And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
PBers, many thanks for your commentary on last night's debate - I was settled with some claret, cheese and grapes, when elder son involved me in a 3 hour conference call.
Am surprised at the viewing figures, but should not be as the holidaymakers here after a week of rain and cold winds would have needed some light relief.
Thought all the politicians were somewhat disingenuous as they did not mention the two elephants they had hidden in the kitchens.
1. The state of bankruptcy of the UK and the lack of wealth to 'trickle down'. Some 20-30 years ago at an annual review with one's employer, it was customary to receive a cost of living rise - being separate from a promotion rise. Then the UK made more things for its own consumption and exported the rest to other countries which included those in development.
I think I read we actually manufacturer more than ever, but it's a smaller part of the economy. Minis and range rovers and airbus wings and engines add value. Just how much did we consume in the eara of Dickens, how long did we Iive, how many doctors nurses midwives did we have. What was infant mortality. How many people could afford 4wheeled transport. Are you sure you are a financier? Does any body call a clear red bordeaux a claret any more
The UK is not bankrupt. It is paying its way and will continue so with a tory govt.
Then you read wrongly.
Manufacturing output is still way behind its pre recession peak and even further behind its all time high, which was as long ago as 2000.
The wider industrial output is even more disasterous being being below not only pre recession and the 2000 all time highs but also being below the output of 2010 and 1990.
Which is where the trillion pounds plus governments have borrowed during the last decade has gone.
And why the UK's current account deficit is at an all time high.
LIVING BEYOND MEANS
No. I've checked and an Oct 2013 report said we produce more manufactured goods in absolute terms than ever before. LSE, Prof Broadberry and Leunig. Cannot link the pdf from my tablet. When the rest of the world does bad our overseas investments do not import their profits. When we do well other countries inward investments here do well and money leaves. Large sums are involved. We are doing relatively better so your argument falls down.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
And I think that's a completely outrageous proposal.
Let's say - made up numbers, obviously - that England voted 90/10 to leave the EU and Scotland voted 51/49 to stay in. It would be wrong that Scotland could veto the overwhelming wishes of the British population as a whole
I agree it's appalling, that kind of result would lead to a constitutional crisis that would inevitably lead to Scotland leaving/being pushed out of the UK. A nightmare scenario for Sturgeon and the SNP I'm sure you would agree.
No, it wouldn't.
But it might be one of the few reasonable grounds for a re-run of the Scottish referendum
Which is precisely why the SNP is praying for a Tory victory in May. Funnily enough, though, Sturgeon will not help with that. She does not scare right-wing, UKIP-inclined English voters in the way that Alex Salmond does. The SNP need to get him back on TVs down south asap. It could be the difference between a hung Parliament and a Tory majority.
As Dair has pointed out , the point of Sturgeon good cop... Salmond bad cop is all about visibility and being noticed. It has worked
I wonder if Labour will put the national interest ahead of their own sectarian interest and not vote with the SNP on English or E&W only legislation. I could see such a scenario as the beginning of the end of the Union, akin to the regular punch ups they had in the Ukrainian parliament between the East and West block.
Lack of discussion currently on the constitutional crisis this could ignite.
Stephen Fisher's current projection shows the LibDems winning just 20 seats, down from 31 seats at Christmas, reflecting a near wipe-out in Scotland as well as the Yellow Team's continuing failure to make any substantial recocery in the polls with the sands of time now fast running out. Were the very clever Oxford Professor to be proved broadly correct, might now be the time to contemplate taking those 9/2 odds on offer from those nice folk at SkyBet on the LibDems winning between 11 - 20 seats at the GE, which isn't that far removed from Sporting's mid spread price of 24 seats? DYOR.
I would put the LDs in the 23 - 27 range. In some seats they are shoring up their vote where the main opposition have an inadequate ground campaign.
Next weeks polls should be a guide to trends.If the 37% in the latest is repeated in other polls for the Tories, and there is no Lib Dem improvement then I think the Tories will at worst be able to win enough seats for a coalition with the Northern Irish to to give an overall majority. and at best with SNP riding high they could get an overall majority.
Caution over next weeks polls needs to demonstrated.
Polling over holidays is tricky and mixed with the fallout from the debates. A better and more rounded picture should emerge by Friday.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties.
Serious question, would you have liked to see the Con and Lib-Dems standing on a joint "coalition" ticket like in 1918 and 1931?
I did not watch the debate, but given the polling it does not seem as if it is going to be a game-changer. Much more significant, it seems to me, is the 37% the Tories got in the YG last night. A score like that on GE day itself sees them moving towards the possibility of a small overall majority. A couple more repeats - or replications in other polls - and we could see a full-scale Labour meltdown.
Oh dear - the Romney Presdential win that never was all over again - go back and predict anything but a conservative win.....please.
Agreed. It's not enough for the Tories to do well, Labour need to do poorly - though arguments can be made not as poorly as last time (in national vote share terms) depending on how much they pile up votes where it is not needed vs high shares but still losing in Scotland.
Anyone who believes that Labour majority is now impossible should be laying Labour in their 315th+ most winnable seats in England and Wales, such as by backing the Tories in Redditch, Tamworth, Brigg and Goole, etc., or by doing the equivalent in seats reckoned likely for the SNP. This is much more profitable than laying Labour majority outright.
