I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
Much of Paisley's problems are to do with the most deprived community in Scotland - Ferguslie Park - being within 5 minutes walk of the town centre. This significantly effects the whole dynamic of the place.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
Is Ferguslie Park in P&RS or P&RN ?
North
P&RN likely to be more SNP than P&RS you think ?
Like a lot of the suburban Glasgow constituencies (sorry Buddies but you are a suburb of Glasgow) there is huge variation between very posh places like Bridge of Weir and very deprived places like Ferguslie Park. The overall SNP swing could deliver them both, North has a slightly easier starting point but you're still talking about 15.2k vs 16.6k majorities.
Jim Sheridan being a typical invisible man Scottish Labourite compared to Dougie makes it a far likelier outcome that the SNP will win. The Black effect may be a bit of an unknown, there's going to be conservative CoS old dears pity voting for her (aww, poor Mhairi) and those who would vote SNP but won't because of her accent and age. Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Oil tends to be found in backward neofeudal kleptocracies - Iran; Saudi; Russia; Scotland - and as such all you do by reducing reliance on it is heighten reliance on something else.
Texas? Montana? Virginia?
Your point?
We probably disagree, but I don't view any of those places as "backward neofeudal kleptocracies"
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 13m13 minutes ago I'm hearing that there's another Scottish poll coming out overnight. Surprised I've not seen any Tweets yet about it.
Judging by Twitter it looks like the SNP ground game is underway - also since they are going to be gunning for pretty much every Scottish seat - going to be lots and lots of their members out and about everywhere
Back in 1997 doubt you'd have seen many Labour canvassers in Richmond in North Yorks, but that's going to be the equivalent of the SNP ground game now.
STOP PRESS: the ordinary people are demanding a recount.....
Ed even fails badly on the questions "has a clear idea of what he wants to achieve"...I would have thought that was one that Ed would score ok on. How he would / if he could achieve a country shaped by world view is a different matter.
As expected, PB Tories are popping champagne corks and back-slapping each other.
Don't want to be a part pooper but this is just ONE poll. Let's wait till we have a raft of polls from diverse polling organisations.
We had that the week before last (4 leads with 3 organisations) but I think there was some other reason why Labour was nailed on for an overall majority.
I'm enjoying catching up on some archive '92 election coverage on Youtube. Only an hour or so in, but so far have observed a couple of interesting points:
- Concerns amongst Labour party of the softness of the vote and final day's switchers in the more private sector employment dominated areas (Midlands, NW) - Turnout up everywhere vs '87, slowing down declarations
I can see both of these happening again, but more convinced of the first. What do others think of likely turnout in May?
Lots of people have fallen off the register. Given how easy it is to register to vote online I suspect that the people who have fallen off the register are mostly those who wouldn't turnout to vote anyway.
Thus I would expect that the percentage turnout will be up. The absolute numbers are harder to guess at, because of the confounding factor of continued population growth.
Good points. And administrational issues aside, I feel that turnout will be increased by close polls (at least in marginals and Scotland), if they continue as such towards election day.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
If I saw the name "Mhairi" written down then I would assume it's pronounced "Mhairi" and that if it were supposed to be pronouncded "Mairi" then it would be spelled "Mairi".
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
She uses mari. It might seem strange but to people like my mother that would be pretty off putting on its own. It's really not that a rare a viewpoint in the conservative CoS old dear market.
Con 300 Lab 242 Lib Dem 38 UKIP 3 SNP 48 Plaid 2 NI 18
More to the point , what about the Gers, are they stuffed or can King and the 3 bears save them
One would hope King will prevail - but those slippery eels could buy a big shareholder off at the last minute to conceal their nefarious deals.
If the EGM goes wrong its lights out time - 8k there yesterday..
There's only two ways back for Rangers, either the government steps in due to police evidence over the Administration/Liquidation and nullifies much of what has happened since. This has problems due to FIFA rules on government involvement in football.
The only other way is to go through another administration event but the government refer it to be handled by the Acccountant in Bankruptcy on public interest grounds (assuming they even have this power).
Rangers fans have had about £20m of their re-investment stripped out the club since it went into administration.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
We can add Guernsey to the list of territories not impressed with Ed:
We will await Ed Miliband’s letter with interest. We have held a number of meetings with Labour’s shadow team over the past two years, and those meetings have indicated a greater level of understanding of Guernsey’s track record on tax transparency than is reflected in today’s media coverage,’
Guernsey need not worry - its all just Labour's politics of envy resurfacing at election time. If you want a good reason to keep Labour out of power just look at some facts as presented by David Smith of The Times, In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn. Something like £25 billion a year. Mismanaged expenditure more like... Labour increased public spending by 51% in inflation adjusted terms ''the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.''
