SO It would not be a surprise at all, on most nationalist forums most SNP voters are just as anti Brussels as they are anti Westminster, after all if you want independence you may as well go the whole hog, and Sturgeon has a ticking timebomb under her nose!
When push comes to shove they will vote for what they believe gets them the best chance of separation. And clearly they believe a UK exit with Scotland voting to stay will either trigger a second referendum or a UDI. Whether they are right, of course, is something completely different.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more disaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
TUD Of course the ironic thing was 4% more SNP voters in that poll wanted to leave the EU than stay in, SNP voters are in fact more anti EU than Scots as a whole, which will also pose problems for Sturgeon. It is of course possible that because the EU polls show it about 51-49 either way that Scotland could keep the UK in the EU even if England and Wales vote very narrowly to leave if Scotland has a big In vote!
An EU referendum in Scotland will surely be all about independence rather than EU membership. The SNP will frame it as the perfect way to get a second referendum, so it would be a huge surprise if many SNP supporters end up voting to leave.
The really interesting thing is what happens in practice should Scotland vote to stay in and the UK as a whole votes to leave.
I don't think it would be a big issue, if you had numbers similar to Panelbase. The UK voting narrowly to leave, while Scotland voting heavily to stay would be a big issue.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more diaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
Trying hard not to be banned, and I don't know if it is still against the rules of the site to comment , just to mention that a certain ex-editor of the NoW is going on trial for perjury in the High Court in Edinburgh on April 21st.
We'll also have a huge round of local elections on May 7th. It'll be interesting to see if UKIP can win it's first authorities, in places like Tendring, Thanet, and Medway.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
The SNP's 'The Scots are more pro-EU than r-UK' survives little scrutiny (today's YouGov)
If referendum held to leave EU would vote to stay in (net)
OA: +10 Lon: +24 RoS: +9 Mid/W: +9 N: +3 Sc: +11
London & the North are the outliers - the Scots are pretty much in line with the rest of the country.
Top quality sub-sampling there. Panelbase did a pair of side by side 1000 person polls, one for Scotland and one for the rest of the UK. They got, for the question, "The UK should leave the European Union"
Scotland
Agree: 37% Disagree: 42% Net agreement: -5
rUK
Agree: 43% Disagree: 39% Net agreement: +4
Removing don't knows it was Scotland: -6 Rest of UK: +5
That's not a huge difference between Scotland and RUK.
Though still probably greater than the likely margin between the 2 main parties after the next GE, one of which will form the UK government.
If that result was replicated in an EU referendum, that not huge difference would mean the end of the Union (the UK one that is).
How will that work? The SNP leadership knew of the Tory referendum pledge when they stated that the referendum was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Like most people, if I was offered a second round the world trip, I would take it even if i had thought the first one was a once in a lifetime opportunity.
This is the most nonsense of the Loyalists whining.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
Amusingly though if the Uk does vote to leave - then Scotland will have to rejoin under the Euro currency. The next referendum will not be about the currency - it will be a clear choice of pound v Euro.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
They're to the left of socialists. Socialists favour economic growth.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more diaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
Yes I agree, kids have it much tougher. It seems to be the political trend that it's easier to dump on them because they don't protest too much. It sticks in my craw that people of our generation and older who had many things handed to them on a plate now see fit to remove those same benefits.
Bennett just got ripped to shreds on the Today programme. I cannot see her performing well on telly or radio. She will get a lot of support on Social Media though which is where her voters lie.
Her responses in the interview on Today were some of the worst I have ever heard. She sounded confused, stumbled over her words, and couldn't fill in the bloody huge blanks in Green policy. I can't imagine anybody heard her and thought "yeah that's someone I want running the country".
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
Absolutely. A lot of SNP supporters who would like to see Scotland out of the EU will vote tactically to stay if there is a referendum in 2017 as, they believe, it will give Scotland the best shot of separating from the rUK. Incidentally, the chance of an EU referendum is also the reason why the SNP would much prefer a Tory government to a Labour one after May.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
Anything near double figures would be par from here.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more diaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
Wales can't possibly go it alone though, it would be like Northumbria declaring independence, completely financially unviable. I think Scotland could be - whether it would be richer or poorer is a matter of debate. But it's definitely a viable state.
Trying hard not to be banned, and I don't know if it is still against the rules of the site to comment , just to mention that a certain ex-editor of the NoW is going on trial for perjury in the High Court in Edinburgh on April 21st.
