This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
Ed Miliband would give his right bollock to become the next Ramsey MacDonald.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
I was going to argue that looking silly in the occasional photo did not seem to be correlated with electoral success, but then the only embarrassing photo I could find that even approached the awfulness of those Miliband photos was this one of Al Gore, which, um, would make the opposite point (I was actually searching for silly photos involving Merkel when that one came up).
Perhaps someone else would be able to find silly photos of successful leading politicians?
They really need to be photos of politicians BEFORE the voters gave them their votes. It is easy enough to look a prat once you have the keys to the White House....
If you had a camera pointed at you everytime you were out of your own house there would be plenty of photos that could be published of you with a weird look on your face. Not all voluntary, see microexpressions https://travismagazine.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/microexpressions-unmasking-the-face/ The point is that some get published some don't, possibly correlated with the News organisation's political standpoint.
I am surprised people on here are not making more of an issue of the SNP saying they will block every bill from a Tory government. That effectively means that a Conservative minority government will only happen if Labour decide to allow it. In my humble view, this reduces the chance of David Cameron staying on as PM substantially. Assuming a hung parliment, power will now entirely be in Labour's hands. Given an SNP-Labour coalition has been ruled out, they will need to decide between:
1) Forming their own minority government 2) Allowing a Conservative minority government 3) Forming a grand coalition
Option 1 would require the consent of the SNP and would mean the SNP would have them over a barrel to negotiate terms. Option 2 would be deeply opposed by Ed Miliband as he is very left-wing and would be very opposed to a more right-wing government than the coalition. They'd get constant flack from allowing it to happen from their base when they could have "just done a deal with the SNP". Option 3 would likely mean the Tories being very conciliatory, as they know the only other option is the SNP trying to destroy the union from government.
So it ultimately means a very tough deal from the SNP (and a tiny government majority) or a very good deal from the Tories (and a huge government majority). I think Option 3 is far more likely than people give it credit for. It would also mean Alex Salmond as Leader of the Opposition.
@TheScreamingEagles So, you are saying "Gordo" struck a brilliant deal for the general public, in the same way the DTI struck one with Lloyds? Strange? I thought you blue boys reckoned he was an idiot?
Make your mind up?
Lolz. It was a terrible deal as were all the bank bailouts.
George got the best deal possible spinning of TSB when the Co-op deal fell through
"The man who lost the referendum on Scottish independence is swanning around like he owns the Union"
"I cannot account for whatever is going on inside that great big head of a gifted man who used to have a greater grasp of reality. Perhaps it is denial, or addiction to attention, or excitement about his return to the Commons (a place he loves). Whatever it is, he is behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon is still his deputy and he didn't resign."
On topic, it seems tolerably clear that the two main parties are tied right now. If you can't draw that conclusion after four ties in a row, when can you?
That's pretty committal, Franky.
Will you be announcing later whether you think water might be wet?
Interesting. The combined scores for the over 40's voters (40-59 added to 60+) are 74 to the Tories, 63 to Labour. That looks to me like Labour are stuffed in the age groups that predominantly vote....
I am surprised people on here are not making more of an issue of the SNP saying they will block every bill from a Tory government. That effectively means that a Conservative minority government will only happen if Labour decide to allow it. In my humble view, this reduces the chance of David Cameron staying on as PM substantially. Assuming a hung parliment, power will now entirely be in Labour's hands. Given an SNP-Labour coalition has been ruled out, they will need to decide between:
1) Forming their own minority government 2) Allowing a Conservative minority government 3) Forming a grand coalition
Option 1 would require the consent of the SNP and would mean the SNP would have them over a barrel to negotiate terms. Option 2 would be deeply opposed by Ed Miliband as he is very left-wing and would be very opposed to a more right-wing government than the coalition. They'd get constant flack from allowing it to happen from their base when they could have "just done a deal with the SNP". Option 3 would likely mean the Tories being very conciliatory, as they know the only other option is the SNP trying to destroy the union from government.
So it ultimately means a very tough deal from the SNP (and a tiny government majority) or a very good deal from the Tories (and a huge government majority). I think Option 3 is far more likely than people give it credit for. It would also mean Alex Salmond as Leader of the Opposition.