Between 2010 to 2015 spending went up by about £7 billion a year. and well over 600,000 public sector jobs have been lost - at least 400,000 more to go.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
You've obviously never played Superghosts. "Wormhole" is a perfectly good English word.
And for that matter, "mho", the unit of conductance, is a good English word.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
Amhurst? (also Amherst)
If we insist on following the pronunciation in the compound word sense, then "Mhairi" would end up as something like "Mm-hairy", which I don't think is what was intended.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
You've obviously never played Superghosts. "Wormhole" is a perfectly good English word.
And for that matter, "mho", the unit of conductance, is a good English word.
(But I take your point.)
I feel a bit like my English teacher who declared to us that vacuum was the only word in the English language containing "uu". I came across the other that evening reading science-fiction...
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
Amhurst? (also Amherst)
If we insist on following the pronunciation in the compound word sense, then "Mhairi" would end up as something like "Mm-hairy", which I don't think is what was intended.
I think the Gaelic and Irish use of "mh" reflects the relationships between consonants v, b and m.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
You've obviously never played Superghosts. "Wormhole" is a perfectly good English word.
And for that matter, "mho", the unit of conductance, is a good English word.
Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Really? I know a Mhairi who changed the spelling of their name to Vari because of people having problems with pronunciation.
I was at school with a Mhairi, who pronounced it Mhairi.
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
I can't bring to mind an occurrence of "mh" in English.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
You've obviously never played Superghosts. "Wormhole" is a perfectly good English word.
And for that matter, "mho", the unit of conductance, is a good English word.
(But I take your point.)
I feel a bit like my English teacher who declared to us that vacuum was the only word in the English language containing "uu". I came across the other that evening reading science-fiction...
According to Conservative Home, respondents said David Cameron would be a "good red wine", Ed Miliband would be a tomato juice and Nick Clegg would be a Babysham or "a Woo-woo" (a vodka-based fruit cocktail).
Norman Smith BBC Assistant Political Editor HSBC tax scandal
The BBC's Norman Smith says "frankly it's no surprise that this has become a profoundly explosive and emotional political issue", as many are angry at the idea that very wealthy people are getting away with paying less than their fair share. He says: "The one unanswered aspect of this whole saga centres around Lord Green himself; we still - still - haven't heard from him as to what he knew."
Well we know where Normal 'Wigan Pier' Smith will be focusing....of course how many times will he say Tory Lord Green, in comparison to hardly ever mentioning Labour run Rotherham council for instance....
According to Conservative Home, respondents said David Cameron would be a "good red wine", Ed Miliband would be a tomato juice and Nick Clegg would be a Babysham or "a Woo-woo" (a vodka-based fruit cocktail).
Con 300 Lab 242 Lib Dem 38 UKIP 3 SNP 48 Plaid 2 NI 18
More to the point , what about the Gers, are they stuffed or can King and the 3 bears save them
One would hope King will prevail - but those slippery eels could buy a big shareholder off at the last minute to conceal their nefarious deals.
If the EGM goes wrong its lights out time - 8k there yesterday..
There's only two ways back for Rangers, either the government steps in due to police evidence over the Administration/Liquidation and nullifies much of what has happened since. This has problems due to FIFA rules on government involvement in football.
The only other way is to go through another administration event but the government refer it to be handled by the Acccountant in Bankruptcy on public interest grounds (assuming they even have this power).
Rangers fans have had about £20m of their re-investment stripped out the club since it went into administration.
Dair, King and the others have enough cash to resolve if they can get control soon , if it drags on it is curtains.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
Bloody stupid move if true. Plenty of good arguments about refocusing given the threats we face, but another 30% would be totally bonkers.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
Bloody stupid move if true. Plenty of good arguments about refocusing given the threats we face, but another 30% would be totally bonkers.
Con 300 Lab 242 Lib Dem 38 UKIP 3 SNP 48 Plaid 2 NI 18
More to the point , what about the Gers, are they stuffed or can King and the 3 bears save them
One would hope King will prevail - but those slippery eels could buy a big shareholder off at the last minute to conceal their nefarious deals.