Good timing?
Fear not, 73 people have already mentiond Coulson's date with destiny with no adverse results.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
They're to the left of socialists. Socialists favour economic growth.
Yep the Greens are about as left wing as you can get.
reasons for Kipper slump * Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples ....... Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP are still attracting more ex Conservatives than Labour and on current polls that will result in some form of an Ed Miliband govt. So no referendum and job done to keep Farage and his chums going on the european funding which supports their lifestyle.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more diaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
Anything near double figures would be par from here.
What would be your under/over mark on the next poll released?
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
Support for the Greens among 18-24 year olds is probably due to the party being very clearly the most left-wing alternative on offer.
It depends on what you mean by left wing. They are a very long way from being Socialist, for example.
Please explain.
True socialism is about the collective ownership of the means of production and growth through the expansion of industry. The Greens believe in neither. That's why you'll find so much scepticism about Green policies on the old left.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
Well it will have an Ed Miliband govt and no referendum. If you think that is what UKIP want then you are correct. It is what the Farage clique want.
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
Amusingly though if the Uk does vote to leave - then Scotland will have to rejoin under the Euro currency. The next referendum will not be about the currency - it will be a clear choice of pound v Euro.
Depends how long it takes the UK to leave and how long it takes Scottish independence to occur.
Isn't all this anti UKIP glee and excitement rather ignoring the fact that Dispatches has reminded the electorate that LibLabCon are utterly rotten to the core over the last 24 hours.
But that's not a differentiator versus UKIP - Ashley Mote, Tom Wise.
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
Amusingly though if the Uk does vote to leave - then Scotland will have to rejoin under the Euro currency. The next referendum will not be about the currency - it will be a clear choice of pound v Euro.
If Scotland found itself outside the EU without voting for it - which is pretty much impossible outside the rabid fantasies of Loyalists - it would not seek to rejoin the EU, it would become an EFTA member.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory * Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP * No chance of being in any coalition * Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP have polled 13% on average this week. If the party wins that sort of vote share on the day, it will be very satisfied.
Anything near double figures would be par from here.
What would be your under/over mark on the next poll released?
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
I am providing an alternative explanation.
But by your own logic, surely if Cameron ends up as PM (or, I would guess, Miliband) after the next GE, doesn't that prove my point?
can't really see how, all it shows is the young are more diaffected with politics. As for the oldies quite simply I'm happy to make a whole stack of oldies benefits taxable ( bus passes, TV licences, fuel allowances etc. ) and would happily see the money put back in to free fees for tertiary education and some decent housebuilding. I'd also scrap a pile of "green" taxes as simply being a load of bollocks and put money back in people's pockets.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
hmmm JJ, I'll put that down to the full flush on fatherhood.
Later when the bills start rolling in you may see it different. When you're in the generation which probably will be worse off than its parents things don't look quite so rosy.
reasons for Kipper slump * Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples ....... Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP are still attracting more ex Conservatives than Labour and on current polls that will result in some form of an Ed Miliband govt. So no referendum and job done to keep Farage and his chums going on the european funding which supports their lifestyle.
Perish the thought that the Conservatives might get of their far arses and trying and make their party a teensy bit more attractive to their traditional vote rather than sitting there and whining about the kippers.
SO No the average SNP voter will vote for exit from the UK and EU, even if they did vote tactically they would then push for exit from the EU too if Scotland ever left the UK
Amusingly though if the Uk does vote to leave - then Scotland will have to rejoin under the Euro currency. The next referendum will not be about the currency - it will be a clear choice of pound v Euro.
Depends how long it takes the UK to leave and how long it takes Scottish independence to occur.
The former will happen before the latter.
As it would only happen under a Con govt (A Kipper-Lab-Lib-SNP pact won't have a referendum) - they wont be dishing out another Sindy referendum anytime before 2020.
TGOHF Indeed, and most Scots would clearly oppose joining the Euro even if they want to stay in the EU
The Euro is a massive wealth generator for exporting countries. As such Scotland would benefit greatly in economic terms from being in the Euro. The only problem is the potential political barrier created by the fantasist British Nationalist press.
On topic, didn't mike also advise backing labour in Newark and Clacton on the same reasoning?
Labour @ 11-1 here doesn't look as terrible as the 4-1 advised in Newark. But I've still got them as my worst realistic result here. Can't see it with the "squeeze".
