great man of the people either, but it's less damaging to him due to Labour as a whole being less disliked. The problem with this of course being that it handicaps the Tories in exactly the places he needs to win - northern and midland suburbs.
People don't like CEOs in tax havens intervening in UK politics 73% felt Boots boss Pessina's intervention unacceptable
Yes, that's what I've heard locally - opinion largely divided between people who feel it was fine for him to comment but who cares what a bloke in Monaco thinks, and people who think he should shut up. The Nottingham Post gave me a column on it today (where I took the former view).
However, it’s also right that when a viewpoint is put forward by someone who no longer lives in this country
Stefano has never lived in the UK. He grew up in Rome, moved to Milan for university and then moved to Monaco about 30 years ago when he separated from his wife.
does not pay taxes here
Not really accurate. He pays VAT and all sorts of other taxes. I'd assume (but have never asked) that he has PAYE applied to his Boots salary. But Alliance Sante (the source of his wealth) was always based outside the UK - it was a pan-European company based in Luxembourg that was set up to acquire ASI (his father's company) and the Spanish business that was his first international acquisition)
does not pay taxes here and is therefore not a contributing member of our society, that this is also highlighted
Bullshit. You can be a contributing member of society regardless of whether you pay tax or not. Society is not the same as the State.
Can I suggest you employ a fact-checker?
That Labour refused to stop the transfer of head office jobs and control outside the UK of pretty much every large business that exists in the UK is not a good thing. Pretty much every large business in the UK that would have had several hundreds of high paid head office jobs in the UK has offshored their employment and/or tax under New Labour.
For whom is it "not a good thing"?
It's obviously a very "good thing" for the companies and their customers and employees that they have moved some operations to less punitive and socialist jurisdictions.
It might not be good for the UK but that's the government's fault for setting levels of taxation too high.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
So you'll be investing ..... yes?
I don't have a betfair account. If such odds or anywhere near them become available in a bookies I will be on, it is simply too ridiculous a price not to. At the moment the best I can see is 12/1 and that is seriously tempting. If there is no movement in the polls over the next couple of weeks I think it will be more like evens.
Opinium/Observer Lab 34% Con 32% UKIP 15% Green 8% Lib Dem 7%
Perhaps the "Ed is Crap" meme has been pushed so hard and long the public no longer take notice of it.
Keep in mind how little politics filters through to most people, I suspect there is essentially no such thing as a flogged to death message in politics. In May 2013, days after the local elections and associated media coverage, only 77% of people could even name Ed Miliband when shown a photo of him and told he was a prominent politician.
(Cameron was 95%, which is pretty good. But it still means 1 in 20 people don't recognise the PM despite significant priming.)
As a libertarian I would be happy with the idea that people couldn't name politicians because they have very little contact with Government. Unfortunately I think it's because the man on the Clapham omnibus is more interested in Celebrity Big Brother, Carlsberg, Premiership football and the tits on page 3.
When I was growing up the most recognisable politician by name was Cyril Smith. No kidding.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
I think we are literally PB polar opposites Since I'm the Labour supporter who feels pretty sure the Tories will be the biggest party with a good chance of a majority.
50% think it would be a bad thing if SNP were part of coalition after election, only 16% a good thing
Among Labour supporters 37% would support a Labour deal with SNP, 38% would be opposed
I don't see what Labour would have to lose by ruling out a coalition with the SNP, the SNP have said it's very unlikely that they'd be up for it, so it wouldn't look opportunistic by Labour. Neither party wants a coalition. Judging by some Scottish polls, people in Scotland seem to think it's actually a viable option.
Confidence and supply on some issues and abstention on others would suit both Labour and the SNP. Once a minority government is formed the general public aren't going to be interested in who votes through each individual bill.
Labour would lose their last 3 or 4 seats in Scotland and democratically compel Full Fiscal Autonomy. 30 SNP seats at Westminster removes any political legitimacy that Westminster has over ANY decision in Scotland. Including budget and defence.
Labour's current stance is making it logical for a lot of its ex-voters to vote SNP. On current polling they get a Labour government AND Scotland's interests catered for by the SNP.
By ruling out a coalition, it'd become a straight choice of the two.
The last 15 published polls have seen 10 LAB leads 4 CON-LAB level pegging 1 CON lead
This week's 10 polls have a simple average Labour lead of 1.7% - ELBOW will be published once the YG tables are out.
Remind us what last week's ELBOW was. Is Labour's lead up this week?
Labour's lead was 0.8% last week
Does that include the TNS 11%?