Those who accept Professor Fisher can go even further. His latest forecast indicates that the maximum number of Labour seats on a 95% prediction intervals is now only 298. I think that is way low to be honest but there it is.
One complication is of course that they may well win seats up to target 328 and then suffer compensating losses in Scotland to bring them down again. I am not sure your targets has taken that into account.
That's why you need to look at the high target seats in England and Wales. If the SNP were going to subside, you could look at more-profitable opportunities in the "EW Lab 300-315" range. Yeah, I think Fisher's implicit max is too low too.
I listened to a Kipper spokesman (O'Flynn?) earlier on R5L discussing the HIV medicine bill for immigrants. He mentioned an International Health Service instead of a National Health Service.
Now I'm in favour of the Tories' commitment to give 0.7% of GDP to International Aid - one thing Cameron has dome well on. Surely immigrants coming to use our HIV medication counts as International aid? Why not transfer the cost to this budget?
But it was instructive to see the reaction on here last night to Farage even mentioning HIV medication and immigrant?
"Please, miss, Nigel said a nasty word." Teacher (metropolitan liberal elite) comes over. "Nigel, don't you dare say that." "But miss, why?" "Because I say so."
There are two problems with this ... (1) The electorate don't like being treated like naughty children, (2) They begin to suspect teacher has no coherent answer - and they are right.
So please feel free to take up my suggestion in the second paragraph
Kips get offended when gays want to get married. Can't they understand how other people get offended when Kips use race fear to their own advantage?
People have differing ideas about what constitutes using race fear for their own advantage. I think this point is a reasonable one.
rogerh No, according to UK Polling Report a total of Tory 37, Labour 35, LD 7 gives 300 Tory seats, 312 Labour and 11 LDs, even if the Tories come out ahead on seats with Labour losing seats to the SNP they would still need both the LDs and DUP in all likelihood for a majority (assuming LD incumbency gives them a few more seats) http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator
Any scenario with 11 LDs MUST exclude Clegg (perhaps even 21 LDs would exclude Clegg) so that skews the government probability further towards Labour.
The Smith proposal for income tax seems guaranteed to provoke resentment and argument.
Giving Holyrood the power to set tax rates but not the threshold of the personal allowance and still having Scotland's MPs vote on the Budget (ie English and Welsh income tax rates) is indefensible and can legitimately be unfair to either [or both] sides.
Stephen Fisher's current projection shows the LibDems winning just 20 seats, down from 31 seats at Christmas, reflecting a near wipe-out in Scotland as well as the Yellow Team's continuing failure to make any substantial recocery in the polls with the sands of time now fast running out. Were the very clever Oxford Professor to be proved broadly correct, might now be the time to contemplate taking those 9/2 odds on offer from those nice folk at SkyBet on the LibDems winning between 11 - 20 seats at the GE, which isn't that far removed from Sporting's mid spread price of 24 seats? DYOR.
I would put the LDs in the 23 - 27 range. In some seats they are shoring up their vote where the main opposition have an inadequate ground campaign.
Next weeks polls should be a guide to trends.If the 37% in the latest is repeated in other polls for the Tories, and there is no Lib Dem improvement then I think the Tories will at worst be able to win enough seats for a coalition with the Northern Irish to to give an overall majority. and at best with SNP riding high they could get an overall majority.
Caution over next weeks polls needs to demonstrated.
Polling over holidays is tricky and mixed with the fallout from the debates. A better and more rounded picture should emerge by Friday.
I agree that polling during holidays can be tricky, and that we need to consider the fallout from the debates. However, back in 2010 Easter was one day different from 2015, and polling trend seemed unaffected by the holiday...
MD Indeed, and he built a large number of castles to keep them under control, the Scots won their independence at Bannockburn and kept it until the early 18th century, though James VIth of Scotland assumed the crown of both England, Scotland and Wales a century earlier
We can tell there is an election on. Mr Palmers comments are self serving drivel dressed up as being objective. 'Miliband OK, Clegg Cameron no good and a dog whistle to Farage. Cheap and predictable.
I wonder if Labour will put the national interest ahead of their own sectarian interest and not vote with the SNP on English or E&W only legislation. I could see such a scenario as the beginning of the end of the Union, akin to the regular punch ups they had in the Ukrainian parliament between the East and West block.
Lack of discussion currently on the constitutional crisis this could ignite.
Even if a majority of MPs oppose Conservative policies, it's against the national interest to vote against them. I see.
Mr. HYUFD, at the moment I'm reading about Edward II's misrule as part of the excellent Sir Roger Mortimer biography. I knew the English took a beating at Bannockburn, but the level of Edward II's idiocy there and in other aspects of his rule was monumental.
If mortality hadn't been so high in the 13th century, a natural, peaceful union might've occurred then.
rogerh No, according to UK Polling Report a total of Tory 37, Labour 35, LD 7 gives 300 Tory seats, 312 Labour and 11 LDs, even if the Tories come out ahead on seats with Labour losing seats to the SNP they would still need both the LDs and DUP in all likelihood for a majority (assuming LD incumbency gives them a few more seats) http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swing-calculator
Any scenario with 11 LDs MUST exclude Clegg (perhaps even 21 LDs would exclude Clegg) so that skews the government probability further towards Labour.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties. Little wonder PB reprobates are exiled to ConHome which is the font of muddled thinking.