If the EGM goes wrong its lights out time - 8k there yesterday..
There's only two ways back for Rangers, either the government steps in due to police evidence over the Administration/Liquidation and nullifies much of what has happened since. This has problems due to FIFA rules on government involvement in football.
The only other way is to go through another administration event but the government refer it to be handled by the Acccountant in Bankruptcy on public interest grounds (assuming they even have this power).
Rangers fans have had about £20m of their re-investment stripped out the club since it went into administration.
Dair, King and the others have enough cash to resolve if they can get control soon , if it drags on it is curtains.
Yes but control won't be relinquished. There's still a few bucks left to squeeze out the fans.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
Con 300 Lab 242 Lib Dem 38 UKIP 3 SNP 48 Plaid 2 NI 18
More to the point , what about the Gers, are they stuffed or can King and the 3 bears save them
One would hope King will prevail - but those slippery eels could buy a big shareholder off at the last minute to conceal their nefarious deals.
If the EGM goes wrong its lights out time - 8k there yesterday..
There's only two ways back for Rangers, either the government steps in due to police evidence over the Administration/Liquidation and nullifies much of what has happened since. This has problems due to FIFA rules on government involvement in football.
The only other way is to go through another administration event but the government refer it to be handled by the Acccountant in Bankruptcy on public interest grounds (assuming they even have this power).
Rangers fans have had about £20m of their re-investment stripped out the club since it went into administration.
Dair, King and the others have enough cash to resolve if they can get control soon , if it drags on it is curtains.
Yes but control won't be relinquished. There's still a few bucks left to squeeze out the fans.
Not so sure only real diehards left , will be empty stadium shortly and if it continues it is hard to see who would buy a season ticket next year unless really deluded.
Lol my FoI request on Murphy's Irn Bru claims made Guido.
Hard to believe these creeps will claim for a can of Irn Bru, parasites.
I was hoping it would actually show no purchases before the campaign started and lots since. In hindsight it is probably too early to pick up the campaign claims (and they may have been made to Better Together). I didn't say anything about it after I got it back as I wanted to wait and do another towards the end of 2015 hoping to catch a big increase in claims.
As it is, it's working out as a negative for him anyway and I can't help but feel I did my bit to rid Scotland of the Red Tories.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
If that's the level of debate you're operating at, it's not even worth discussing the issue with you.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
Bloody stupid move if true. Plenty of good arguments about refocusing given the threats we face, but another 30% would be totally bonkers.
Quite. We already face a number of localised threats, and the geopolitical situation has deteriorated remarkably over the last five years. Yet the Conservatives are seriously considering cutting more.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
If that's the level of debate you're operating at, it's not even worth discussing the issue with you.
Which one of those assertions do you disagree with? That Britain is not the force that it once was? That we need to husband our financial resources accordingly? That we live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet?
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
It once was a very very nice place but recent years it has got quite a reputation. Why they vote in such a loser as Alexander for so many years is hard to understand.
Have you met the local SNP ? - then it's very easy to see why he wins.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
Very encouraging, still toeing the neo intervensionist line from Washington in word, but at least no longer in deed, as under Blair. The reason Merkel excluded the UK in Moscow is we are seen as a shill for DC and would only seek to undermine any discussions.
In the last two hours the Green party crowdfunder has raised enough money to stand two more candidates in May. Thank you fellow PB Tories for your generosity.
How come the Green Party crowdfunder campaign time has been shortened? When I made my donation on 31st of January there were 28 days left. Now I see that 9 days later there are only 6 days of it left.
Apparently a Scottish TNS tonight according to UKPR. Don't think there's been a Scottish-only one before, but fwiw their last Scottish sub sample (end of Jan) was SNP 40, Lab 28.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
We need first class intelligence and police resources given the terrorist threats we face. Refocusing may be sensible. But cutting is not if it means that we're unable to counter those threats we do face. As ever, it's not so much how much we spend but what we spend it on. that's the issue.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
Call 101, as you where in a position to follow with no risk to yourself or anyone else. It's extremely unlikely they would be going far to their home address where they could be contacted later.
If they kicked off about being followed, escalate to a three nines call.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
What do you mean, suggestions? Obvious. You outnumbered them by 8 to 2. You would have been entirely justified in using reasonable force to restrain them in order to recover the information. If there were 8 of you and 2 of them, you could easily have obstacled their passage safely and securely until (if necessary) the police arrived.
