Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Saturday night polls have the battle very tight

13»

Comments

  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    Alanbrooke

    "Given your MP is Lorely Burt, did you vote for her ?"

    Yes. I am part of her 175 majority, as is my neighbour, who will be abandoning her at GE 2015. I voted for her in the profoundly mistaken belief that the Lib Dems would use the hung parliament to achieve PR, not set voting reform back a generation by holding a referendum on AV.

    There is zero possibility of me voting for her at GE 2015 (nothing personal) and I bet a good few months ago on a Tory gain at Solihull. It isn't a complete disaster for Lorely though, I won't actually vote Tory :-)

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Dair said:

    @ Dair

    At long last an actual answer.

    So where do the revenues come from and how do you borrow ?

    The oil revenues have just taken a 40% hit. So that means that the economy which 20% oil is faced with a potential contraction of 8*% if this price level holds.

    The borrowing will be expensive if oil stays down as the only real option open to you is a Scottish pound and it is now a petrocurrency.

    So how do you pay the bills ?

    PS I've generally found that people find the question "how will I pay my bills ?" anything but risible.

    Taxes are not the Economy.

    How stupid is your argument? Oil and Gas is around 14% of the Scottish Economy because that includes the production, wages, exports and tax. It is around 8% of the tax base. The current slump in price would be about about 2.8% contraction.

    Of course the Scottish Economy is already about 10% to 15% larger per capita than the UK economy once the VAT and Corporation Tax currently booked in London is differentiated by a tax border.

    Oops, you keep forgetting that. Tesco alone would provide about 50% of the Oil and Gas taxes to Scotland, instead of being classed as London revenue. Whisky would remove about £3bn from the exchequer and replace it with £700mn to Scotland.

    But hey, keep believing England is solvent. It might help you sleep at night. The day of Scottish Independence, you won't sleep so easy. But Scotland will sleep far easier and far richer.
    You clearly don't understand your own economy. If I go with your oil is 14% of Scorttish GDP then a 40% drop in revencues is a 5.6% hole in national GDP. That's about the same size as the 2009 recession. Thats a real hole. Weir issued a profits warning on the back of reduced NS activity and the rest of the oil dependent sector will follow.

    Taxes follow revenues so there's a hole.

    Your argument on economic activity in Scotland beingbtaxed at Scottish rates also doesn't hold true, since if we assume Scotland stays inside the EU the tax is a tad arbitrary as HMG is finding with Luxembourg.

    So the revenues have dropped how do the bills get paid ?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    scotslass said:

    Alanbrake

    Sure and Lord Ashcroft is inventing the consituency polls showing the SNP surge in Scotland and have you heard the one about the Moon landings being a fake?

    Scotsass

    I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up.
    Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Since 1990, what mistakes have the SNP made.

    Have you ever seen "Two Futures" Referendum Broadcast? Compare to "The Woman Who Made Up Her Mind".

    You might not like the SNP. You clearly hate their goal and their message. But if you think they are incompetent or think they will "screw up" you aren't in touch with reality.

    That's half the reason they're doing so well.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Smarmeron said:

    @Alanbrooke
    I could mutter it under my breath if that helps?

    That would be no fun
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "Given your MP is Lorely Burt, did you vote for her ?"

    Yes. I am part of her 175 majority, as is my neighbour, who will be abandoning her at GE 2015. I voted for her in the profoundly mistaken belief that the Lib Dems would use the hung parliament to achieve PR, not set voting reform back a generation by holding a referendum on AV.

    There is zero possibility of me voting for her at GE 2015 (nothing personal) and I bet a good few months ago on a Tory gain at Solihull. It isn't a complete disaster for Lorely though, I won't actually vote Tory :-)

    You could always stand as Solihull's first SNP MP :-)
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Dair said:

    scotslass said:

    Alanbrake

    Sure and Lord Ashcroft is inventing the consituency polls showing the SNP surge in Scotland and have you heard the one about the Moon landings being a fake?

    Scotsass

    I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up.
    Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Since 1990, what mistakes have the SNP made.

    Have you ever seen "Two Futures" Referendum Broadcast? Compare to "The Woman Who Made Up Her Mind".

    You might not like the SNP. You clearly hate their goal and their message. But if you think they are incompetent or think they will "screw up" you aren't in touch with reality.

    That's half the reason they're doing so well.
    The referendum; they lost; and left a split country behind them.