JackW. Being respectful of my elders, I have to say that you miss the point. Clegg and the Lib Dem Ministers whilst in the Govt have been regularly urinating on the Conservatives throughout this parliament. Clegg does that as his opening question to another participant. Clegg singled out Cameron for that first attack. It does of course reinforce their image as untrustworthy. In advertising terminology Clegg reinforced the "truth" of the Lib Dem brand. An Untrustworthy brand image.
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to commanding the House.
"I thought Leanne Wood came across well, obviously not as experienced but sounded like a real person...."
Exactly what I thought.
How pleasant to find a point of agreement with you, Malcolm.
Happy Easter.
Thanks Peter, same to you , hope you get a good few winners
Thanks Malcolm.
If you are dabbling yourself today you might like to invest a few chocolate buttons on....
Lingfield: 4.15 Harry Hurricane 7/1 4.45 Hidden Gold
Good luck if you follow me in, as PfP would say.
I am on Peter, thanks.
I like Tadqeeq in the 2-55 at Musselburgh, first time run in a handicap for Haggas, his strike rate for such runners is 16/59 over the last year, or 27%, and has the admirable Paul Hanagan riding. Bottom weight and stable won the race last year.
We can tell there is an election on. Mr Palmers comments are self serving drivel dressed up as being objective. 'Miliband OK, Clegg Cameron no good and a dog whistle to Farage. Cheap and predictable.
If a politician can't be partisan in a general election, when can he be?
Mr. Speaking, in the past, but there's also a divided right now (I agree UKIP is a bad of an odd fish, and shouldn't be classed as just Conservative Ultra).
Mr Dancer
The divided right wasn't obviously on show last night. Cameron basically ignored Farage and vice versa whilst Clegg, who is rightist in many ways, seemed to throw the towel in.
What I saw was 3 parties with essentially the same socialist policies competing for the 80% of the Welsh and Scottish electorate who lean left. It's surely a failure of Labour that PC and SNP are even at the party.
MD Indeed, Edward IInd was not one of our greatest monarchs bless him, although he had some interest in culture and the arts, but I think it was best the union came about peacefully rather than through conquest.
On the Smith plans, of course once Holyrood has the power to set income tax it will need to show itself responsible and I think an EVEL devomax deal could still be on the cards eventually
Mr. HYUFD, at the moment I'm reading about Edward II's misrule as part of the excellent Sir Roger Mortimer biography. I knew the English took a beating at Bannockburn, but the level of Edward II's idiocy there and in other aspects of his rule was monumental.
If mortality hadn't been so high in the 13th century, a natural, peaceful union might've occurred then.
There's a very good Edward II blog, by Dr Kathryn Warner, who's published an excellent biography. She's very sympathetic towards him as a man, while acknowledging that he was a disastrous king.
Edward actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, but his generalship was non-existent. Robert Bruce by contrast, was a fine general.
His readiness to indulge the Despensers in everything doomed his rule.
"I thought Leanne Wood came across well, obviously not as experienced but sounded like a real person...."
Exactly what I thought.
How pleasant to find a point of agreement with you, Malcolm.
Happy Easter.
Thanks Peter, same to you , hope you get a good few winners
Thanks Malcolm.
If you are dabbling yourself today you might like to invest a few chocolate buttons on....
Lingfield: 4.15 Harry Hurricane 7/1 4.45 Hidden Gold
Good luck if you follow me in, as PfP would say.
I am on Peter, thanks.
I like Tadqeeq in the 2-55 at Musselburgh, first time run in a handicap for Haggas, his strike rate for such runners is 16/59 over the last year, or 27%, and has the admirable Paul Hanagan riding. Bottom weight and stable won the race last year.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties.
Serious question, would you have liked to see the Con and Lib-Dems standing on a joint "coalition" ticket like in 1918 and 1931?
The answer is no. Let all parties fight their corner and the voters will decide. If we have another hung parliament then so be it.
It would have required an agreed manifesto and the probability of this was remote to say the least which is of course ironic as post election in 2010 and possibly in several weeks time this is precisely what a new "Coalition Agreement" is.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties.
Serious question, would you have liked to see the Con and Lib-Dems standing on a joint "coalition" ticket like in 1918 and 1931?
The answer is no. Let all parties fight their corner and the voters will decide. If we have another hung parliament then so be it.
It would have required an agreed manifesto and the probability of this was remote to say the least which is of course ironic as post election in 2010 and possibly in several weeks time this is precisely what a new "Coalition Agreement" is.
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to governing on their own.
Sure. But if they stand still in England, Wirral South (majority 531) is far better than 5/1 for a Conservative gain, despite the good Ashcroft poll taken at a time when Labour enjoyed a national six-point lead.
Mr. F, indeed. That particular Robert Bruce certainly seems to have had his head screwed on right when it came to the battlefield and strategy more broadly.
Mr. HYUFD, Edward II seems to have been pretty damned rubbish. Perhaps he suffers by comparison with both his father and his son.
I think I read we actually manufacturer more than ever, but it's a smaller part of the economy. Minis and range rovers and airbus wings and engines add value. Just how much did we consume in the eara of Dickens, how long did we Iive, how many doctors nurses midwives did we have. What was infant mortality. How many people could afford 4wheeled transport. Are you sure you are a financier? Does any body call a clear red bordeaux a claret any more
The UK is not bankrupt. It is paying its way and will continue so with a tory govt.
Then you read wrongly.