The police force appear to be in a death spiral. Moral at rock bottom, inability to recruitment half decent candidates, lack of promotion, etc., etc. It used to be they were expected to know the law inside out. Now it seems like they make it up as they go along. I do not know a single former police officer who has recommended joining. This does not bode well for the future.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
If that's the level of debate you're operating at, it's not even worth discussing the issue with you.
Which one of those assertions do you disagree with? That Britain is not the force that it once was? That we need to husband our financial resources accordingly? That we live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet?
All of them, I'm afraid.
You don't start well with a post-imperalist cliche, that is both silly and dated. I see you've now switched it from "Britannia rules the waves" to 'Britain (no longer being) the force that it once was'. That is irrefutable but I reject the core thrust of your argument. This is about us maintaining a basic (and credible) core defence capability.
Second, how we allocate our financial resources is a choice. We could easily fund our armed forces properly at 2.5% GDP if we chose to do so. The politicians are prioritising funding other government departments (such as international development, health and education) at the expense of its core duty to defend us. I think that's grossly irresponsible.
Third, you make the classic error of assuming our security is geographically localised. Britain is a highly interconnected trading nation. An island dependent for its well-being on global and regional geo-political stability. We don't have to have the Russians at Calais to be under threat (although they do seem pretty happy to sail their subs into our estuaries, and nuclear bombers grazing our airspace) or subject to economic or political blackmail.
In the last few years we've had the growth of a terrorist state in the middle-east which gravely threatens our domestic security, and increasing belligerence from Russia in Eastern Europe, which we've been unable to deter. We are now almost an irrelevance to NATO and to the Americans, and unable to build alliances to defend our interests in Europe and the Middle-East. Soft power and hard power go hand-in-hand. It's called real-politik.
You seem to think that having armed forces in and of themselves encourages conflict, and that disengaging from global trouble-spots where they might be needed is the responsible thing to do.
The seventh data protection principle requires that:
"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."
You might want to consider whether your security measures when canvassing were adequate in the circumstances given that the data was taken so easily, particularly given that what you had no doubt included "sensitive personal data", which includes data about identifiable people's political opinions.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
What do you mean, suggestions? Obvious. You outnumbered them by 8 to 2. You would have been entirely justified in using reasonable force to restrain them in order to recover the information. If there were 8 of you and 2 of them, you could easily have obstacled their passage safely and securely until (if necessary) the police arrived.
You don't start well with a post-imperalist cliche, that is both silly and dated. I see you've now switched it from "Britannia rules the waves" to 'Britain (no longer being) the force that it once was'. That is irrefutable but I reject the core thrust of your argument. This is about us maintaining a basic (and credible) core defence capability.
Second, how we allocate our financial resources is a choice. We could easily fund our armed forces properly at 2.5% GDP if we chose to do so. The politicians are prioritising funding other government departments (such as international development, health and education) at the expense of its core duty to defend us. I think that's grossly irresponsible.
Third, you make the classic error of assuming our security is geographically localised. Britain is a highly interconnected trading nation. An island dependent for its well-being on global and regional geo-political stability. We don't have to have the Russians at Calais to be under threat (although they do seem pretty happy to sail their subs into our estuaries, and nuclear bombers grazing our airspace) or subject to economic or political blackmail.
In the last few years we've had the growth of a terrorist state in the middle-east which gravely threatens our domestic security, and increasing belligerence from Russia in Eastern Europe, which we've been unable to deter. We are now almost an irrelevance to NATO and to the Americans, and unable to build alliances to defend our interests in Europe and the Middle-East. Soft power and hard power go hand-in-hand. It's called real-politik.
You seem to think that having armed forces in and of themselves encourages conflict, and that disengaging from global trouble-spots where they might be needed is the responsible thing to do.
It is neither.
You presuppose that 2.5% of GDP is the proper level of defence spending, which begs the question of what it is we should be trying to do.
Our security is not exclusively geographically localised. But it's a pretty big part of it. While we certainly have interests around the world, we can project power into few parts of it in practice and have not been able to for some time. This is a race we cannot win, so we should stop trying.
Germany, one of the world's great export nations, gets by without being a huge military power. There are other ways of dealing with the matter.
And why is Britain a country that is somehow expected to join the charge into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria whenever there's a problem? We don't have to be Robin to the USA's Batman.
Your idea of a core defence capability is an expensive luxury. It baffles me why the right are so blind to addressing this one obvious area where spending could profitably be trimmed further.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that's the level of debate you're operating at, it's not even worth discussing the issue with you.