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
Ed Miliband would give his right bollock to become the next Ramsey MacDonald.
Would it be bad form to suggest Nigel Farage already has?
I note some speculation down thread that this will be the last Dave/Ed show at PMQ's
I think not. Whilst Ed will resign as Labour leader shortly after his May 7th defeat he will remain as LotO until UNITE decide on the next leader.
Meanwhile ....
I've been chatting at some length this morning with a trusted and previously most reliable source and that intel together with a few other confidential juicy snippets will move one of the "JackW Dozen" firmly when the new projection is published exclusively on PB at 9:00am on Saturday morning.
Teasingly placing PBers on high alert and gripping tenterhooks I know but it's the price you have to pay for having my mighty ARSE in the forefront of political discourse in OGH's mighty organ.
On topic, it seems tolerably clear that the two main parties are tied right now. If you can't draw that conclusion after four ties in a row, when can you?
That's pretty committal, Franky.
Will you be announcing later whether you think water might be wet?
You know me, no sitting on the fence here.
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
I am surprised people on here are not making more of an issue of the SNP saying they will block every bill from a Tory government. That effectively means that a Conservative minority government will only happen if Labour decide to allow it. In my humble view, this reduces the chance of David Cameron staying on as PM substantially. Assuming a hung parliment, power will now entirely be in Labour's hands. Given an SNP-Labour coalition has been ruled out, they will need to decide between:
1) Forming their own minority government 2) Allowing a Conservative minority government 3) Forming a grand coalition
Option 1 would require the consent of the SNP and would mean the SNP would have them over a barrel to negotiate terms. Option 2 would be deeply opposed by Ed Miliband as he is very left-wing and would be very opposed to a more right-wing government than the coalition. They'd get constant flack from allowing it to happen from their base when they could have "just done a deal with the SNP". Option 3 would likely mean the Tories being very conciliatory, as they know the only other option is the SNP trying to destroy the union from government.
So it ultimately means a very tough deal from the SNP (and a tiny government majority) or a very good deal from the Tories (and a huge government majority). I think Option 3 is far more likely than people give it credit for. It would also mean Alex Salmond as Leader of the Opposition.
Option 1 would suit the Conservatives very nicely. They have no more interest in helping UKIP than Labour has in helping the SNP by forming a grand coalition.
In practice, Labour would probably need to cobble something together with the Lib Dems as well as the SNP in order to get English-only votes through.
Another day nearer, another day confirming Ed Miliband will become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
We're like passengers on that ill-fated plane yesterday, on a collision course with a mountain and nothing appears likely to change our course or save us.
And the more the Tories and Salmond remind us what is going to happen, the more likely it seems that it will!
Looking at those figures you start to wonder why anyone bothers paying newspaper pundits a wage.
I know, as I said, at work yesterday, among many several left wing colleagues, the discussion centred mostly on shredded wheat (and Ed Miliband won't be Prime Minister)
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
Ed Miliband would give his right bollock to become the next Ramsey MacDonald.
Would it be bad form to suggest Nigel Farage already has?
Depends if you think taking the piss out of cancer patients is bad form or not I suppose
@JackW As long as it isn't OGH's organ in your ARSE? There is not enough mind bleach in all of Scotland's distilleries to cope with that.
Mike holds a great affection for my ARSE and has been very close to it from the start but even his most favoured blandishments would fail to penetrate the inner workings of PB's greatest asset.
Another day nearer, another day confirming Ed Miliband will become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
We're like passengers on that ill-fated plane yesterday, on a collision course with a mountain and nothing appears likely to change our course or save us.
And the more the Tories and Salmond remind us what is going to happen, the more likely it seems that it will!
I don't think your comments in the second paragraph are appropriate at all
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
Ed Miliband would give his right bollock to become the next Ramsey MacDonald.
Would it be bad form to suggest Nigel Farage already has?
Depends if you think taking the piss out of cancer patients is bad form or not I suppose
Ordinarily, I wouldn't. But when people put their health information in the public domain to both sell their book and to run down the NHS, I get slightly less squeamish....
When did Ed tell David he can't return from exile?
Sunday Times claimed at the weekend that they had it on good authority that David M was still keen to be PM and that he had some kind of 'break' clause in his contract in New York after 3 or 5 years (I can't recall which) after which he could consider a move back to UK.