Manufacturing output is still way behind its pre recession peak and even further behind its all time high, which was as long ago as 2000.
The wider industrial output is even more disasterous being being below not only pre recession and the 2000 all time highs but also being below the output of 2010 and 1990.
Which is where the trillion pounds plus governments have borrowed during the last decade has gone.
And why the UK's current account deficit is at an all time high.
LIVING BEYOND MEANS
No. I've checked and an Oct 2013 report said we produce more manufactured goods in absolute terms than ever before. LSE, Prof Broadberry and Leunig. Cannot link the pdf from my tablet. When the rest of the world does bad our overseas investments do not import their profits. When we do well other countries inward investments here do well and money leaves. Large sums are involved. We are doing relatively better so your argument falls down.
So having had your argument totally demolished by the official data you continue talking rubbish.
The reason why there's an income flow outward from the UK is the shift in the relative levels of ownership.
If the UK progressively sells off its assets to foreigners - from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to stocks to government bonds - then the income from them flows out of the UK rather than remaining in it.
SNP would have taken the seat by a landslide anyway (and I don't think McGovern is thought to have a particular personal vote, so it won't probably make much a difference anyway)
Mr. HYUFD, at the moment I'm reading about Edward II's misrule as part of the excellent Sir Roger Mortimer biography. I knew the English took a beating at Bannockburn, but the level of Edward II's idiocy there and in other aspects of his rule was monumental.
If mortality hadn't been so high in the 13th century, a natural, peaceful union might've occurred then.
There's a very good Edward II blog, by Dr Kathryn Warner, who's published an excellent biography. She's very sympathetic towards him as a man, while acknowledging that he was a disastrous king.
Edward actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, but his generalship was non-existent. Robert Bruce by contrast, was a fine general.
His readiness to indulge the Despensers in everything doomed his rule.
It's hard to judge Bruce's generalship at the big battle because he was bascially presented wit the prefect opportunity - enemy not fully deployed with no room to manouver on unsuitable ground, and did not make a massive blunder.
Prior to Bannockburn Bruce took some fair kickings on the battle field.
He was clearly great at the daredevil small scale raiding stuff that he did in the years leading up to Bannockburn with capturing the castles one by one and taking on his Scottish opponents but as a set piece battle general I think we have to give him a don't know rating.
Mr. HYUFD, at the moment I'm reading about Edward II's misrule as part of the excellent Sir Roger Mortimer biography. I knew the English took a beating at Bannockburn, but the level of Edward II's idiocy there and in other aspects of his rule was monumental.
If mortality hadn't been so high in the 13th century, a natural, peaceful union might've occurred then.
There's a very good Edward II blog, by Dr Kathryn Warner, who's published an excellent biography. She's very sympathetic towards him as a man, while acknowledging that he was a disastrous king.
Edward actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, but his generalship was non-existent. Robert Bruce by contrast, was a fine general.
His readiness to indulge the Despensers in everything doomed his rule.
It's hard to judge Bruce's generalship at the big battle because he was bascially presented wit the prefect opportunity - enemy not fully deployed with no room to manouver on unsuitable ground, and did not make a massive blunder.
Prior to Bannockburn Bruce took some fair kickings on the battle field.
He was clearly great at the daredevil small scale raiding stuff that he did in the years leading up to Bannockburn with capturing the castles one by one and taking on his Scottish opponents but as a set piece battle general I think we have to give him a don't know rating.
Clearly Bruce had the spiders on his side at Bannockburn.
The UK has lost its way , it is totally unfair country now. Since Thatcher it has become ever more London centric at the expense of other parts of the country. There is a small window left to arrest this or the country will break up, simple as that as you can only crap on people for so long. We need firm government , not spineless, chinless wonders who are either rich and have no clue or have never had a real job and have no clue, basing things on focus groups etc. I say that as someone who is not among the unfortunate as well. It needs to get self respect back , not allowing people to do better out of work than in work, not helping employers pay low wages , chase the bad guys who hoover up the cash and avoid/evade paying tax , etc etc . Firm but fair and you thrive by your own efforts with a safety net for real unfortunates and no establishment / corporations robbing us blind and filling their own pockets.
Well said, Mr. G. I would disagree on one small point. You say that there is a small window in which the UK might be saved from break up. I don't think there is. There certainly was but is has now been closed, and I think closed for ever.
Wales and Northern Ireland will hang on to England for grim death, (because economic death is what awaits them if they were to go alone) and England will put with them like the parent of a needy teenager who refuses to leave home. However, Scotland will become an independent country sooner or later. The great shame is that you and your like minded co-patriots did not manage to convince enough of Scottish residents to vote for the leap last year.
Of course in your second paragraph you state truths and aspirations that will not come about in the UK or in an independent Scotland. At least they will not until something causes the reset button to be pressed.
"Can't they understand how other people get offended when Kips use race fear to their own advantage?"
Sorry, but what I see is a superior person knowing what his opponents mean better than they do. I suppose that's a reasonable argument when used against children and those with lower IQs than oneself.
But why are you surprised when they don't fawn with gratitude?
"Can't they understand how other people get offended when Kips use race fear to their own advantage?"
Sorry, but what I see is a superior person knowing what his opponents mean better than they do. I suppose that's a reasonable argument when used against children and those with lower IQs than oneself.
But why are you surprised when they don't fawn with gratitude?