    As for incompetence, yes I think they are, they hadn't a plan for how to run Scotland post Indy, except to tell Scots it;s an Austere independence so suck it up. Their strategy was all done of the hoof with little thought for the consequences, except pay rises all round for the MSPs please.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited March 2015
    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Money will kill independece, you can't explain how you'll pay your bills.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    Scotland will have no fiscal surplus, you're heading for a recession if the oil price doesn;t pick up.

    Chuck in a declining financial sector if you can't piggy back off a larger currency area and where does the money come from ?

    I guess you didn't even read what I said.

    The current UK figures, in GERS which the Scottish Government is required to base its budget and figures on, does not account for the VAT and Corporation Tax bias to London due to the Head Office effect. As such. every penny that Diageo makes from Scotch is booked in Hertfordshire. Every penny Tesco records in VAT and Corporation Tax is booked as "London Revenue".

    The mere implications of a tax boarder would significantly boost Scottish Tax Revenue (and all other parts of the UK outside London and the South East)
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    Alanbrooke

    "You could always stand as Solihull's first SNP MP :-) "

    If sanctioned by the SNP I would happily stand-I would even pay for my lost deposit :-)
    Still,I believe I would poll a higher percentage of votes than you would if you stood as DUP/UUP.

    However, I expect I will settle for voting for the SNP's allies in the Green Party, which are the main opposition party on Solihull council to the Tories these days (though most of their seats are in the Meriden constituency rather than Solihull Westminster constituency).
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Sounds like dog flute politics to me.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "You could always stand as Solihull's first SNP MP :-) "

    If sanctioned by the SNP I would happily stand-I would even pay for my lost deposit :-)
    Still,I believe I would poll a higher percentage of votes than you would if you stood as DUP/UUP.

    However, I expect I will settle for voting for the SNP's allies in the Green Party, which are the main opposition party on Solihull council to the Tories these days (though most of their seats are in the Meriden constituency rather than Solihull Westminster constituency).

    It's extremely unlikely I'd stand as as DUP candidate they're too SNP for me, the greens have no chance possibly related to the traveller situation in Meriden.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    Scotland will have no fiscal surplus, you're heading for a recession if the oil price doesn;t pick up.

    Chuck in a declining financial sector if you can't piggy back off a larger currency area and where does the money come from ?

    In 34 out of the last 35 years by GERS (which do not properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax), Scotland would have been in Fiscal Surplus. Not "better Fiscally than the UK" which has pretty much run a deficit every year but an actual fiscal surplus.

    When you properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax which biases to London, the Scottish subsidy to England has been not £250bn but over £400bn.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Dair said:

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    Scotland will have no fiscal surplus, you're heading for a recession if the oil price doesn;t pick up.

    Chuck in a declining financial sector if you can't piggy back off a larger currency area and where does the money come from ?

    I guess you didn't even read what I said.

    The current UK figures, in GERS which the Scottish Government is required to base its budget and figures on, does not account for the VAT and Corporation Tax bias to London due to the Head Office effect. As such. every penny that Diageo makes from Scotch is booked in Hertfordshire. Every penny Tesco records in VAT and Corporation Tax is booked as "London Revenue".

    The mere implications of a tax boarder would significantly boost Scottish Tax Revenue (and all other parts of the UK outside London and the South East)
    yes, you've merely reinforced that you don't understand how tax works. I pay my taxes in Cumbernauld, do you think I'll still do so post Indy ?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Dair said:

    @ Dair

    At long last an actual answer.

    So where do the revenues come from and how do you borrow ?

    The oil revenues have just taken a 40% hit. So that means that the economy which 20% oil is faced with a potential contraction of 8*% if this price level holds.

    The borrowing will be expensive if oil stays down as the only real option open to you is a Scottish pound and it is now a petrocurrency.

    So how do you pay the bills ?

    PS I've generally found that people find the question "how will I pay my bills ?" anything but risible.

    Taxes are not the Economy.

    How stupid is your argument? Oil and Gas is around 14% of the Scottish Economy because that includes the production, wages, exports and tax. It is around 8% of the tax base. The current slump in price would be about about 2.8% contraction.

    Of course the Scottish Economy is already about 10% to 15% larger per capita than the UK economy once the VAT and Corporation Tax currently booked in London is differentiated by a tax border.

    Oops, you keep forgetting that. Tesco alone would provide about 50% of the Oil and Gas taxes to Scotland, instead of being classed as London revenue. Whisky would remove about £3bn from the exchequer and replace it with £700mn to Scotland.