"The man who lost the referendum on Scottish independence is swanning around like he owns the Union"
"I cannot account for whatever is going on inside that great big head of a gifted man who used to have a greater grasp of reality. Perhaps it is denial, or addiction to attention, or excitement about his return to the Commons (a place he loves). Whatever it is, he is behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon is still his deputy and he didn't resign."
I am shocked, shocked that there is an article in the Telegraph where displeasure at Salmond is stated. Thanks for bringing this amazing revelation to our attention.
What next? Mirror critical of David Cameron? Daily Mail not that keen on immigrants?
I note some speculation down thread that this will be the last Dave/Ed show at PMQ's
I think not. Whilst Ed will resign as Labour leader shortly after his May 7th defeat he will remain as LotO until UNITE decide on the next leader.
Meanwhile ....
I've been chatting at some length this morning with a trusted and previously most reliable source and that intel together with a few other confidential juicy snippets will move one of the "JackW Dozen" firmly when the new projection is published exclusively on PB at 9:00am on Saturday morning.
Teasingly placing PBers on high alert and gripping tenterhooks I know but it's the price you have to pay for having my mighty ARSE in the forefront of political discourse in OGH's mighty organ.
I thought UNITE were planning to break with Labour if Ed doesn't win.
@TheScreamingEagles So where did the money come from to pay for all this "bad debt"? Did the City in an act of generosity buy the package? Who would be stupid enough to buy billions in liabilities?
The people who did buy the risk made a shed load of money from their investment. Correctly priced, even toxic waste has value.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
Technically pure water is not very wet.
I’ll take your word for it – but if you can swim in it, then it’s 'very' wet imho.
The issue is surface tension and adhesion I believe. Soap helps; or so I try to assure Fox jr.
Only pulling Mr P's leg - Pure H2O is electrically neutral so doesn’t stick or cling which is how we normally define ‘wetness’ - however, add some free charged hydroxyls and things become positively soggy.
I note some speculation down thread that this will be the last Dave/Ed show at PMQ's
I think not. Whilst Ed will resign as Labour leader shortly after his May 7th defeat he will remain as LotO until UNITE decide on the next leader.
Meanwhile ....
I've been chatting at some length this morning with a trusted and previously most reliable source and that intel together with a few other confidential juicy snippets will move one of the "JackW Dozen" firmly when the new projection is published exclusively on PB at 9:00am on Saturday morning.
Teasingly placing PBers on high alert and gripping tenterhooks I know but it's the price you have to pay for having my mighty ARSE in the forefront of political discourse in OGH's mighty organ.
I thought UNITE were planning to break with Labour if Ed doesn't win.
What .... and pass up the opportunity to elect and pull the strings of the next Labour leader. I should coco.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Well, you're wrong.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
Doesn't say much for you really
Probably not. But I would just observe that in recent years the Tory party only seems to feel comfortable with those who are "middling". John Major - middling. Hague. IDS. Howard. All middling. Heseltine, Portillo? A bit too flash, a bit too full of themselves.
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
I agree that unattractive politicians are at a disadvantage, rightly or wrongly. I've said the same as you re May. But I would be angry and disappointed at Ukip if they put out tweets/posters mocking her for her appearance, or pointing out her physical bad points... I would probably not vote for them if they did that in fact
Hilarious. UKIP of course in its deeply principled way rises above objecting to how people look.
"The man who lost the referendum on Scottish independence is swanning around like he owns the Union"
"I cannot account for whatever is going on inside that great big head of a gifted man who used to have a greater grasp of reality. Perhaps it is denial, or addiction to attention, or excitement about his return to the Commons (a place he loves). Whatever it is, he is behaving as though Nicola Sturgeon is still his deputy and he didn't resign."
I am shocked, shocked that there is an article in the Telegraph where displeasure at Salmond is stated. Thanks for bringing this amazing revelation to our attention.
What next? Mirror critical of David Cameron? Daily Mail not that keen on immigrants?
Flashy is someone who needs constant reassurance that the Pope is indeed a Catholic.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
it would be political lunacy. They have a problem with not getting the credit of being in a coalition, to abandon it just before an election is not a way to improve the situation.