See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats.
"Holding their nerve' is something the Labour Party are markedly better at than the Tories....
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to commanding the House.
Sounds like that would be a good result, Mr. O. The question is what sort of Labour Party would rise from the ashes? Would it be more of the same or would it be one to which Mssrs MalcomG, AlanBrook and myself could support? There is a big gap in the political market just now.
The UK has lost its way , it is totally unfair country now. Since Thatcher it has become ever more London centric at the expense of other parts of the country. There is a small window left to arrest this or the country will break up, simple as that as you can only crap on people for so long. We need firm government , not spineless, chinless wonders who are either rich and have no clue or have never had a real job and have no clue, basing things on focus groups etc. I say that as someone who is not among the unfortunate as well. It needs to get self respect back , not allowing people to do better out of work than in work, not helping employers pay low wages , chase the bad guys who hoover up the cash and avoid/evade paying tax , etc etc . Firm but fair and you thrive by your own efforts with a safety net for real unfortunates and no establishment / corporations robbing us blind and filling their own pockets.
Well said, Mr. G. I would disagree on one small point. You say that there is a small window in which the UK might be saved from break up. I don't think there is. There certainly was but is has now been closed, and I think closed for ever.
Wales and Northern Ireland will hang on to England for grim death, (because economic death is what awaits them if they were to go alone) and England will put with them like the parent of a needy teenager who refuses to leave home. However, Scotland will become an independent country sooner or later. The great shame is that you and your like minded co-patriots did not manage to convince enough of Scottish residents to vote for the leap last year.
Of course in your second paragraph you state truths and aspirations that will not come about in the UK or in an independent Scotland. At least they will not until something causes the reset button to be pressed.
Hurst, totally agree it needs a sea change to really fix the UK or an independent Scotland. I cannot see it happening in the UK and if Scotland goes independent it will be a necessity and so have to happen like it or not.
Alistair It is possible big pro EU majorities in Scotland and London could overturn a narrow out majority in the rest of the UK
Polling is volatile on the EU question but I don't think Scotland polls at a BIG majority, London certainly outpolls Scotland in pro-EU result.
Surely the SNP will seek to make an EU In/Out referendum in Scotland a referendum about whether there should be an independence referendum if the rUK votes to leave. In essence In/Out will become Yes/No. On that basis, if the polling is correct about the wish for a new separation referendum In will walk it. Especially as pro-independence Outers will know that if the UK does vote for exit Scotland goes too.
MD I think Edward II was probably quite a gentle, slightly effete man, he was not meant to be a conquering warmonger like his father and son, today he would probably have got a job working in the National Theatre or something
Alistair Scotland and London clearly have the biggest pro EU margins, which will be ironic when Scotland finds out it has more in common with London on the issue than the North East which will probably vote Out
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
Last night's debate will be a good test of whether "the centre ground" actually is where elections are won. Miliband couldn't have been more centrist on the question of spending cuts, between the "extremes" of Sturgeon and Cameron.
It could be that he seems the most in-line with the mainstream. My suspicion is that, in spite of a decent delivery which led to good poll ratings in the first post-debate poll, in the long run his arguments were too weak and convoluted to make any real impression on people, and it will be Sturgeon's and Cameron's arguments as the much more straightforward and powerful ones (whether you agree with them or not) which will stick in people's minds.
Perhaps I'm naive but I don't associate AIDS with immigrants. It is more prevalent in parts of Africa, as is hunger. I'd be keen to provide food and medicine to poorer regions, so why not call it part of the International Aid budget?
It's the hysterical response to key words and the assumption that you automatically know what someone is thinking. Stereotyping is so yesterday.
Will anyone remember anything anybody said in the debate except possibly by Farage? Cameron,Clegg and Milliband all lack credibility.With none does one get the impression they actually believe privately what they express publicly.Leanne Wood as the only `warm` person of the 7 missed an opportunity.Depressing that once again the podium played the populist line of milking the rich without anyone pointing out that this is what the Hollande govt in France set out to do and has ended up predictably disastrously with the French govt doing a u-turn
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to commanding the House.
Sounds like that would be a good result, Mr. O. The question is what sort of Labour Party would rise from the ashes? Would it be more of the same or would it be one to which Mssrs MalcomG, AlanBrook and myself could support? There is a big gap in the political market just now.
I suspect that Labour still has a few lessons to learn before it can be reborn as a more sensible and coherent left of centre party than it is at the moment. I am all for trade unions, but when it comes to policy and being prepared to look at difficult issues they are a significant encumbrance on Labour. A party that is not able to challenge its orthodoxies and consistently retreats to its comfort zones is always going to find it tough to stay relevant as the world changes. And as I have said on here before, Labour is stuck in the 20th century
SO Polling shows there is no wish for a separation referendum for at least 10 years, and as you allude to recent polling has shown a narrow majority of SNP voters want to leave the EU anyway, indeed significantly more than Scots as a whole who want to stay in
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
The Syriza of the North.
There is a fair slice of the electorate who would happily vote for Syriza given the opportunity.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
It is ironic that Sturgeon can spout her welfarian nonsensense due to the beneficence of the English tax-payer. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.
Will anyone remember anything anybody said in the debate except possibly by Farage? Cameron,Clegg and Milliband all lack credibility.With none does one get the impression they actually believe privately what they express publicly.