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
TGOHF Indeed, and most Scots would clearly oppose joining the Euro even if they want to stay in the EU
The Euro is a massive wealth generator for exporting countries. As such Scotland would benefit greatly in economic terms from being in the Euro. The only problem is the potential political barrier created by the fantasist British Nationalist press.
Certainly a downside of the Nats aggressive confrontational approach. They have failed to build any partnerships or alliances in the Uk or wider EU. Putin and a few Basque nutters - that's about it.
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
Actually it does. £45k of debt and a 9% income tax surcharge.
I vaguely remember why the young vote Green. A Green vote means a reversal, a wild roller coaster ride. The phrase 'anything and everything is possible' and the excitement that entails.
To the 'more mature' that phrase is more of a threat than a invite. I quite like central heating and food that doesn't rot before you get a chance to eat it.
But neither of the two parties really offers that option.
Maybe it is that the young have longer to live and they feel they have much more of a stake in the planet's future. The old can global warm and do all manner of other earth-degrading things in the knowledge that it won't really affect them.
So you're saying oldies don't care about their children and grandchildren ? Can't really see that myself, I get fing annoyed with Cameron because he's shafting the younger generation.
It's generally just much harder being young these days, certainly than it was in our time. It's really difficult to see how kids today are going to get the opportunities we did, whoever is in power. We are the gilded generation.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
hmmm JJ, I'll put that down to the full flush on fatherhood.
Later when the bills start rolling in you may see it different. When you're in the generation which probably will be worse off than its parents things don't look quite so rosy.
'Probably be'
There's two sides to this: the fiscal and the societal. The future is uncertain, but I agree there's a chance that my son will be worse of fiscally than me. However he's growing up in a society that is, problems aside, much better than the one I grew up in, and I see that trend continuing.
I'm generally a positive person, especially about the future. But it won't happen if we're all negative about it. I - and we - just need to work to try to make my optimism come true. ;-)
I really don't understand the constant, self-defeating negativity many people have about the future.
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
We employ a lot of graduates with good degrees from good universities who are essentially doing clerical jobs. How they are going to move up the ladder, buy their first homes and so on is beyond me.
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
We employ a lot of graduates with good degrees from good universities who are essentially doing clerical jobs. How they are going to move up the ladder, buy their first homes and so on is beyond me.
Thats more an issue of technology and demographics than anything political though.
TGOHF Indeed, and most Scots would clearly oppose joining the Euro even if they want to stay in the EU
The Euro is a massive wealth generator for exporting countries. As such Scotland would benefit greatly in economic terms from being in the Euro.
Well that will greatly clarify things - no more of this 'its our pound too' nonsense.....
Anyway, if the UK votes to leave the EU, then Scotland votes to leave the UK, your currency question is sorted for you, as you'd have to have the euro (assuming its still around....) to join the EU.
Lots of fun and games following yesterday's divergent polls. I do think the vast majority of people have not "engaged" with the GE to any meaningful extent. We've received the sum total of nothing from any of the parties here in the Labour stronghold of East Ham.
UKIP are confronting that which bedevilled the Liberals and LDs in the past - the disappearance of midterm support at the first sign of electoral battle. There is a UKIP core vote - no question - of perhaps 5-8% but anything beyond that comes from the pool of floaters (not a good image but there you go).
Reflecting on the debates, I would imagine one of the prime reasons why the Conservatives might not want them to happen is that if a significant number of people (as seemed to be the case in 2010) were maing up their mind from the debates, it invalidates the huge financial advantage the Conservatives enjoy since the debates are "free" and no one party gets a disproportionate amount of coverage.
I've not yet heard any formula for the debates which sounds fair to everyone. UKIP's emergence and advance hasn't muddied the waters since one could argue the basis on which the 2010 debates was constructed was flawed.
TGOHF Indeed, and most Scots would clearly oppose joining the Euro even if they want to stay in the EU
The Euro is a massive wealth generator for exporting countries. As such Scotland would benefit greatly in economic terms from being in the Euro.
Well that will greatly clarify things - no more of this 'its our pound too' nonsense.....
Anyway, if the UK votes to leave the EU, then Scotland votes to leave the UK, your currency question is sorted for you, as you'd have to have the euro (assuming its still around....) to join the EU.