Cameron is 1/2 to be prime minister after the general election, laying this is free money. There is no prospect of a Conservative majority, and even a hugely improbable Con/Lib/UKIP coalition will not command a majority. Given the way the cards are falling Miliband should be around 2/5 to be PM after the election so is currently massive value.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
it would be political lunacy.
But so was Danny's Big Yellow Box. Wiser counsel didn't stop that clusterfcuk tho....
A conservative majority government - 45 % A labour majority government - 49 % A con/LD coalition - 52 % A con/lab coalition - 54 %
Everyone is unpopular, don't vote for them.
The will/will not questions later are also pretty grim reading. Nothing will get better, regardless of who is in power. Although 40 % of Labour voters aren't even convinced they'll do anything about the economy, which is absolutely spectacular stuff.
We're going to get the politics and government we deserve sooner rather than later. (god willing).
@TheScreamingEagles "They don't refuse it. They just aren't eligible to have the dividend. "
Lower class shares for the idiots? Do they get a vote on the company board?
When it is close to dividend time shares are often sold ex dividend.
You can get future dividends.
You really should stop talking about things you have no knowledge about.
Guys, come on! This is a really dull argument about such a minor point!
All shares receive dividends. However, because it takes a couple of days to sort out the paperwork and process the payments there are two dates: the "record date" and the "payment date". They can be up to 5 business days apart (with the record date first, obviously).
If you are a "shareholder of record" on the "record date" you are eligble to receive the dividend paid on the "payment date". This is regardless of whether you still own the shares or not. Hence if you sell your shares after the "record date" but before the "payment date" they are referred to as "ex dividend" which means that the seller will retain the right to the previously declared dividend payment. The price is lower to compensate for this.
The vast majority of shares traded carry the right to receive all dividends (ie are cum dividend) and hence this term is rarely used except in specific situations (eg tender offers) where a buyer may choose to pay a higher face value but want to retain the dividend - no economic impact but can have a presentational benefit.
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
Technically pure water is not very wet.
I’ll take your word for it – but if you can swim in it, then it’s 'very' wet imho.
The issue is surface tension and adhesion I believe. Soap helps; or so I try to assure Fox jr.
Only pulling Mr P's leg - Pure H2O is electrically neutral so doesn’t stick or cling which is how we normally define ‘wetness’ - however, add some free charged hydroxyls and things become positively soggy.
In 2001 the astronaut who goes through the Star Gate finds a glass of water in the place he ends up. He drinks it and it tastes disgusting, being apparently pure H2O. He concludes that whoever laid it on was taking no chances.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
Remind us of how many times over the last 5 years you and others have said that the coalition would not last a full 5 years . The Mary Poppins of political forecasting practically wrong in every way .
@JackW As long as it isn't OGH's organ in your ARSE? There is not enough mind bleach in all of Scotland's distilleries to cope with that.
Mike holds a great affection for my ARSE and has been very close to it from the start but even his most favoured blandishments would fail to penetrate the inner workings of PB's greatest asset.
Can you please not talk about Mike failing to penetrate your ARSE before the lagershed.
From that YouGov poll, the party leaders have the following top three attributes:
David Cameron: out of touch, smug, arrogant Ed Miliband: out of his depth, weak, weird Nick Clegg: out of his depth, weak, out of touch Nigel Farage: arrogant, smug, stands up for Britain
Of the attributes offered for consideration,
David Cameron is most: out of touch, smug, doesn't listen, competent, up to the job, determined
Ed Miliband is most: principled, out of his depth, fair (joint), shares my values, weird, on my side
Nick Clegg is most: likeable, weak, fair (joint), indecisive
Nigel Farage is most: arrogant, stands up for Britain, dishonest, ruthless, down to earth
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. A Grand Coalition is Alex Salmond and the SNP's dream scenario.
The remaining Labour voters in Scotland would join the exodus from their party, that teamed up with the hated Tories. Alex Salmond could position himself as 'Leader of the Opposistion' grilling David Cameron (or another Tory replacement) whilst the Labour leader sat sheepishly by his side. And finally axing the Barnett Formula would see support for independence skyrocket.
Of course, none of this will happen, as nobody is that stupid.