That would depend on the viewer. Ed had some good lines even if they were a bit over-rehearsed, and given millions upon millions of people will continue to vote for Labour and the Tories, far more than any other party, and it seems unrealistic to think every one of those is a negative 'best of the worst' vote, then I would suggest that as incredible as it seems to you many many people do find Cameron and Miliband credible.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties. Little wonder PB reprobates are exiled to ConHome which is the font of muddled thinking.
JackW. Being respectful of my elders, I have to say that you miss the point. Clegg and the Lib Dem Ministers whilst in the Govt have been regularly urinating on the Conservatives throughout this parliament. Clegg does that as his opening question to another participant. Clegg singled out Cameron for that first attack. It does of course reinforce their image as untrustworthy. In advertising terminology Clegg reinforced the "truth" of the Lib Dem brand. An Untrustworthy brand image.
Whilst being dismissive of your youthful comments is entirely apposite.
On your substantive comments I disagree completely.
Both Conservative and LibDems have exercised remarkable restraint for two such differing parties and the amount of cohesion has been remarkable especially if you recall the Blair/Brown administrations.
Even Vince and his "mighty organ" have stayed zipped up and where have the LibDems shown they have been "regularly urinating" on the Conservatives from within government?
As for the debate you seem to think Clegg shouldn't criticize future Conservative plans in a general election campaign which is a bizarre notion more suited to the wilder fringes of ConHome.
Paul Goodman ConHome (Clegg) "spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg"
"Nick Clegg. The proverbial visitor from Mars would have gasped to be told that the Liberal Democrat leader has been deputy to the Conservative one for five years. Clegg’s plan was to counter the charge that he’s Cameron’s poodle. He thus spent much of the evening urinating on the Prime Minister’s leg, while trying to avoid also utilising the Miliband lampost. Clegg was a ghostly echo of the young turk who swept all before him in 2010 – direct, quick, potentially engaging. But he got badly bossed by Nigel Farage during the immigration debate."
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties. Little wonder PB reprobates are exiled to ConHome which is the font of muddled thinking.
JackW. Being respectful of my elders, I have to say that you miss the point. Clegg and the Lib Dem Ministers whilst in the Govt have been regularly urinating on the Conservatives throughout this parliament. Clegg does that as his opening question to another participant. Clegg singled out Cameron for that first attack. It does of course reinforce their image as untrustworthy. In advertising terminology Clegg reinforced the "truth" of the Lib Dem brand. An Untrustworthy brand image.
Whilst being dismissive of your youthful comments is entirely apposite.
On your substantive comments I disagree completely.
Both Conservative and LibDems have exercised remarkable restraint for two such differing parties and the amount of cohesion has been remarkable especially if you recall the Blair/Brown administrations.
Even Vince and his "mighty organ" have stayed zipped up and where have the LibDems shown they have been "regularly urinating" on the Conservatives from within government?
As for the debate you seem to think Clegg shouldn't criticize future Conservative plans in a general election campaign which is a bizarre notion more suited to the wilder fringes of ConHome.
Well said. Sure, there have been times during this parliament when divisions have flared up, intentionally permitted by both sides at times I am sure as well, but it is nevertheless unfair to characterise that as somehow especially prevalent, and downright bizarre to imply that due to being in coalition with someone, you are then pretty much unable to go after them during a GE.
HL It would be a Labour Party led by Chuka Umunna, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper, all of whom would do better than Ed M against a Tory minority government which will soon be dominated by an EU referendum in 2017
HL It would be a Labour Party led by Chuka Umunna, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper, all of whom would do better than Ed M against a Tory minority government which will soon be dominated by an EU referendum in 2017
That depends on the policies that new Labour leader adopted; even the most charismatic leader in the world would not be able to push platitudinous nothingness. I'm really not sure Yvette in particular is any more charismatic than Ed and would be a better leader with all other things being equal anyway.
Also, it's possible the Tories will have an even more formidable opponent next time, if they pick Boris as next leader (though admittedly if Euromania completely takes over they might choose some no-mark like Philip Hammond).
Cameron - OK performance, probably won't win over too many new voters but won't lose many. Did score a superb soundbite with his "zero jobs" jibe at Ed, but was poorly executed. I think he knew that which is why he tried to repeat it a short while later.
Miliband - On message but dreadful in front of cameras when trying to give initial answers to question, coming over weird and over sincere. Did better when jousting with others, although came off worse with Clegg on the economy spat. Labour voters might not be too concerned but will struggle to pick up floaters on that performance.
Clegg - Fairly good in front of cameras but duplicitous when discussing coalitions matters being happy to take credit for some stuff but blaming Cameron for stuff that he wanted to distance himself from.
Farage - Will have appealed to supporters as much as he repulsed his detractors. Interestingly, I think his pitch was more to WWC than disaffected euro-sceptic tories, which if resonating will hurt Labour more.
Sturgeon - As someone else noted correctly - The Szriza of the North.
Wood/Bennett - Didn't really take much notice of what they said but remember being roughly equally sexually attracted to Wood as sexually repulsed by Bennett. Bet Clegg wishes he was next to Wood and not Bennett!
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to commanding the House.
Sounds like that would be a good result, Mr. O. The question is what sort of Labour Party would rise from the ashes? Would it be more of the same or would it be one to which Mssrs MalcomG, AlanBrook and myself could support? There is a big gap in the political market just now.