    But hey, keep believing England is solvent. It might help you sleep at night. The day of Scottish Independence, you won't sleep so easy. But Scotland will sleep far easier and far richer.
    Good luck with your day dreams. Only talking about the 'current' price slump shows you really do know nothing about economics.
    The oil price is clearly volatile but its not showing much signs of currently bouncing back. Given the emergence of shale, it never will.
    Tax is needed by governments if they want to spend. Dismissing it as you do again shows you know nothing.
    The Scottish petrochemical, financial services and whisky companies are foreign owned. Although the products are made in Scotland, the money doesn't necessarily stay in Scotland

    If ''Scottish Oil'' is so insignificant to Scotland it must be even more insignificant to rUK which is many times bigger. So how does an independent Scotland make us so much poorer as you suggest. But the SNP always say its propping up the UK - oh OK 'England'
    The great imponderable for any putative Scottish economy is which currency do we value it in? That really tells us all we need to know about its size. This is why the argument you want to keep going has already been defeated. The referendum was lost and lost when the oil price was $110 a barrel and when Tescos share price looked a good bet.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Dair

    'As such. every penny that Diageo makes from Scotch is booked in Hertfordshire. Every penny Tesco records in VAT and Corporation Tax is booked as "London Revenue".

    You've got them mixed up again,Tesco's head office is in Cheshunt in Hertfordshire and Hertfordshire is not London.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Dair said:

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    Scotland will have no fiscal surplus, you're heading for a recession if the oil price doesn;t pick up.

    Chuck in a declining financial sector if you can't piggy back off a larger currency area and where does the money come from ?

    In 34 out of the last 35 years by GERS (which do not properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax), Scotland would have been in Fiscal Surplus. Not "better Fiscally than the UK" which has pretty much run a deficit every year but an actual fiscal surplus.

    When you properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax which biases to London, the Scottish subsidy to England has been not £250bn but over £400bn.
    That's an interesting historical footnote but we're looking forward not back and the oil price has just dropped 40%. Yor GDP has just fallen by great recession levels, what cuts will you be making ?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    @ Dair

    At long last an actual answer.

    So where do the revenues come from and how do you borrow ?

    The oil revenues have just taken a 40% hit. So that means that the economy which 20% oil is faced with a potential contraction of 8*% if this price level holds.

    The borrowing will be expensive if oil stays down as the only real option open to you is a Scottish pound and it is now a petrocurrency.

    So how do you pay the bills ?

    PS I've generally found that people find the question "how will I pay my bills ?" anything but risible.

    Taxes are not the Economy.

    How stupid is your argument? Oil and Gas is around 14% of the Scottish Economy because that includes the production, wages, exports and tax. It is around 8% of the tax base. The current slump in price would be about about 2.8% contraction.

    Of course the Scottish Economy is already about 10% to 15% larger per capita than the UK economy once the VAT and Corporation Tax currently booked in London is differentiated by a tax border.

    Oops, you keep forgetting that. Tesco alone would provide about 50% of the Oil and Gas taxes to Scotland, instead of being classed as London revenue. Whisky would remove about £3bn from the exchequer and replace it with £700mn to Scotland.

    But hey, keep believing England is solvent. It might help you sleep at night. The day of Scottish Independence, you won't sleep so easy. But Scotland will sleep far easier and far richer.
    You clearly don't understand your own economy. If I go with your oil is 14% of Scorttish GDP then a 40% drop in revencues is a 5.6% hole in national GDP. That's about the same size as the 2009 recession. Thats a real hole. Weir issued a profits warning on the back of reduced NS activity and the rest of the oil dependent sector will follow.

    Taxes follow revenues so there's a hole.

    Your argument on economic activity in Scotland beingbtaxed at Scottish rates also doesn't hold true, since if we assume Scotland stays inside the EU the tax is a tad arbitrary as HMG is finding with Luxembourg.

    So the revenues have dropped how do the bills get paid ?
    Again a complete lack of understanding of economics.

    If the price of a thing drops by 40% that does not lose the economy 40% of whatever portion that thing makes up. The Wages stay the same, the investment stays the same, the bills pretty much stay the same. The best way to value it is on the tax take which as I correctly stated is 8% of the Scottish Economy.