A Grand Coalition is worth considering just for the look on Alex Salmond's face....
That would be his fish well and truly smoked. First agenda item at the first Grand Coalition Cabinet Meeting: axing the Barnett formula as it applies to Scotland...
That is a reasonable point of view. But the choice will be between:
unstable minority government lacking authority or genuine mandate; second election; grand coalition.
Which is the least worst?
Either of the other two options is a better bet. This is not going to be a National govt like 1932, and no Labour frontbencher wants to be Ramsey MacDonald.
Ed Miliband would give his right bollock to become the next Ramsey MacDonald.
Would it be bad form to suggest Nigel Farage already has?
Depends if you think taking the piss out of cancer patients is bad form or not I suppose
Ordinarily, I wouldn't. But when people put their health information in the public domain to both sell their book and to run down the NHS, I get slightly less squeamish....
So you judge people by their looks and take the piss out of cancer patients
I was told about this poll while down south (Liverpool) yesterday by a journalist contact. He said the sample was 6,00. In fact it was 8,000. He said that it was nip and tuck between Tory and Labour - it is a Tory lead of one! Finally he said that the SNP lead in Scotland was massive. However there is no sign of a breakdown in the tables!
Now the Times could be holding it back for a story as they are entitled to do. However this seems strange given that the regional breakdown must include a statistically valid Scottish sample. And if it doesn't then why wouldn't they just publish it as they do the tiny daily cross breaks.
On balance they must be planning to publish.Otheriwse there might be reputational risks for The Times/ Yougov.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Well, you're wrong.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
Doesn't say much for you really
Probably not. But I would just observe that in recent years the Tory party only seems to feel comfortable with those who are "middling". John Major - middling. Hague. IDS. Howard. All middling. Heseltine, Portillo? A bit too flash, a bit too full of themselves.
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
I agree that unattractive politicians are at a disadvantage, rightly or wrongly. I've said the same as you re May. But I would be angry and disappointed at Ukip if they put out tweets/posters mocking her for her appearance, or pointing out her physical bad points... I would probably not vote for them if they did that in fact
Hilarious. UKIP of course in its deeply principled way rises above objecting to how people look.
The equivalent of Tim going on about Cameron's bald patch
How must teenagers with hang ups on their appearance feel when they see the government ridiculing opponents for how they look?
But look at those pictures. Then imagine him as our Prime Minister, tasked with going to Moscow to negotiate the gas to Europe being turned back on.
Like it or not, looking the part is part of the job spec.
Sorry I disagree and I don't believe you would say the same if the roles were reversed
Well, you're wrong.
I'd probably laugh myself silly at the collected "awkward" photos of Michael Gove, if he were put forward as the next PM....
Doesn't say much for you really
Probably not. But I would just observe that in recent years the Tory party only seems to feel comfortable with those who are "middling". John Major - middling. Hague. IDS. Howard. All middling. Heseltine, Portillo? A bit too flash, a bit too full of themselves.
Cameron was a bit risky, being an attractive, fresh-faced guy. But it was either him or a bloke who was in the SAS. The SAS is so not middling....
And just to show I am equally vacuous to the left and the right, I would say that Theresa May has no chance of leadership whilst ever she has those panda eyes. The Uncle Fester tribute act is not a good look when becoming party leader. Not middling enough. She's gonna need to take a break for a few weeks - and have a bit of work done....
I agree that unattractive politicians are at a disadvantage, rightly or wrongly. I've said the same as you re May. But I would be angry and disappointed at Ukip if they put out tweets/posters mocking her for her appearance, or pointing out her physical bad points... I would probably not vote for them if they did that in fact
Hilarious. UKIP of course in its deeply principled way rises above objecting to how people look.
As it is the final PMQs today, is this the point wher Nick Clegg symbolically stands up, crosses the floor of the house and sits down in his old spot just along from Dennis Skinner?
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
Remind us of how many times over the last 5 years you and others have said that the coalition would not last a full 5 years . The Mary Poppins of political forecasting practically wrong in every way .
Me: Never forecast it. Others: Plenty. My duff forecast was Yes to win the IndyRef. I also forecast Newcastle to qualify for Europe last season, but let's just forget about that one.
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
Technically pure water is not very wet.