I suspect that Labour still has a few lessons to learn before it can be reborn as a more sensible and coherent left of centre party than it is at the moment. I am all for trade unions, but when it comes to policy and being prepared to look at difficult issues they are a significant encumbrance on Labour. A party that is not able to challenge its orthodoxies and consistently retreats to its comfort zones is always going to find it tough to stay relevant as the world changes. And as I have said on here before, Labour is stuck in the 20th century
Fairness will be the big issue of coming years.
Labour needs to show it is willing to challenge the fatcats and unaccountability of the public sector plus the inherited privilege within its own leadership ranks.
If the best you can manage is a partisan puff piece in the New Statesman from a few months back as both parties positioned themselves for the General Election campaign then might I suggest your case is about as flimsy as the SNP's chances of taking Witney on May 7th.
Return to your constituency and prepare for Coalition Mk II.
Danny565 The policies adopted would be reinvestment in public services etc and if Osborne produces a surplus in 2018 as he promised that would be difficult to argue with. In any case the Tories will likely be led by a rightwinger in 2020 after an EU referendum, maybe Davis or Hammond, regardless of result, and to win back Kippers, which would mean Labour would become more centrist by default. I think Umunna is likely to be Labour leader and Britain's first black PM in 2020 if the Tories are largest party. Boris time will have gone by then, he will have been a minor MP, and no longer Mayor, after 10 years of Tory led government he will offer little change, he will be the Rudy Giuliani of the Tory Party, a great Mayor, but never leader of his party
Cameron - ... Did score a superb soundbite with his "zero jobs" jibe at Ed, but was poorly executed. I think he knew that which is why he tried to repeat it a short while later.
I think he came up with it up on the spot, which is why it seemed like that.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
It is indeed good to contemplate the stark divergence between image and reality, between words and deeds. Nicola, if she had had her way, would now be negotiating her country into an independence deal in which the oil price had halved, exit from the EU would have been unavoidable and where there would have been no central bank support. That is the reality when it come to her judgement. Forget the image.
would only be news if the UK was NOT spying on Argentina because of the Falklands.
The UK appeared to be slow off the mark when the Argentine Navy went out for an extended exercise in the South Atlantic in 1982. How far there was an intelligence failure then, is an open question.
Perhaps some of the half-wits over at ConHome think that Coalition candidates are standing at the general election. They forget the LibDems and Conservatives are two competing parties.
Both Conservative and LibDems have exercised remarkable restraint for two such differing parties and the amount of cohesion has been remarkable especially if you recall the Blair/Brown administrations.
Even Vince and his "mighty organ" have stayed zipped up and where have the LibDems shown they have been "regularly urinating" on the Conservatives from within government?
As for the debate you seem to think Clegg shouldn't criticize future Conservative plans in a general election campaign which is a bizarre notion more suited to the wilder fringes of ConHome.
Jack makes the point extremely well. Lib Dems in Government went all-out to support and defend Coalition Government policies. Where they were critical - and rightly so - was when Conservatives started behaving as though the Government was a Tory one.
Last night Cameron was busy presenting Coalition success stories as though they had been Conservative-alone ones, and said very little about what a Tory-alone government would be like. It was this that Nick Clegg was trying to highlight.
My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
To be honest, after being on a yo-yo ride on Labour's chances over the past couple of weeks, I've now sunk back to the SouthamObserver levels of pessimism about their chances. Ed needed a "game-changer" last night, but he just didn't have the guts to say something that stood out and would leave an impression on people, and a murky draw just isn't good enough for him at this stage. Best case scenario for Labour is to limit the scale of the defeat so that they have a platform to win 2020.
And if you believe in Labour Meltdown, which must pretty much mean worse than last time in the North due to Ukip, bet on Tories in Wirral South and lay Ed Balls.
Labour meltdown could just be a case of standing still in England and Wales, but getting a complete shellacking in Scotland. That would take it down to something like 220 seats. More realistically, if the party holds its nerve in the face of continuous good Tory polling figures, it will end up with 240-260 seats. At the top end, that should be enough to do two things: (a) prevent a de facto Tory majority; and (b) ensure EdM departs the scene rapidly. At the bottom end Ed still goes, but the Tories are close to commanding the House.
Sounds like that would be a good result, Mr. O. The question is what sort of Labour Party would rise from the ashes? Would it be more of the same or would it be one to which Mssrs MalcomG, AlanBrook and myself could support? There is a big gap in the political market just now.
I suspect that Labour still has a few lessons to learn before it can be reborn as a more sensible and coherent left of centre party than it is at the moment. I am all for trade unions, but when it comes to policy and being prepared to look at difficult issues they are a significant encumbrance on Labour. A party that is not able to challenge its orthodoxies and consistently retreats to its comfort zones is always going to find it tough to stay relevant as the world changes. And as I have said on here before, Labour is stuck in the 20th century
Fairness will be the big issue of coming years.
Labour needs to show it is willing to challenge the fatcats and unaccountability of the public sector plus the inherited privilege within its own leadership ranks.
People who think those things have the Tories? The kind of people who instinctively dislike organised labour are unlikely to vote for... Labour. It's just like when Labour types call for Tories to be tougher on pensioners and to tax high earners more because fairness. That's the point of parties, to represent their voters. Ain't gonna happen.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
SO Polling shows there is no wish for a separation referendum for at least 10 years, and as you allude to recent polling has shown a narrow majority of SNP voters want to leave the EU anyway, indeed significantly more than Scots as a whole who want to stay in
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
There was a comment many threads back - they seem to come thick and fast these days - that two seats were won in May 2010 at odds of 10 or even 20. Does anyone know which ones they were?