Long term I don't think Euro or GBP makes much odds when you look at it objectively.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
This is the sort of chart that shows Scotland could run independently, note that although it is not as well off as England, it is better off than the UK as a whole.
Lord A's bit of political fun - published yesterday with his comments on his poll.
He asked which supermarket the party leaders would use:
Nigel Farage would be Aldi: “you know what you’re getting. Down to earth. Anyone can shop there.”
Nick Clegg would be the Co-op, with “all its nice fair trade values”
David Cameron would inevitably be Waitrose, but “pretending to be Sainsbury’s”.
Ed Miliband, by the same token, would “go to Waitrose but with his Lidl bag-for-life to carry round afterwards.”
He noted that the tone of the Nick Clegg comment made clear it wasn't a compliment!
But the Miliband one is the most interesting. I think the hypocrisy line may be cutting through. And in my mind, for a politician to be seen as a hypocrite (over an above the class effect) is a seriously damaging position for them to be in. I doubt the voters like a hypocrite.
reasons for Kipper slump * Toxic branding - drip drip drip * Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU * Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples ....... Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
UKIP are still attracting more ex Conservatives than Labour and on current polls that will result in some form of an Ed Miliband govt. So no referendum and job done to keep Farage and his chums going on the european funding which supports their lifestyle.
Perish the thought that the Conservatives might get of their far arses and trying and make their party a teensy bit more attractive to their traditional vote rather than sitting there and whining about the kippers.
Cameron and Osborne's tactical ineptitude are a big factor in the original movement to UKIP. But that does not get away from the ironic fact that UKIP may be the EC's best friend in avoiding a UK referendum.
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
We employ a lot of graduates with good degrees from good universities who are essentially doing clerical jobs. How they are going to move up the ladder, buy their first homes and so on is beyond me.
Thats more an issue of technology and demographics than anything political though.
I agree. Technology has rendered a lot of white and blue collar jobs redundant. There are no easy political solutions to this, whoever is in power. I don't believe any of our political parties want today's teenagers and twenty-somethings to be worse off than their parents, but I don't see many answers from any of them. The world has changed.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
hmmm JJ, I'll put that down to the full flush on fatherhood.
Later when the bills start rolling in you may see it different. When you're in the generation which probably will be worse off than its parents things don't look quite so rosy.
'Probably be'
There's two sides to this: the fiscal and the societal. The future is uncertain, but I agree there's a chance that my son will be worse of fiscally than me. However he's growing up in a society that is, problems aside, much better than the one I grew up in, and I see that trend continuing.
I'm generally a positive person, especially about the future. But it won't happen if we're all negative about it. I - and we - just need to work to try to make my optimism come true. ;-)
I really don't understand the constant, self-defeating negativity many people have about the future.
You can't talk up a completely hopeless situation.
Perhaps you are connected to people in positions of power who can ease your child into their first steps on a proper career ladder. If not, there is no career ladder any more, employee average wages are significantly lower today than they were 30 years ago, job security is very low and there is no adequate provision for Pensions in the private sector (and it will not last much longer in the Public sector).
There is a significantly lower chance that your son will ever get on the property ladder. If he does, probability says it will be because you supply him a deposit which in the South East could easily mean £40k.
In the highly unlikely event that your son does start earning decent money, for having a degree he will pay an additional 9% in taxes thanks to having a degree (which most likely has no career benefit).
There is nothing obscure about the current trends in employment and wealth. If you are on a final salary pension and 80% of your property value was inflated and not paid in mortgage, your university cost you nothing and your career was on a guided path, you are isolated from the reality which todays younger (not even younger even people into their 40s) face.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
For those expecting the Lib Dems or UKIP to benefit from the MUCH smaller coverage they get in the short campaign, please take a look at the opinion polling in the final weeks of the Scottish Elections of 2007 and 2011 where there was a Four Major Party system and where the third and fourth parties get considerably reduced coverage (nothing like that a single third party gets).
There is an identifiable uptick for the Conservatives in 2011 but no uptick for the Conservatives in 2007 or the Lib Dems in either elections. The 2011 Conservative uptick is fairly small (couple of points) and should be taken in the context of polling before the Short Campaign being a historic low for the Tories.
The evidence is not there for the secondary parties benefiting from increased television exposure and getting a noticeable increase in voting share.
Agree - they will get more coverage - but nothing like as much as the two major parties - it will be even more difficult to "cut through".