    Tesco can't record its VAT in Luxembourg. Diageo can't record its Excise Duty or VAT in Luxembourg. They pay it in London and Hertfordshire. Booking Scottish GVA as London taxes. It's not going to change till we have Independence or an internal tax border (the latter Westminster will never allow - because it will embarrass London).
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    You really do talk endless rubbish.
    ''a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster.'' Scotland has a voice - it elects MPs. If it chooses to elect MPs who have no more chance of forming a government than the Yorkshire Liberation Front then thats the fault of the voters. 2 of the Last 3 PMs were born in Scotland. In my lifetime 2 consecutive Tory PMs were Scottish. The first Labour PM was Scottish.
    If Scotland want to vote for a regional party rather than the main national parties then it is not likely to form a westminster govt.
    The boot is of course on the other foot. Scotland with a mass of devolved powers regularly uses its Westminster MPs to vote on English only Laws which its Westminster MPs cannot vote on for their own constituents.

    Your flights of fancy would be funny if they were not so pathetic.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    scotslass said:

    Alanbrake

    Sure and Lord Ashcroft is inventing the consituency polls showing the SNP surge in Scotland and have you heard the one about the Moon landings being a fake?

    Scotsass

    I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up.
    Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Since 1990, what mistakes have the SNP made.

    Have you ever seen "Two Futures" Referendum Broadcast? Compare to "The Woman Who Made Up Her Mind".

    You might not like the SNP. You clearly hate their goal and their message. But if you think they are incompetent or think they will "screw up" you aren't in touch with reality.

    That's half the reason they're doing so well.
    The referendum; they lost; and left a split country behind them.

    As for incompetence, yes I think they are, they hadn't a plan for how to run Scotland post Indy, except to tell Scots it;s an Austere independence so suck it up. Their strategy was all done of the hoof with little thought for the consequences, except pay rises all round for the MSPs please.
    So growing the support from Independence from 25% before the Referendum to 45% on the day was a "loss".

    Haha, Loyalists are the best force the SNP have. No wonder Independence will be chosen in 2017.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
    Not according to the dictionary.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited March 2015
    @Dair

    Probably one of the more stupid posts I've seen on PB for a while.

    If the revenues drop it's a recession.

    The wages don't stay the same since people either take a pay cut or companies employ less people, investment stops as payback assumptions no longer hold up and bills don't stay the same they either get cut since people and companies cut back spending or don't get paid as they've got bust.

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    SLAB are probably circling their wagons around Paisley South and Dunfermiline and then concentrating on Glasgow and Edinburgh.A good result would a loss less than 20,damage limitation.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
    Not according to the dictionary.
    You know exactly what it means. Are you that stupid? Is that the kind of thinking you are wanting to stir up?

    It actually puts a shudder down my spine hearing you use that. Is it common for the Scottish Nationalists to use language like that?

    'Loyalist' has connotations and you know it. Sectarianism blighted northern ireland for more than a generation. Is it something you want to encourage in Scotland?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    scotslass said:

    Alanbrake

    Sure and Lord Ashcroft is inventing the consituency polls showing the SNP surge in Scotland and have you heard the one about the Moon landings being a fake?

    Scotsass

    I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up.
    Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Since 1990, what mistakes have the SNP made.

    Have you ever seen "Two Futures" Referendum Broadcast? Compare to "The Woman Who Made Up Her Mind".

    You might not like the SNP. You clearly hate their goal and their message. But if you think they are incompetent or think they will "screw up" you aren't in touch with reality.

    That's half the reason they're doing so well.
    The referendum; they lost; and left a split country behind them.

    As for incompetence, yes I think they are, they hadn't a plan for how to run Scotland post Indy, except to tell Scots it;s an Austere independence so suck it up. Their strategy was all done of the hoof with little thought for the consequences, except pay rises all round for the MSPs please.
    So growing the support from Independence from 25% before the Referendum to 45% on the day was a "loss".

    Haha, Loyalists are the best force the SNP have. No wonder Independence will be chosen in 2017.

    You use the term again. Ugly, ugly ugly.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
    Not according to the dictionary.
    You know exactly what it means. Are you that stupid? Is that the kind of thinking you are wanting to stir up?

    It actually puts a shudder down my spine hearing you use that. Is it common for the Scottish Nationalists to use language like that?