Excluding that poll, the lead was 0.4%.
You really shouldn't include that poll.
Not properly weighted.
As far as I know, Opinium and Ipsos-MORI don't past-vote weight either, and TNS-BMRB doesn't as a matter of routine. (Not sure about recent polls that have been published under the TNS/TNS Global brand).
Opinium now seem to have changed to include something like past vote.
"Fourth, and most significantly, is the introduction of political weighting using a variable called party propensity.
Party propensity is an evolution of the party-ID variable used in previous elections where respondents were asked if they identified with a particular party and the sample was then weighted according to pre-defined targets coming from sources such as the British Election Study."
People don't like CEOs in tax havens intervening in UK politics 73% felt Boots boss Pessina's intervention unacceptable
Yes, that's what I've heard locally - opinion largely divided between people who feel it was fine for him to comment but who cares what a bloke in Monaco thinks, and people who think he should shut up. The Nottingham Post gave me a column on it today (where I took the former view).
However, it’s also right that when a viewpoint is put forward by someone who no longer lives in this country
Stefano has never lived in the UK. He grew up in Rome, moved to Milan for university and then moved to Monaco about 30 years ago when he separated from his wife.
does not pay taxes here
Not really accurate. He pays VAT and all sorts of other taxes. I'd assume (but have never asked) that he has PAYE applied to his Boots salary. But Alliance Sante (the source of his wealth) was always based outside the UK - it was a pan-European company based in Luxembourg that was set up to acquire ASI (his father's company) and the Spanish business that was his first international acquisition)
does not pay taxes here and is therefore not a contributing member of our society, that this is also highlighted
Bullshit. You can be a contributing member of society regardless of whether you pay tax or not. Society is not the same as the State.
Can I suggest you employ a fact-checker?
That Labour refused to stop the transfer of head office jobs and control outside the UK of pretty much every large business that exists in the UK is not a good thing. Pretty much every large business in the UK that would have had several hundreds of high paid head office jobs in the UK has offshored their employment and/or tax under New Labour.
For whom is it "not a good thing"?
It's obviously a very "good thing" for the companies and their customers and employees that they have moved some operations to less punitive and socialist jurisdictions.
It might not be good for the UK but that's the government's fault for setting levels of taxation too high.
That was kind of my point. Actually that was entirely my point. Labout destroyed Britain not by tax, not by welfare but by allowing wealth creation to be outsourced.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
I think we are literally PB polar opposites Since I'm the Labour supporter who feels pretty sure the Tories will be the biggest party with a good chance of a majority.
On the positive side one of us is going to very happy and one of us is going to be better off. Seems a reasonable outcome to me but which will be which?
50% think it would be a bad thing if SNP were part of coalition after election, only 16% a good thing
Among Labour supporters 37% would support a Labour deal with SNP, 38% would be opposed
I don't see what Labour would have to lose by ruling out a coalition with the SNP, the SNP have said it's very unlikely that they'd be up for it, so it wouldn't look opportunistic by Labour. Neither party wants a coalition. Judging by some Scottish polls, people in Scotland seem to think it's actually a viable option.
Confidence and supply on some issues and abstention on others would suit both Labour and the SNP. Once a minority government is formed the general public aren't going to be interested in who votes through each individual bill.
Labour would lose their last 3 or 4 seats in Scotland and democratically compel Full Fiscal Autonomy. 30 SNP seats at Westminster removes any political legitimacy that Westminster has over ANY decision in Scotland. Including budget and defence.
Labour's current stance is making it logical for a lot of its ex-voters to vote SNP. On current polling they get a Labour government AND Scotland's interests catered for by the SNP.
By ruling out a coalition, it'd become a straight choice of the two.
Labour are not in a position to rule out an agreement with the SNP. If they did then their wipe out would be this election not next.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
The polls seem fairly neck and neck, but with 3 very unpredictable wildcards (UKIP, SNP, 2010 LD's) there is everything to play for. In addition there are sn awful lot of undecided and partially decided voters).
I cannot see Lab Majority at 19/1 as value. After losses to the SNP, Labour would need to gain a 100 or so seats in England and Wales. I just cannot see that happening. That would require swing like 97.
Digby Jones says Ed MilIband doesn't understand business... "He just doesn't get it ". When your own inside gurus are saying that well . Of course the PB lefties will now go for the man....as they always do.