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
We employ a lot of graduates with good degrees from good universities who are essentially doing clerical jobs. How they are going to move up the ladder, buy their first homes and so on is beyond me.
Meanwhile we have to import anyone with a craft skill to fill the massive gap because an entire generation of talented mechanics, joiners, plumbers, etc never went into an apprenticeship when they left school instead being channelled into a Social Studies 2:2 from Staffordshire University (formerly North Staffs Polytechnic).
Many polls over many years have consistently shown Scotland more EU friendly than England - Wales I don't know about. There are too few polls in the Principality to be sure. The margin of pro-Eu difference between Scotland and England is around 10 per cent.
Nicola Sturgeon is on to a strong theme here as the support for her position in last week's fully sampled Scottish Survation poll shows. However it is really unwise, indeed silly, for what Dair has described as the loyalist contingent on this site to base their prejudices one sub sample of a UK poll. What is more interesting is why Scots are more pro-EU than disputing an established fact.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
I'm sorry if you see your own views on the 1950s as 'cheap smears'.
Yet if my son turns out to be gay, or if he had been born a girl, he would have much better opportunities than if he had grown up in those decades.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
I'm sorry if you see your own views on the 1950s as 'cheap smears'.
Yet if my son turns out to be gay, or if he had been born a girl, he would have much better opportunities than if he had grown up in those decades.
I've never advocated castration for homosexuals or women "knowing their place" but if you're determined to be an idiot, let's end this discussion.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
What an absolute joke. PBers really should listen to this 3 minutes worth for entertainment value if nothing else! Are we seriously talking about this woman possibly appearing for the Greens on the TV political debates? She was altogether unimpressive on the Andrew Neil programme a few weeks ago, but that pales into insignificance compared her performance here with Nick Ferrari.
Trying hard not to be banned, and I don't know if it is still against the rules of the site to comment , just to mention that a certain ex-editor of the NoW is going on trial for perjury in the High Court in Edinburgh on April 21st.
Good timing?
Fear not, 73 people have already mentiond Coulson's date with destiny with no adverse results.
Going by the rest of the press, you can say that Coulson is to be tried for perjury, it relates to the trial of Tommy, that's about it. However (and remember IANAL) you can discuss whether the trial should proceed as a matter of public interest as there is an exception on the Strict liability in Scots contempt for such issues.
As long as you don't discuss any aspect of the case.
If this view becomes commonplace then it should boost Labour. Miliband may turn out to be a very lucky general, what with the Lib Dems showing no real desire to win back their lost votes (whilst possibly also fighting a robust rearguard action in Lib/Tory marginals) and the Greens squandering their recent surge in support. The anti-government vote has to go somewhere, and whilst we can take the deflation in Labour support from c. 42% to c. 32% as a sign that it is unenthusiastic about voting Labour and may well stay at home in the absence of a credible alternative, if the Green vote does tank and the Liberal Democrats remain largely moribund, Labour are likely to be the net beneficiaries. Odds still stacked against the Conservatives.
You can't talk up a completely hopeless situation.
Perhaps you are connected to people in positions of power who can ease your child into their first steps on a proper career ladder. If not, there is no career ladder any more, employee average wages are significantly lower today than they were 30 years ago, job security is very low and there is no adequate provision for Pensions in the private sector (and it will not last much longer in the Public sector).
There is a significantly lower chance that your son will ever get on the property ladder. If he does, probability says it will be because you supply him a deposit which in the South East could easily mean £40k.
In the highly unlikely event that your son does start earning decent money, for having a degree he will pay an additional 9% in taxes thanks to having a degree (which most likely has no career benefit).
There is nothing obscure about the current trends in employment and wealth. If you are on a final salary pension and 80% of your property value was inflated and not paid in mortgage, your university cost you nothing and your career was on a guided path, you are isolated from the reality which todays younger (not even younger even people into their 40s) face.
Again, utter negativity.
I am connected to no-one of power or influence, as far as I know. That's not the way I swing.
Some points: *) Job security is only good whilst the jobs remain. In fact, perhaps outside banking, has it ever really been true? And a flexible jobs market means that when the company does go bust, or the mine shut, or the chemical works downsize, there are more opportunities in other industries.
*) There are plenty of career ladders out there.