Which one of those assertions do you disagree with? That Britain is not the force that it once was? That we need to husband our financial resources accordingly? That we live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet?
All of them, I'm afraid.
You don't start well with a post-imperalist cliche, that is both silly and dated. I see you've now switched it from "Britannia rules the waves" to 'Britain (no longer being) the force that it once was'. That is irrefutable but I reject the core thrust of your argument. This is about us maintaining a basic (and credible) core defence capability.
Second, how we allocate our financial resources is a choice. We could easily fund our armed forces properly at 2.5% GDP if we chose to do so. The politicians are prioritising funding other government departments (such as international development, health and education) at the expense of its core duty to defend us. I think that's grossly irresponsible.
Third, you make the classic error of assuming our security is geographically localised. Britain is a highly interconnected trading nation. An island dependent for its well-being on global and regional geo-political stability. We don't have to have the Russians at Calais to be under threat (although they do seem pretty happy to sail their subs into our estuaries, and nuclear bombers grazing our airspace) or subject to economic or political blackmail.
In the last few years we've had the growth of a terrorist state in the middle-east which gravely threatens our domestic security, and increasing belligerence from Russia in Eastern Europe, which we've been unable to deter. We are now almost an irrelevance to NATO and to the Americans, and unable to build alliances to defend our interests in Europe and the Middle-East. Soft power and hard power go hand-in-hand. It's called real-politik.
You seem to think that having armed forces in and of themselves encourages conflict, and that disengaging from global trouble-spots where they might be needed is the responsible thing to do.
It is neither.
All the problems we currently face are blowback from an interventionist foreign policy excessive defence spending has afforded. A sane immigration policy would help too.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
He feels powerless in society and disrespected by adults and the other authority figures he encounters in his everyday life. He felt he had a free-hit at you.
You therefore acted properly in showing patience, and asking for the records back politely a second time. That was enough for him to believe he had been shown some respect, whilst in a temporary position of relative power, and satiated his immediate craving to be taken seriously.
If he had continued, you should have barred his way. He (and his friend) would no doubt have been very abusive, but you could have asked for the records (politely) again making it clear you would call the authorities if he did not.
If you didn't get them you could have used your judgement to either wait for the authorities (he'd probably throw them at you, abuse you a lot and then escape) or restrain him mildly, protected any risk of the fall of the child, and then used reasonable force to remove the records from him.
You would then need to report the incident anyway.
OT it's pretty clear the reason all these tax evaders have got away with it is because the CPS have spent their time and resources on ludicrous prosecutions of people like Dave Lee Travis taken to court THREE times achieving a single conviction for briefly touching a researchers breasts.....
meanwhile while these obsessive prurient morons continued chasing these people billions were squirreled away by serious criminals with a single half hearted prosecution. Time for a Labour poster campaign I think.......
That's the sort of bovine behaviour which is commonplace these days from members of the underclass. Basically, they just want to impose their presence on everyone else in whatever way they happen to feel like at that moment. In particular they like to use children as props in their campaign of menace.
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
The problem is that they want defence cuts AND more warmongering.
OT it's pretty clear the reason all these tax evaders have got away with it is because the CPS have spent their time and resources on ludicrous prosecutions of people like Dave Lee Travis taken to court THREE times achieving a single conviction for briefly touching a researchers breasts.....A criminal waste of money
meanwhile while these obsessive prurient morons continued chasing these people billions were squirreled away by serious criminal and a single prosecution. Time for a Labour poster campaign I think.......
Yes Roger, I agree . "Labour wants sex offenders left alone" will go down a storm
The police force appear to be in a death spiral. Moral at rock bottom, inability to recruitment half decent candidates, lack of promotion, etc., etc. It used to be they were expected to know the law inside out. Now it seems like they make it up as they go along. I do not know a single former police officer who has recommended joining. This does not bode well for the future.
The head of the Wiltshire plod is under investigation.
Thanks for the advice, all. Casino's sounds about right to me. I take antifrank's data protection point, though it's the first time in 40 years that I've had record snatched out of my hands - not sure what reasonable precautions one could take against that.
I think that he was actually being responsible up to a point, if we ignore the original grabbing - when I reached for the folder the first time, he probably hazily interpreted it as "a stranger is trying to do something to me while I have a child on my shoulders". A sharp warning was appropriate if that was his perception. He'd no way of really being sure I was just reaching for the folder and not about to grab him. The second time, I merely requested them back and was therefore clearly unthreatening.