Another week of next to no progress for the tories even ignoring silly polls. At some point it is going to be more generally accepted that there is not going to be a sudden swing back in their direction, at best they will have a gentle and modest drift combined with a slightly more efficient vote.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
The polls seem fairly neck and neck, but with 3 very unpredictable wildcards (UKIP, SNP, 2010 LD's) there is everything to play for. In addition there are sn awful lot of undecided and partially decided voters).
I cannot see Lab Majority at 19/1 as value. After losses to the SNP, Labour would need to gain a 100 or so seats in England and Wales. I just cannot see that happening. That would require swing like 97.
It basically needs them to do as well in England as they did in 2005, reversing Cameron's gains in very large part with a soupcon of Lib Dems as a garnish. It is not the most likely outcome but it is highly possible and what is predicted by current polling.
Look at it this way. The economy has been really good now with growth and fast rising employment for nearly 2 years. Ed has been crap forever. Labour have made no effort whatsoever to put together a coherent framework for government. The shadow cabinet must be the weakest in history. Cameron is apparently more popular in Glasgow than Miliband. And Labour is still ahead.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
Quite...
Who can forget the French intervention in Indo China after WW2 despite the advice given to seek a political friendly solution rather than military intervention. Perhaps India was similar?
Either way both causes were lost but at least have a commonwealth. The French got West Africa and somewhere good to launch satellites
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
Quite...
Who can forget the French intervention in Indo China after WW2 despite the advice given to seek a political friendly solution rather than military intervention. Perhaps India was similar?
Either way both causes were lost but at least have a commonwealth. The French got West Africa and somewhere good to launch satellites
;-)
Both India and Indochina split into three states after imperial powers left. For the terms and deaths caused by the immediate independence movement, India beats pretty much every state on the planet.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
That depends on how long you have to repay it. A 20 year mortgage is generally considered sustainable at 4-5 times your income, and countries (unlike people) have an indefinite career and no risk of sudden illness or anything else which would suspend all earnings.
More to the point, our GDP/debt ratio is not atypical of developed nations. Do you think most states are failed states, and the world as we know it will collapse in the fairly near future (10-20 years, or whatever timescale you would give)? I appreciate your consistent position if you do, but it's not a position I share.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
Good night all.
A state which has debt obligations over 6 times its income is failed. I'm not sure how you can defend the situation in the UK. It has embedded huge future obligations and kept them off the books. They still exist and will destroy the UK.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this you need to learn the difference between a billion and a trillion. You should also research the difference between a current liability and a future liability deferred over an extended period. And you might want to think about who those alleged PFI liabilities are actually payable to and when as well.
Comments
Labour are hardly home with leads in the 0.5% - 1.5% range as they have been since Christmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
2015 (UTC)
TNS-BMRB phone poll 23-26th Jan (BBC R4 Woman's Hour)[edit]
Now should Mike really wish to identify a genuine full-blown near collapse, where the same experts see the party concerned losing half or more of their seats, then maybe he should look a little closer to home.
(Cameron was 95%, which is pretty good. But it still means 1 in 20 people don't recognise the PM despite significant priming.)
Not sure how to do that, but this poll did have a past vote recall.
According to that poll in 2010, 31% said they voted Tory, and 29% said they voted Labour.
Which as we all know, is more full of bollocks than my boxer shorts.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/06/dippy-and-whale-surprising-political-and-age-divid/
Compared to a few months ago Fisher has moved in the opposite way to the betting markets.
A majority for either party is now remote unless Mr Crosby is correct.
It's a bit of a problem for a self respecting museum to have a fake as it's prime exhibit?
(oops, a little satire!)
Never again i check very carefully now!!
:-)
Of course I have a view on a desirable election outcome, but I try and put that aside when placing bets. At the moment i think 19:1 on a labour majority is good value (betfair), especially given the Opinion poll Mr. S quotes above.
Or am I completely off track?
S.
BTW welcome to PB.com.
The market is out of whack with polling, the tory surge appears to based on the assumption that people who are planning on voting Labour now will suddenly realise that Ed is an out of touch north london jewish weirdo who can't eat a bacon sandwich properly and gave 2p to a tramp.
People already know this. The media have told everyone that Ed is a bit crap for the last 4 years. It's an accepted fact, people are still going to vote Labour despite Ed.
Constantly going after Ed now is a flawed strategy, everyone that is going to be deterred by him is already deterred. They need to divert their attack to the brand and the wider party.
3.27 million watch Celebrity Big Brother, 9.4 million watched the 2010 debates
Disclaimer: I don't think that's likely enough and I don't like trading bets. I have not taken the 19/1 on a Lab majority.