I’ll take your word for it – but if you can swim in it, then it’s 'very' wet imho.
The issue is surface tension and adhesion I believe. Soap helps; or so I try to assure Fox jr.
Would you have better or worse buoyancy in a pool of heavy water?
You would float a little higher - heavy water (D2O) has a higher atomic mass than normal water (H2O) and a higher density so to displace your weight requires a lower volume.
Soap is a good wetting agent - but it is absolutely hopeless on hydrocarbons e.g. grease because the ch2-ch3 groups are not slightly charged. That is why you use detergents.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago Labour sent three chickens to Downing Street to get a pic with PM's car as he left for PMQs Only trouble was they turned up 20 mins too late 1 retweet 1 favorite Reply Retweeted1 Favorite1 More
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
Technically pure water is not very wet.
I’ll take your word for it – but if you can swim in it, then it’s 'very' wet imho.
The issue is surface tension and adhesion I believe. Soap helps; or so I try to assure Fox jr.
Only pulling Mr P's leg - Pure H2O is electrically neutral so doesn’t stick or cling which is how we normally define ‘wetness’ - however, add some free charged hydroxyls and things become positively soggy.
Is that accurate then?
Arf - I couldn't possibly comment Mr Bond, I suggest you consult with the script writer.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago Labour sent three chickens to Downing Street to get a pic with PM's car as he left for PMQs Only trouble was they turned up 20 mins too late 1 retweet 1 favorite Reply Retweeted1 Favorite1 More
I see Ed has been out and about with his child props on the school run, in a staged piece for Good Morning Britain. Desperate stuff.
Comments
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wwqytvw1lq/YG-Archive-150325-TheTimes.pdf
The point is that some get published some don't, possibly correlated with the News organisation's political standpoint.
1) Forming their own minority government
2) Allowing a Conservative minority government
3) Forming a grand coalition
Option 1 would require the consent of the SNP and would mean the SNP would have them over a barrel to negotiate terms. Option 2 would be deeply opposed by Ed Miliband as he is very left-wing and would be very opposed to a more right-wing government than the coalition. They'd get constant flack from allowing it to happen from their base when they could have "just done a deal with the SNP". Option 3 would likely mean the Tories being very conciliatory, as they know the only other option is the SNP trying to destroy the union from government.
So it ultimately means a very tough deal from the SNP (and a tiny government majority) or a very good deal from the Tories (and a huge government majority). I think Option 3 is far more likely than people give it credit for. It would also mean Alex Salmond as Leader of the Opposition.
George got the best deal possible spinning of TSB when the Co-op deal fell through
Will you be announcing later whether you think water might be wet?
In the same way we bailed out all the other private companies.
The "markets" have a special form of social security. We pay for their mistakes.
Once Alex Salmond wins his seat, I think it is very likely he will replace Angus Robertson as parliamentary leader.
I think not. Whilst Ed will resign as Labour leader shortly after his May 7th defeat he will remain as LotO until UNITE decide on the next leader.
Meanwhile ....
I've been chatting at some length this morning with a trusted and previously most reliable source and that intel together with a few other confidential juicy snippets will move one of the "JackW Dozen" firmly when the new projection is published exclusively on PB at 9:00am on Saturday morning.
Teasingly placing PBers on high alert and gripping tenterhooks I know but it's the price you have to pay for having my mighty ARSE in the forefront of political discourse in OGH's mighty organ.
But as for the water is wet pronouncement, well, that depends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrjXSsfxMQ
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bol7rkqx90/SunResults_150324_Cameron_Website.pdf
In practice, Labour would probably need to cobble something together with the Lib Dems as well as the SNP in order to get English-only votes through.
We're like passengers on that ill-fated plane yesterday, on a collision course with a mountain and nothing appears likely to change our course or save us.
And the more the Tories and Salmond remind us what is going to happen, the more likely it seems that it will!
As long as it isn't OGH's organ in your ARSE?
There is not enough mind bleach in all of Scotland's distilleries to cope with that.
@MSmithsonPB: ENGLAND ONLY data from ComRes/Mail phone poll has CON ahead by 3.7%. At GE10 CON 11.4% ahead in England
The Tories can't win here...