*) Buying housing is a problem. Which is why we perhaps we need to look at society's attitude to housing ("we must have a garden and garage!") and move to a more Continental rental view. And when we talk about new housing, we need to build communities, not houses.
*) Owning a house does not necessarily make you more happy than buying one. It's an odd concept.
*) Pensions are complicated by the fact we are all living longer. Which, whilst we need a sane debate on it, is probably a good thing, isn't it?
Josias "I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did."
I agree. What we mainly have is a shortage of homes, but in the market for work, things are getting better each day, so long as we:- 1. Restrict immigration. 2. Have sensible capitalist economic policies. 3. Do not suffer prolonged european stagnation.
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Indeed. My parents' property went from £11,000 in 1967 to £400,000 in 1999 - now, you show me anything else that does that well in terms of a rate of return. I certainly won't do as well and neither will my nephews.
And yet they have a quality of life which I can but envy - for them, the mobile phone and the tablet computer won't be heavy-handed instruments of wonder or confusion. They will use them as naturally as I use a television. My older nephew went on a school trip to Granada to study history and culture - I got an afternoon at Bodiam Castle, my Dad got National Service.
There are plenty of challenges and one of the appeals of environmentalism (not Green politics) for the young is the notion that the planet's resources are finite and there is a duty of care. Call it sustainability if you will but environmentalism has impacted (for better or worse) on the way we live. The notion that we should leave the world in which we live a better place for our descendants isn't to be ridiculed or condemned.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
Briefcase Michael @BriefcaseMike 2m2 minutes ago Labour's George Brown did some pretty bad interviews in the 1960s but, unlike Natalie Bennett, he had the excuse of being drunk.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
That pretty much sums it up. there are millions upon millions of talented young individuals throughout the world.
It's simple supply and demand. The supply of labour has expanded hugely due to globalisation, and the demand cannot be there. Hence less opportunites in established countires, but opening up of huge labour markets globally.
For those expecting the Lib Dems or UKIP to benefit from the MUCH smaller coverage they get in the short campaign, please take a look at the opinion polling in the final weeks of the Scottish Elections of 2007 and 2011 where there was a Four Major Party system and where the third and fourth parties get considerably reduced coverage (nothing like that a single third party gets).
There is an identifiable uptick for the Conservatives in 2011 but no uptick for the Conservatives in 2007 or the Lib Dems in either elections. The 2011 Conservative uptick is fairly small (couple of points) and should be taken in the context of polling before the Short Campaign being a historic low for the Tories.
The evidence is not there for the secondary parties benefiting from increased television exposure and getting a noticeable increase in voting share.
Agree - they will get more coverage - but nothing like as much as the two major parties - it will be even more difficult to "cut through".
If the expectation of a hung parliament lasts, the short election campaign will be dominated by speculation of who will be the kingmakers in the 2015 parliament: LD/UKIP/SNP/DUP/Green etc.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
especially at the lower end of the social scale.
*splutter*
where you compete not just against UK graduates but also full on immigation where many candidates are better qualified than the locals ?
Don't agree JJ, the bottom 15% of society by income and education is where face our biggest challenge as a nation.
What an absolute joke. PBers really should listen to this 3 minutes worth for entertainment value if nothing else! Are we seriously talking about this woman possibly appearing for the Greens on the TV political debates? She was altogether unimpressive on the Andrew Neil programme a few weeks ago, but that pales into insignificance compared her performance here with Nick Ferrari.
Bennett gets both things wrong. She hasn't done her homework and she is a bad communicator. A bad communicator who at least knows their stuff is acceptable, a good communicator who deflects the things they don't know about and gets the benefit of a poicy across is fine.
Bennett does neither.
How someone can't sketch out the basics of Citizen's Income for her is beyond me. Unless she's simple too thick to get it. It's effectively costless all you need to do is explain why.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
I'm amazed you couldn't find a role for him, in your own business. Did you consider giving him a leg up through connections and contacts, or was it a matter of principle not to help in this way?
< I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Only if they were one of the few percent who went to university, as you did. Now there's a much higher percentage of people in FE, which is good (although I'd rather see much more vocational courses that useless courses, as discussed on here passim).
What's your solution? 50% of people in FE, with tuition fees paid for the state, living off a student grant, saving enough money to go swanning around the world at the end of their course?
And why is the clerical job demeaning? Surely it's an opportunity for him? Start near the bottom, show his skills, and progress? What did he want to do with his history degree?