OT it's pretty clear the reason all these tax evaders have got away with it is because the CPS have spent their time and resources on ludicrous prosecutions of people like Dave Lee Travis taken to court THREE times achieving a single conviction for briefly touching a researchers breasts.....
meanwhile while these obsessive prurient morons continued chasing these people billions were squirreled away by serious criminals with a single half hearted prosecution. Time for a Labour poster campaign I think.......
:-( :-(
double whammy Roge,
your mates are both seventies personalities of dubious provenance AND tax evaders.
Comments
Jim Sheridan being a typical invisible man Scottish Labourite compared to Dougie makes it a far likelier outcome that the SNP will win. The Black effect may be a bit of an unknown, there's going to be conservative CoS old dears pity voting for her (aww, poor Mhairi) and those who would vote SNP but won't because of her accent and age. Probably not helped because she can't pronounce her own name.
Guernsey would just about qualify for a Commons seat if they were so incorporated.
Back in 1997 doubt you'd have seen many Labour canvassers in Richmond in North Yorks, but that's going to be the equivalent of the SNP ground game now.
If the EGM goes wrong its lights out time - 8k there yesterday..
Gets coat..
I didn't meet a 'Vari' until 20 years later
Bailiwick of Jersey
Isle of Man
Gib?
Church of Scotland ?
Oh, and everytime someone says 'We defend you!', ask them why we have a big party every 9th of May......
The only other way is to go through another administration event but the government refer it to be handled by the Acccountant in Bankruptcy on public interest grounds (assuming they even have this power).
Rangers fans have had about £20m of their re-investment stripped out the club since it went into administration.
In the absence of Mr Gove to advise on phonics pronunciation I turned to the web, and found this guide, but it's missing "mh".
Seems to me that if you use the spelling "mh" you are using a language other than English, and you have to look to that other language for a guide to the correct pronunciation. Otherwise, why bother?
If you want a good reason to keep Labour out of power just look at some facts as presented by David Smith of The Times,
In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn.
Something like £25 billion a year. Mismanaged expenditure more like...
Labour increased public spending by 51% in inflation adjusted terms ''the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.''
Between 2010 to 2015 spending went up by about £7 billion a year.
and
well over 600,000 public sector jobs have been lost - at least 400,000 more to go.
Wiltshire force says it has deleted from its system details of four people who bought copies of magazine from a newsagent"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/wiltshire-police-apologise-details-charlie-hebdo-readers
Sorry, the taxi will be here in a minute.
And for that matter, "mho", the unit of conductance, is a good English word.
(But I take your point.)
Farmhand
Tempting to disregard as one pollster, but the last 6 with Ipsos have CON 32.3 LAB 31.8.
Yougov 2010: 2015 ratios (applied to 2010 %) showing CON 32 LAB 31.2 across the last ten.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564397780618477568
and for that matter: http://www.morewords.com/contains/mh/
According to Conservative Home, respondents said David Cameron would be a "good red wine", Ed Miliband would be a tomato juice and Nick Clegg would be a Babysham or "a Woo-woo" (a vodka-based fruit cocktail).
BBC Assistant Political Editor
HSBC tax scandal
The BBC's Norman Smith says "frankly it's no surprise that this has become a profoundly explosive and emotional political issue", as many are angry at the idea that very wealthy people are getting away with paying less than their fair share. He says: "The one unanswered aspect of this whole saga centres around Lord Green himself; we still - still - haven't heard from him as to what he knew."
Well we know where Normal 'Wigan Pier' Smith will be focusing....of course how many times will he say Tory Lord Green, in comparison to hardly ever mentioning Labour run Rotherham council for instance....
Deeply worrying.
And as it's the third time his poll has favoured the Tories he should get to keep it
As it is, it's working out as a negative for him anyway and I can't help but feel I did my bit to rid Scotland of the Red Tories.
I expect you feel proud at this effective use of taxpayers money.
How did your FOI request into Salmond's Chicago bill fare?
Absolutely insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zBntNWvnyM
Don't think there's been a Scottish-only one before, but fwiw their last Scottish sub sample (end of Jan) was SNP 40, Lab 28.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Scottish_Parliament_election,_2011
Violence is seldom the answer but it can be effective. And with an 8 to 2 margin, the threat would have been enough.
If they kicked off about being followed, escalate to a three nines call.