    'Loyalist' has connotations and you know it. Sectarianism blighted northern ireland for more than a generation. Is it something you want to encourage in Scotland?
    Most of the NI sectarianism came from Scots....

    just saying :-)

    and good night.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108


    Good luck with your day dreams. Only talking about the 'current' price slump shows you really do know nothing about economics.
    The oil price is clearly volatile but its not showing much signs of currently bouncing back. Given the emergence of shale, it never will.
    Tax is needed by governments if they want to spend. Dismissing it as you do again shows you know nothing.
    The Scottish petrochemical, financial services and whisky companies are foreign owned. Although the products are made in Scotland, the money doesn't necessarily stay in Scotland

    I didn't only talk about the current price (which has risen 20%+ since the Loyalist brigade started their rants (14 months before Independence day). Of course Oil has a volatile price. It also ALWAYS goes upwards over the long term.

    The only reason why Scotland's industry is foreign owned is due to a UK Government which has no consideration of Scotland. Diageo was SUPPOSED to be based in Scotland. It was a condition of the merger between Guinness and Allied that they base their headquarters in Scotland. But government backtracked.

    A Scottish government would never have allowed a key strategic industry to be owned overseas. BLiar let EVERYTHING British move overseas, Cadbury is currently being destroyed by Mondelez, like most I no longer buy Creme Eggs because a the non-Dairy Milk casing is horrible. Remember when the UK used to be the head office of a company called ICI?

    Labour destroyed the future of Britain for backhanders.

    If ''Scottish Oil'' is so insignificant to Scotland it must be even more insignificant to rUK which is many times bigger. So how does an independent Scotland make us so much poorer as you suggest. But the SNP always say its propping up the UK - oh OK 'England'
    The great imponderable for any putative Scottish economy is which currency do we value it in? That really tells us all we need to know about its size. This is why the argument you want to keep going has already been defeated. The referendum was lost and lost when the oil price was $110 a barrel and when Tescos share price looked a good bet.

    Oil is important to Scotland. That's why for the last 30 years it should have been invested in a Pension Fund of Scotland. Much like Norway did. Now Norway's Statens pensjonsfond Utland owns 2% of the world. Scotland could own 2% of the world. It doesn't because the money was taken from Scotland and spent on London.

    London owes Scotland money.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster. As said, we are not in Castille (using the term "Spain" is nonsense). Trying the Castille model wouldn't work and would lead to UDI. But England wouldn't risk that as it would put them back in the situation of Irish bombers taking the fight to the heart of England.

    Scotland would have a fiscal surplus in the most likely scenarios. In the event it didn't, it would be an export heavy economy with vast natural resources and open to borrowing at the lowest possible rates.

    Again the Little Englander comes out, making risible comments about Scotland's ability to manage her own affairs.
    Scotland will have no fiscal surplus, you're heading for a recession if the oil price doesn;t pick up.

    Chuck in a declining financial sector if you can't piggy back off a larger currency area and where does the money come from ?

    In 34 out of the last 35 years by GERS (which do not properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax), Scotland would have been in Fiscal Surplus. Not "better Fiscally than the UK" which has pretty much run a deficit every year but an actual fiscal surplus.

    When you properly account for VAT and Corporation Tax which biases to London, the Scottish subsidy to England has been not £250bn but over £400bn.
    That's an interesting historical footnote but we're looking forward not back and the oil price has just dropped 40%. Yor GDP has just fallen by great recession levels, what cuts will you be making ?
    That included Oil at $9 a barrell. It's currently %60.

    The only reason Scotland had a "fiscal deficit" last year was because the UK government made very attractive offers where Oil Companies could book future investment in the current year, to significantly reduce Scotland's Oil Income during the Referendum year.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
    Not according to the dictionary.
    You know exactly what it means. Are you that stupid? Is that the kind of thinking you are wanting to stir up?

    It actually puts a shudder down my spine hearing you use that. Is it common for the Scottish Nationalists to use language like that?

    'Loyalist' has connotations and you know it. Sectarianism blighted northern ireland for more than a generation. Is it something you want to encourage in Scotland?
    I'm not a member of the SNP. I'm not a "nationalist".

    If Loyalists can call me a "separatist" which is a nonsense as Scotland is already a separate country, then I can call them Loyalists which the dictionary correctly defines as : -

    "loyalist noun 1 a loyal supporter, especially of a sovereign or an established government."

    That seems quite self-evident to me.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    JPJ2 said:

    Alanbrooke

    "I have no problem with the polls saying the Nats will gains seats, it's just when they get them they'll screw up."