Comments
* Toxic branding - drip drip drip
* Lab and Cons have stopped banging on about immigration and EU
* Loss of momentum is self feeding - the 100 seats for the peoples army is a distant memory
* Farage grandstanding - who wants an attention seeker as an MP
* No chance of being in any coalition
* Ed being so crap - why risk it for a novelty vote
Add in the LDs scuttling the debates and the outlook is 2 seats.
Page 56 http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/sites/ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/files/vi_17_02_2015_final_tables.pdf
Good timing?
This is the most nonsense of the Loyalists whining.
The first two debates should be a lot of fun.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
None 9/4 (Paddy Power)
One 10/11 (William Hill)
Two or more 4/1 (William Hill)
Personally I see the value being with None or One, and have put some money on None.
Later when the bills start rolling in you may see it different. When you're in the generation which probably will be worse off than its parents things don't look quite so rosy.
As it would only happen under a Con govt (A Kipper-Lab-Lib-SNP pact won't have a referendum) - they wont be dishing out another Sindy referendum anytime before 2020.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11431296/Natalie-Bennett-Greens-believe-Britain-should-appease-Russias-President-Putin.html
At least Chamberlain knew what he was doing.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-natalie-bennett-105384
The injuries are all self inflicted.
But there's more to come ... greed over fear ... for now!
A friend of mine recently applied for a ~£18k a year job in London - he hoped he wouldn't get it but he's just earnt a PhD. Alot of employees in law firms on ~ 20k qualified to the eyeballs due to lack of training contracts too. Having a degree these days doesn't mean shit.
Actually it does. £45k of debt and a 9% income tax surcharge.
There's two sides to this: the fiscal and the societal. The future is uncertain, but I agree there's a chance that my son will be worse of fiscally than me. However he's growing up in a society that is, problems aside, much better than the one I grew up in, and I see that trend continuing.
I'm generally a positive person, especially about the future. But it won't happen if we're all negative about it. I - and we - just need to work to try to make my optimism come true. ;-)
I really don't understand the constant, self-defeating negativity many people have about the future.
Although the local UKIP rabble over there in Ramsgate is doing its best to explode the last vestiges of the Party's unwarranted credibility anyway. Renegotiates UK terms to what exactly? Do respondents know?
Anyway, if the UK votes to leave the EU, then Scotland votes to leave the UK, your currency question is sorted for you, as you'd have to have the euro (assuming its still around....) to join the EU.
Lots of fun and games following yesterday's divergent polls. I do think the vast majority of people have not "engaged" with the GE to any meaningful extent. We've received the sum total of nothing from any of the parties here in the Labour stronghold of East Ham.
UKIP are confronting that which bedevilled the Liberals and LDs in the past - the disappearance of midterm support at the first sign of electoral battle. There is a UKIP core vote - no question - of perhaps 5-8% but anything beyond that comes from the pool of floaters (not a good image but there you go).
Reflecting on the debates, I would imagine one of the prime reasons why the Conservatives might not want them to happen is that if a significant number of people (as seemed to be the case in 2010) were maing up their mind from the debates, it invalidates the huge financial advantage the Conservatives enjoy since the debates are "free" and no one party gets a disproportionate amount of coverage.
I've not yet heard any formula for the debates which sounds fair to everyone. UKIP's emergence and advance hasn't muddied the waters since one could argue the basis on which the 2010 debates was constructed was flawed.
http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php?YA=1&C1=EUR&C2=GBP&A=1&YYYY1=1990&MM1=01&DD1=01&YYYY2=2015&MM2=02&DD2=24&LANG=en
Office of National Statistics says rates of conception for under-18s in England & Wales are at their lowest since records began in 1969
Great news.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita
On the substance though - ThisIsMoney website reckon landlords tax benefit is between £2.5 and 5 billion.
But the Miliband one is the most interesting. I think the hypocrisy line may be cutting through. And in my mind, for a politician to be seen as a hypocrite (over an above the class effect) is a seriously damaging position for them to be in. I doubt the voters like a hypocrite.
Perhaps you are connected to people in positions of power who can ease your child into their first steps on a proper career ladder. If not, there is no career ladder any more, employee average wages are significantly lower today than they were 30 years ago, job security is very low and there is no adequate provision for Pensions in the private sector (and it will not last much longer in the Public sector).