These are the questions that pollsters should be asking. Because this is how the debate will get framed when the campaign really kicks off.
If Labour were not doing so badly in Scotland a Labour majority would be a no brainer. As it is their position as the largest party looks stronger with each week that passes.
In round terms at the moment the tories are going to lose 50 seats to Labour and both of them are going to gain maybe a dozen each from the Lib Dems. Losses to the SNP will either put Labour in the 290s- low 300s leaving the tories in the high 260s. The worry for the tories is that it just might not be as close as that.
Meantime 19/1 for a Labour majority is just crazy. Absolute madness.
If LAB were to claw back at least half of their seats in Scotland then 19/1 would be generous.
Unlikely though IMO
A silly policy. Why is a homophobic crime aggravated but not, say, a crime done because the assailant hated Catholics?
Sticking up for the 1% is no longer an option
Goo on. Your with friends... Let us know what happened...
tell me, have we seen the swingback of Cameroonian proportions with a touch of Rod/Jack/Croby,Still and Nash posting their Election predictors showing 100% chance of a Tory majority tonight?
Never forget....January the crossover month, FebruarY the pulling away month!
***** WAVES GOALPOSTS IN THE AIR *****
As you say, silly. If they have an offence, which hasn't cleared under the rehabilitation act, then it should be disclosed. The employer can then ask the potential employee the specifics, and if they are not satisfied, they don't hire them. Not sure what needs to be changed.
Knock yourself out
http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/d/daffodil_poisoning/intro.htm
(possibly permanently)
Time is running out for sufficient swingback to avoid an EICIPM result IMO (2.30 betfair)
You are a top bloke but you MUST get past this 'I am desperate for CON to lose' them eto maintain the credibility of the site
As you know we CON will probably get the 326 in England alone
http://www.laughtotears.com//upld/2/201112/ltt_0000135_400x358.jpg
Related to this is another reason - the huge disparity between different groups of people's view of Cameron. That a leader is marmite is of course nothing new - look at Maggie, however Cameron is disproportionately popular among the type of people who tend to write for newspapers, and is viewed with far more scepticism outside the South East. He's less Maggie, more the girl from 'Common People' playing at understanding their concerns and then sniggering with his chums when out of earshot. The same people might not view Miliband as a great man of the people either, but it's less damaging to him due to Labour as a whole being less disliked. The problem with this of course being that it handicaps the Tories in exactly the places he needs to win - northern and midland suburbs.
It's obviously a very "good thing" for the companies and their customers and employees that they have moved some operations to less punitive and socialist jurisdictions.
It might not be good for the UK but that's the government's fault for setting levels of taxation too high.
He impressed a lot of young people in his day.
By ruling out a coalition, it'd become a straight choice of the two.
"Fourth, and most significantly, is the introduction of political weighting using a variable called party propensity.
Party propensity is an evolution of the party-ID variable used in previous elections where respondents were asked if they identified with a particular party and the sample was then weighted according to pre-defined targets coming from sources such as the British Election Study."
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/opinium-blog/note-methodology
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
I cannot see Lab Majority at 19/1 as value. After losses to the SNP, Labour would need to gain a 100 or so seats in England and Wales. I just cannot see that happening. That would require swing like 97.
Maybe we should ask Bill somebody What he thinks?
Look at it this way. The economy has been really good now with growth and fast rising employment for nearly 2 years. Ed has been crap forever. Labour have made no effort whatsoever to put together a coherent framework for government. The shadow cabinet must be the weakest in history. Cameron is apparently more popular in Glasgow than Miliband. And Labour is still ahead.
What else can possibly go wrong for them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#mediaviewer/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
A graph to give Basil nightmares.
Unless Mike (who is my favourite) acknowledges this in a thread heading I will not post here again.
Maybe
Goodnight
Who can forget the French intervention in Indo China after WW2 despite the advice given to seek a political friendly solution rather than military intervention. Perhaps India was similar?
Either way both causes were lost but at least have a commonwealth. The French got West Africa and somewhere good to launch satellites
;-)
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
Good night all.
Not that that was my meaning.
More to the point, our GDP/debt ratio is not atypical of developed nations. Do you think most states are failed states, and the world as we know it will collapse in the fairly near future (10-20 years, or whatever timescale you would give)? I appreciate your consistent position if you do, but it's not a position I share.
But I am too tired for this nonsense. Night all.
He will get these places blacklisted ...LOL
Way to go Ed !! *deluded*