    Seem to remember the SNP victory for Holyrood in 2007 was going to show the SNP up and they would then go rapidly backwards-quite the reverse has happened.

    If the SNP achieve the balance of power at Westminster they will prove to be much more politically astute than the Lib Dem dopes.

    Then Scottish Parliement will kill the SNP stone dead.

    The SNP will be shown up by being a minority government.

    The SNP will fade away after a majority at Holyrood.

    A Referendum Defeat will kill the SNP dead in their tracks.

    Yeah, it's a pattern. A very certain pattern. The Loyalists expect the SNP to fade away and every time they get stronger. And surer. And threaten the Loyalist troughers more and more. No more Expenses for Jim Murphy.
    Outside the very ugly sectarianism of northern ireland, the term 'loyalist' means very little. Are you using this language to be deliberately inflammatory?
    Not according to the dictionary.
    You know exactly what it means. Are you that stupid? Is that the kind of thinking you are wanting to stir up?

    It actually puts a shudder down my spine hearing you use that. Is it common for the Scottish Nationalists to use language like that?

    'Loyalist' has connotations and you know it. Sectarianism blighted northern ireland for more than a generation. Is it something you want to encourage in Scotland?
    Most of the NI sectarianism came from Scots....

    just saying :-)

    and good night.
    And now it is you clinging on to "queen and country".
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    SLAB are probably circling their wagons around Paisley South and Dunfermiline and then concentrating on Glasgow and Edinburgh.A good result would a loss less than 20,damage limitation.

    I think Mr Murphy will circle the wagons around Mr Murphy. They have little other chance. He might offer some support to Mr Bain (such a joke, he needs to avoid being seen) but Labour are finished. So Mr Murphy will do as Mr Murphy needs.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited March 2015
    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JttnYYcIVfA
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    I might be going out on a limb, but the "cones hotline" actually got the basic direction of travel for public services and access to information right. From a political point of view, traffic cones were a terrible way of making that point. But I don't think it deserves the ridicule that's been heaped on it.

    As for the "statutory right to TV debates"... good grief. Could the leader of the opposition be imprisoned if he refused to go on telly? Could the PM? Or do they just have to pay a fine, in which case they're not really obliged at all. It all seems rather silly really. Certainly hasn't made me more prepared to vote Team Ed. Rather the contrary actually...firstly, if his knee-jerk reaction to every challenge he faces is to change the law, then he has the potential to be quite a dangerous Prime Minister, or even in the best case, a meddlesome one. Secondly, if he really believes that the British populace care so avidly about TV political debates that they need to be enshrined permanently in our constitution, then he's more drastically out of touch with the everyday public than even all those wonkish stereotypes made us believe. It's positively barmy.

    David Allan Green is no friend of the Tories:

    Jack of Kent ‏@JackofKent

    This is not a party political point, but on basis of this 'statutory right' to political debates on TV, please don't let Ed near law-making.

    @JackofKent it's the Cones Hotline but without the excuse of being exhausted by years in government.

    @GeneralBoles
    What are you in for?
    Murder, what about you?
    I didn't turn up to debate Ed Miliband.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    notme said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
    I made a post about an unpleasant guy, you thought it was an unpleasant post but it was really just about an unpleasant guy.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
    I made a post about an unpleasant guy, you thought it was an unpleasant post but it was really just about an unpleasant guy.
    No, it was unpleasant, as you admitted yourself.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
    I made a post about an unpleasant guy, you thought it was an unpleasant post but it was really just about an unpleasant guy.
    No, it was unpleasant, as you admitted yourself.
    Nope you said it was an unpleasant post.

    What do you find pleasant about Mr Hamilton's mysogyny?
  • coolagornacoolagorna Posts: 127
    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
    I made a post about an unpleasant guy, you thought it was an unpleasant post but it was really just about an unpleasant guy.
    No, it was unpleasant, as you admitted yourself.
    Nope you said it was an unpleasant post.

    What do you find pleasant about Mr Hamilton's mysogyny?
    Are we really doing this? You said "Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.".

    I just don't think personal insults have a place in politics. Yes, critisise someone for doing it, but that doesn't justify doing it yourself.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
  • coolagornacoolagorna Posts: 127
    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster.
    A LAB or CON Majority, or one they could get with an agreement with another party would "lock" them out of a voice in Westminster. If LAB win most of the south of England would be "locked" out of a voice in Westminster, such is politics.