1) Labour supporters that Ed is likely to be PM in May
2) Lib Dem supporters it won't be that bad.
Yorkshire is brilliant, Lancashire is not bad.
When did Ed tell David he can't return from exile?
JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT THINGS COULDN’T GET ANY WORSE FOR ENGLISH CRICKET…
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/just-when-you-thought-things-couldnt-get-any-worse-for-english-cricket/?CMP=spklr-Editorial-TWITTER-SunNation-20150325-SunNation-PostID
What next? Mirror critical of David Cameron? Daily Mail not that keen on immigrants?
I passed a "student type" whose relationship with soap and water was clearly only of the most casual, brief and probably annual basis.
Then, one by one, the rest of the Lib Dems (except for David Laws) follow him across.
Though unless there is a colossal Plaid surge it is OK for the SNP.
"But I really do have a problem with people with negroid features."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31565770
Physician heal thyself.
The Royal Rumble to be Labour's chief puppet master.
'Free money' is overstating it, but the odds do look too short.
Would you be delighted or dismayed with ...
A conservative majority government - 45 %
A labour majority government - 49 %
A con/LD coalition - 52 %
A con/lab coalition - 54 %
Everyone is unpopular, don't vote for them.
The will/will not questions later are also pretty grim reading. Nothing will get better, regardless of who is in power. Although 40 % of Labour voters aren't even convinced they'll do anything about the economy, which is absolutely spectacular stuff.
We're going to get the politics and government we deserve sooner rather than later. (god willing).
All shares receive dividends. However, because it takes a couple of days to sort out the paperwork and process the payments there are two dates: the "record date" and the "payment date". They can be up to 5 business days apart (with the record date first, obviously).
If you are a "shareholder of record" on the "record date" you are eligble to receive the dividend paid on the "payment date". This is regardless of whether you still own the shares or not. Hence if you sell your shares after the "record date" but before the "payment date" they are referred to as "ex dividend" which means that the seller will retain the right to the previously declared dividend payment. The price is lower to compensate for this.
The vast majority of shares traded carry the right to receive all dividends (ie are cum dividend) and hence this term is rarely used except in specific situations (eg tender offers) where a buyer may choose to pay a higher face value but want to retain the dividend - no economic impact but can have a presentational benefit.
Simples.
One of Clegg's scorned famous thirty perhaps?
Is that accurate then?
Thank you.
David Cameron: out of touch, smug, arrogant
Ed Miliband: out of his depth, weak, weird
Nick Clegg: out of his depth, weak, out of touch
Nigel Farage: arrogant, smug, stands up for Britain
Of the attributes offered for consideration,
David Cameron is most: out of touch, smug, doesn't listen, competent, up to the job, determined
Ed Miliband is most: principled, out of his depth, fair (joint), shares my values, weird, on my side
Nick Clegg is most: likeable, weak, fair (joint), indecisive
Nigel Farage is most: arrogant, stands up for Britain, dishonest, ruthless, down to earth
Anything for the team!
I was told about this poll while down south (Liverpool) yesterday by a journalist contact. He said the sample was 6,00. In fact it was 8,000. He said that it was nip and tuck between Tory and Labour - it is a Tory lead of one! Finally he said that the SNP lead in Scotland was massive. However there is no sign of a breakdown in the tables!
Now the Times could be holding it back for a story as they are entitled to do. However this seems strange given that the regional breakdown must include a statistically valid Scottish sample. And if it doesn't then why wouldn't they just publish it as they do the tiny daily cross breaks.
On balance they must be planning to publish.Otheriwse there might be reputational risks for The Times/ Yougov.
The Samplemiser returns just in time!
http://sprout016.sprout.yale.edu/samplemiser/
Last time, it predicted the lead exactly (7.3%)
Soap is a good wetting agent - but it is absolutely hopeless on hydrocarbons e.g. grease because the ch2-ch3 groups are not slightly charged. That is why you use detergents.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago
Labour sent three chickens to Downing Street to get a pic with PM's car as he left for PMQs Only trouble was they turned up 20 mins too late
1 retweet 1 favorite
Reply Retweeted1 Favorite1
More
Allowing for the usual under/over statement of Con/Lab in polls compared to final results, we're within a whisker.