There is a significantly lower chance that your son will ever get on the property ladder. If he does, probability says it will be because you supply him a deposit which in the South East could easily mean £40k.
In the highly unlikely event that your son does start earning decent money, for having a degree he will pay an additional 9% in taxes thanks to having a degree (which most likely has no career benefit).
There is nothing obscure about the current trends in employment and wealth. If you are on a final salary pension and 80% of your property value was inflated and not paid in mortgage, your university cost you nothing and your career was on a guided path, you are isolated from the reality which todays younger (not even younger even people into their 40s) face.
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
@DebzyBee: Poor Natalie Bennett seems to have simultaneously launched and sunk the Green's election campaign in one fell swoop of radio interviews
@faisalislam: Painful: “@MichaelPDeacon: Maybe the Greens should start campaigning to be excluded from the Leaders' Debates. http://t.co/eGGZxvXSaJ”
Nicola Sturgeon is on to a strong theme here as the support for her position in last week's fully sampled Scottish Survation poll shows. However it is really unwise, indeed silly, for what Dair has described as the loyalist contingent on this site to base their prejudices one sub sample of a UK poll. What is more interesting is why Scots are more pro-EU than disputing an established fact.
Yet if my son turns out to be gay, or if he had been born a girl, he would have much better opportunities than if he had grown up in those decades.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kpx6j
As long as you don't discuss any aspect of the case.
I am connected to no-one of power or influence, as far as I know. That's not the way I swing.
Some points:
*) Job security is only good whilst the jobs remain. In fact, perhaps outside banking, has it ever really been true? And a flexible jobs market means that when the company does go bust, or the mine shut, or the chemical works downsize, there are more opportunities in other industries.
*) There are plenty of career ladders out there.
*) Buying housing is a problem. Which is why we perhaps we need to look at society's attitude to housing ("we must have a garden and garage!") and move to a more Continental rental view. And when we talk about new housing, we need to build communities, not houses.
*) Owning a house does not necessarily make you more happy than buying one. It's an odd concept.
*) Pensions are complicated by the fact we are all living longer. Which, whilst we need a sane debate on it, is probably a good thing, isn't it?
I agree. What we mainly have is a shortage of homes, but in the market for work, things are getting better each day, so long as we:-
1. Restrict immigration.
2. Have sensible capitalist economic policies.
3. Do not suffer prolonged european stagnation.
And yet they have a quality of life which I can but envy - for them, the mobile phone and the tablet computer won't be heavy-handed instruments of wonder or confusion. They will use them as naturally as I use a television. My older nephew went on a school trip to Granada to study history and culture - I got an afternoon at Bodiam Castle, my Dad got National Service.
There are plenty of challenges and one of the appeals of environmentalism (not Green politics) for the young is the notion that the planet's resources are finite and there is a duty of care. Call it sustainability if you will but environmentalism has impacted (for better or worse) on the way we live. The notion that we should leave the world in which we live a better place for our descendants isn't to be ridiculed or condemned.
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
Labour's George Brown did some pretty bad interviews in the 1960s but, unlike Natalie Bennett, he had the excuse of being drunk.
It's simple supply and demand. The supply of labour has expanded hugely due to globalisation, and the demand cannot be there. Hence less opportunites in established countires, but opening up of huge labour markets globally.
*splutter*
where you compete not just against UK graduates but also full on immigation where many candidates are better qualified than the locals ?
Don't agree JJ, the bottom 15% of society by income and education is where face our biggest challenge as a nation.
Bennett does neither.
How someone can't sketch out the basics of Citizen's Income for her is beyond me. Unless she's simple too thick to get it. It's effectively costless all you need to do is explain why.
(corrected)
"Sir Malcolm Rifkind will also step down as MP for Kensington and Chelsea at the general election."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31590315
Vote Tory, Get Ed? RT @thoughtland: It's the gift that keeps on giving.. The spinning wheel of death.
McNeil advising voters to vote Tory to keep out SNP - can't find the newspaper which Paul Waugh has scanned.
What's your solution? 50% of people in FE, with tuition fees paid for the state, living off a student grant, saving enough money to go swanning around the world at the end of their course?
And why is the clerical job demeaning? Surely it's an opportunity for him? Start near the bottom, show his skills, and progress? What did he want to do with his history degree?
Rifkind steps down as chair of Intelligence committee and won't stand again as MP in May.