  • coolagornacoolagorna Posts: 127

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    notme said:

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    Dair said:

    This is David Hamilton (no not the paedo as far as we know, the Labour MP for - hell IDK and no-one else probably knows) using his Adonis looks to insult Nicola Sturgeon.

    Hmm, that's a pretty unpleasant post.
    Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.
    He was an unpleasant guy, you made an unpleasant post.
    I made a post about an unpleasant guy, you thought it was an unpleasant post but it was really just about an unpleasant guy.
    No, it was unpleasant, as you admitted yourself.
    Nope you said it was an unpleasant post.

    What do you find pleasant about Mr Hamilton's mysogyny?
    Are we really doing this? You said "Unpleasant guy, unpleasant post.".

    I just don't think personal insults have a place in politics. Yes, critisise someone for doing it, but that doesn't justify doing it yourself.
    What is not there to criticise about someone like David Hamilton? Honestly, the "man" is a pathetic specimen of humanity, the archetype of the "monkey in a red rosette". And the linked video just showed how pathetic he is.

    As I said, Unpleasant man, unpleasant post.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Yeah I wonder if Lynton Crosby hasn't really understood this. Cameron has an invite. That's all Ofcom requires. Are things different in Australia?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    Ed has gone on the record as being by far the least generous of all the leaders when talking about devolving powers to Scotland.

    Also they are fishing in the same pool (left leaning voters) which makes them at the very least competitors.

    If is often said that most political friendships are across the isle, because you are not competing with them for jobs.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    Ed has gone on the record as being by far the least generous of all the leaders when talking about devolving powers to Scotland.

    Also they are fishing in the same pool (left leaning voters) which makes them at the very least competitors.
    I know it won't happen, but I hope the Tory manifesto contains a promise to set up a royal commission to essentially federalise the UK. Giving equal powers to the four constituent countries, and only reserve matters at Westminster.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Indigo said:

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster.
    A LAB or CON Majority, or one they could get with an agreement with another party would "lock" them out of a voice in Westminster. If LAB win most of the south of England would be "locked" out of a voice in Westminster, such is politics.

    Not sure how clear this can be.

    If the only government (other than a Grand Coalition) is X+SNP, yet Labour and Tories decide to form a Grand Coalition, that is grounds for UDI. Subject to subsequent referendum but UDI BEFORE the Referendum.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    No, it's anti-"posh boys without a clue". The man has never had a job, he wants to run the country despite never having worked for a living. That's not popular up here, no matter how acceptable England finds it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    Ed was even less prominent in INDYREF than Cameron - he had plenty of experienced Scottish MPs like Darling and Brown, unlike Cameron - so I don't think it relates to that. In any case, the Scots just have a more extreme view of Miliband as the English - so it's him, personally. He has (substantially) poorer ratings then the undeniably posh, Eton educated, English Tory. In Scotland.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    Ed has gone on the record as being by far the least generous of all the leaders when talking about devolving powers to Scotland.

    Also they are fishing in the same pool (left leaning voters) which makes them at the very least competitors.

    If is often said that most political friendships are across the isle, because you are not competing with them for jobs.
    Seriously, no-one in Scotland thinks the SNP is a left leaning party. The Left support the SNP because they believe that a new system will open up the opportunity for the Left.

    But seriously a low tax, pro-business party like the SNP is not Left.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Dair said:

    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    Ed has gone on the record as being by far the least generous of all the leaders when talking about devolving powers to Scotland.

    Also they are fishing in the same pool (left leaning voters) which makes them at the very least competitors.

    If is often said that most political friendships are across the isle, because you are not competing with them for jobs.
    But seriously a low tax, pro-business party like the SNP is not Left.
    Is that not changing under Sturgeon?

    I think her Central Belt SNP will be a different animal to Salmond's North East one.

    Exhibit 1 - scrapping the lower corporation tax plan.
  • coolagornacoolagorna Posts: 127
    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    No, it's anti-"posh boys without a clue". The man has never had a job, he wants to run the country despite never having worked for a living. That's not popular up here, no matter how acceptable England finds it.
    Teaching is not a job then?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    edited March 2015

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    No, it's anti-"posh boys without a clue". The man has never had a job, he wants to run the country despite never having worked for a living. That's not popular up here, no matter how acceptable England finds it.
    Teaching is not a job then?
    What's that old saying, "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach". ;)

    apologies to any teachers, of course!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    I've heard the argument that it doesn't make sense to vote for a unionist party after having voted Yes in the referendum. Maybe that'll change over time, but not so soon after the referendum.
    If is often said that most political friendships are across the isle, because you are not competing with them for jobs.
    In the House of Commons your opponents are opposite you, your enemies behind you...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Dair said:

    RobD said:

    The Indie headline about Cameron getting his own TV show
    really is laughable

    First of all.it continues underneath (rather less dramatically) The broadcasters
    MAY have to give him his own tv show to avoid breaching impartiality
    rules

    Rather overlooking that if this fantasy story were to be attempted that would
    itself be a breach of impartiality rules

    Just 59 days left from Monday of Tory led rule..still absolutely no sign of any
    real progress by the Coalition in the polls..time is running out

    The OFCOM guidelines state that each party has to be given the opportunity to take part. If that invitation is not accepted, then the broadcasters don't have to make up for it in another program.
    Correct..If Cameron refuses to take part.he will have
    voluntarily agreed to having less broadcast time than other
    parties who have accepted..no breach whatsoever

    The Indie headline is totally nonsensical but it keeps the story
    rumbling on which can only be good for Labour



    More Ed on TV is "good for Labour"?

    Why did Ed not get the ringing applause of the others at #ScotLab15?
    I do find it strange that the Scots have taken against Ed Miliband

    I can understand the surge in support for the Nats and the hatred
    of Tories, Lib Dems and the scots Labour mafia types..but Miliband
    is actually trying to move the party leftwards unlike Brown

    They will probably say because of the Referendum and Ed joining
    with the others to save the Union but so did George Galloway
    and no one (bar a few loonies) call him a "Red Tory"

    Is it just anti English racism? Hopefully not

    No, it's anti-"posh boys without a clue". The man has never had a job, he wants to run the country despite never having worked for a living. That's not popular up here, no matter how acceptable England finds it.
    Teaching is not a job then?
    Did he train as a teacher?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Dair said:

    Indigo said:

    Dair said:


    Good luck with getting anyone to lend to Scotland after the UDI you were talking about earlier.

    Again the Loyalist argument is based on misdirection and lies. There are few scenarios that would require UDI but one of them would be, as I said earlier, a Left/Right alliance to lock Scotland out of a voice at Westminster.
    A LAB or CON Majority, or one they could get with an agreement with another party would "lock" them out of a voice in Westminster. If LAB win most of the south of England would be "locked" out of a voice in Westminster, such is politics.

    Not sure how clear this can be.

    If the only government (other than a Grand Coalition) is X+SNP, yet Labour and Tories decide to form a Grand Coalition, that is grounds for UDI. Subject to subsequent referendum but UDI BEFORE the Referendum.
    Sounds like a plan, don't let the door hit you on the way out :D
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Dair said:


    But seriously a low tax, pro-business party like the SNP is not Left.

    Low tax ?

    http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31700448
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    Dair said:

    No, it's anti-"posh boys without a clue". The man has never had a job, he wants to run the country despite never having worked for a living. That's not popular up here, no matter how acceptable England finds it.

    Teaching is not a job then?
    Did he train as a teacher?
    No. He "taught" economics and social justice at Harvard on an unpaid sabbatical as a visiting scholar. So basically more being a wonk.
    On 25 July 2002, it was announced that Miliband would take a 12-month unpaid sabbatical from the Treasury to be a visiting scholar at the Centre for European Studies of Harvard University for two semesters.[22] He spent his time at Harvard teaching economics,[23] and stayed there after September 2003 for an additional semester teaching a course titled "What's Left? The Politics of Social Justice".
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11384138/Ed-Miliband-Lecturing-at-Harvard-and-advising-the-Treasury-shows-I-have-life-experience.html
    Mr Miliband pointed to his time advising Gordon Brown on the economy and lecturing at Harvard's Centre for European Studies as proof of his connection with voters.
    It's the way he tells it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    The first Tory billboard advert has turned up in Broxtowe on a commuter road (we had 3-4 in previous elections so there should be more). Odd design with no colour that I noticed - nice clear message that "The economy is recovering", a small splodge on the right that, if you've time to stop and study it, turns out to be a wrecking ball with a smaller print "Don't let Labour wreck it", and "Vote Conservative" in tiny print like a terms and conditions bit in a car sales advert.

    Dair: I think your posts are often interesting, but, um, are you going for the "most posts on a single thread" championship?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Any sign of TNS? At all? :(
This discussion has been closed.