You don't start well with a post-imperalist cliche, that is both silly and dated. I see you've now switched it from "Britannia rules the waves" to 'Britain (no longer being) the force that it once was'. That is irrefutable but I reject the core thrust of your argument. This is about us maintaining a basic (and credible) core defence capability.
Second, how we allocate our financial resources is a choice. We could easily fund our armed forces properly at 2.5% GDP if we chose to do so. The politicians are prioritising funding other government departments (such as international development, health and education) at the expense of its core duty to defend us. I think that's grossly irresponsible.
Third, you make the classic error of assuming our security is geographically localised. Britain is a highly interconnected trading nation. An island dependent for its well-being on global and regional geo-political stability. We don't have to have the Russians at Calais to be under threat (although they do seem pretty happy to sail their subs into our estuaries, and nuclear bombers grazing our airspace) or subject to economic or political blackmail.
In the last few years we've had the growth of a terrorist state in the middle-east which gravely threatens our domestic security, and increasing belligerence from Russia in Eastern Europe, which we've been unable to deter. We are now almost an irrelevance to NATO and to the Americans, and unable to build alliances to defend our interests in Europe and the Middle-East. Soft power and hard power go hand-in-hand. It's called real-politik.
You seem to think that having armed forces in and of themselves encourages conflict, and that disengaging from global trouble-spots where they might be needed is the responsible thing to do.
It is neither.
"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."
You might want to consider whether your security measures when canvassing were adequate in the circumstances given that the data was taken so easily, particularly given that what you had no doubt included "sensitive personal data", which includes data about identifiable people's political opinions.
The PB jury votes for provoked violence. Threaten initially but mean it. Then you probably won't need to follow through.
From your description that area must be what's known as a 'target rich environment' for potential labour votes
Ashcroft: Con 34%, Lab 31%, UKIP 14%, LD 9%.
Kellner: Con 35%, Lab 31%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.
Our security is not exclusively geographically localised. But it's a pretty big part of it. While we certainly have interests around the world, we can project power into few parts of it in practice and have not been able to for some time. This is a race we cannot win, so we should stop trying.
Germany, one of the world's great export nations, gets by without being a huge military power. There are other ways of dealing with the matter.
And why is Britain a country that is somehow expected to join the charge into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria whenever there's a problem? We don't have to be Robin to the USA's Batman.
Your idea of a core defence capability is an expensive luxury. It baffles me why the right are so blind to addressing this one obvious area where spending could profitably be trimmed further.
You therefore acted properly in showing patience, and asking for the records back politely a second time. That was enough for him to believe he had been shown some respect, whilst in a temporary position of relative power, and satiated his immediate craving to be taken seriously.
If he had continued, you should have barred his way. He (and his friend) would no doubt have been very abusive, but you could have asked for the records (politely) again making it clear you would call the authorities if he did not.
If you didn't get them you could have used your judgement to either wait for the authorities (he'd probably throw them at you, abuse you a lot and then escape) or restrain him mildly, protected any risk of the fall of the child, and then used reasonable force to remove the records from him.
You would then need to report the incident anyway.
THREE times achieving a single conviction for briefly touching a researchers breasts.....
meanwhile while these obsessive prurient morons continued chasing these people billions were squirreled away by serious criminals with a single half hearted prosecution. Time for a Labour poster campaign I think.......
Sub - "Election Hopeful leads gang of tory thugs"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-31296182
The head of the Avon & Somerset force likewise, none of the IPCC hearing was in public.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/investigations/chief-constable-investigation-avon-and-somerset-police
And once you're on the system your details are never deleted.
Do you remember John Prescott's response to being egged. 'Good on him' was my initial response and 85% of the public agreed with me.
The "great and the good" may differ but they're wrong.
"Brave OAP candidate kicks young yobs in testicles" as a headline would see him elected with a massive majority.
Ed would cry though.
I think that he was actually being responsible up to a point, if we ignore the original grabbing - when I reached for the folder the first time, he probably hazily interpreted it as "a stranger is trying to do something to me while I have a child on my shoulders". A sharp warning was appropriate if that was his perception. He'd no way of really being sure I was just reaching for the folder and not about to grab him. The second time, I merely requested them back and was therefore clearly unthreatening. The ward is LibDem-held (Stapleford SE). Make of that what you will!
double whammy Roge,
your mates are both seventies personalities of dubious provenance AND tax evaders.
Come to Ludlow you know you want to.