MD I think Edward II was probably quite a gentle, slightly effete man, he was not meant to be a conquering warmonger like his father and son, today he would probably have got a job working in the National Theatre or something
Edward's interest in the arts and possible homosexuality would have led contemporaries to judge him as effete. But, he was also a fine athlete and warrior. It's simply that his judgement was appalling.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
It is indeed good to contemplate the stark divergence between image and reality, between words and deeds. Nicola, if she had had her way, would now be negotiating her country into an independence deal in which the oil price had halved, exit from the EU would have been unavoidable and where there would have been no central bank support. That is the reality when it come to her judgement. Forget the image.
I'm holding on to my Labour plurality prediction for now, but how the opposition debate next week shakes up, and whether it gains any traction or forms part of a move away from Labour, will determine if I stick to that.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
The Syriza of the North.
Floater is well named, what a log
As usual, an insult rather than a counter argument. Well done, bitter man.
My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
You won't laugh when the country goes bankrupt and the government can't pay the wages of teachers and doctors.
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
I doubt it. He was simply exposing an uncomfortable fact. People will form there own opinions on that fact.
You don't use these occasions to shock people with truths they're not ready to hear. You use perceptions they already have and marshall those to support you.
Comments
EICIPM
We will see in 34 days
"Election TV debate: Leaders clash over NHS, cuts and immigration" Title on BBC Website.
The three weakest Tory points, Two strongest Labour tactics.
Nothing about the economy.
Co-incidence I suppose.
I've checked and an Oct 2013 report said we produce more manufactured goods in absolute terms than ever before.
LSE, Prof Broadberry and Leunig. Cannot link the pdf from my tablet.
When the rest of the world does bad our overseas investments do not import their profits. When we do well other countries inward investments here do well and money leaves. Large sums are involved. We are doing relatively better so your argument falls down.
Lack of discussion currently on the constitutional crisis this could ignite.
Giving Holyrood the power to set tax rates but not the threshold of the personal allowance and still having Scotland's MPs vote on the Budget (ie English and Welsh income tax rates) is indefensible and can legitimately be unfair to either [or both] sides.
Cheap and predictable.
If mortality hadn't been so high in the 13th century, a natural, peaceful union might've occurred then.
The divided right wasn't obviously on show last night. Cameron basically ignored Farage and vice versa whilst Clegg, who is rightist in many ways, seemed to throw the towel in.
What I saw was 3 parties with essentially the same socialist policies competing for the 80% of the Welsh and Scottish electorate who lean left. It's surely a failure of Labour that PC and SNP are even at the party.
On the Smith plans, of course once Holyrood has the power to set income tax it will need to show itself responsible and I think an EVEL devomax deal could still be on the cards eventually
Edward actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, but his generalship was non-existent. Robert Bruce by contrast, was a fine general.
His readiness to indulge the Despensers in everything doomed his rule.
It would have required an agreed manifesto and the probability of this was remote to say the least which is of course ironic as post election in 2010 and possibly in several weeks time this is precisely what a new "Coalition Agreement" is.
Mr. HYUFD, Edward II seems to have been pretty damned rubbish. Perhaps he suffers by comparison with both his father and his son.
The reason why there's an income flow outward from the UK is the shift in the relative levels of ownership.
If the UK progressively sells off its assets to foreigners - from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to stocks to government bonds - then the income from them flows out of the UK rather than remaining in it.
Con: 28.44%
Lab: 30.06%
UKIP: 18.66%
L/Ds: 07.14%
Grns: 02.38%
SNP: 05.82%
Dup+ others 07.5%
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/jim-mcgovern-withdraws-bid-to-be-re-elected-as-mp-for-dundee-west/
SNP would have taken the seat by a landslide anyway (and I don't think McGovern is thought to have a particular personal vote, so it won't probably make much a difference anyway)
Prior to Bannockburn Bruce took some fair kickings on the battle field.
He was clearly great at the daredevil small scale raiding stuff that he did in the years leading up to Bannockburn with capturing the castles one by one and taking on his Scottish opponents but as a set piece battle general I think we have to give him a don't know rating.
Wales and Northern Ireland will hang on to England for grim death, (because economic death is what awaits them if they were to go alone) and England will put with them like the parent of a needy teenager who refuses to leave home. However, Scotland will become an independent country sooner or later. The great shame is that you and your like minded co-patriots did not manage to convince enough of Scottish residents to vote for the leap last year.
Of course in your second paragraph you state truths and aspirations that will not come about in the UK or in an independent Scotland. At least they will not until something causes the reset button to be pressed.
"Can't they understand how other people get offended when Kips use race fear to their own advantage?"
Sorry, but what I see is a superior person knowing what his opponents mean better than they do. I suppose that's a reasonable argument when used against children and those with lower IQs than oneself.
But why are you surprised when they don't fawn with gratitude?
It could be that he seems the most in-line with the mainstream. My suspicion is that, in spite of a decent delivery which led to good poll ratings in the first post-debate poll, in the long run his arguments were too weak and convoluted to make any real impression on people, and it will be Sturgeon's and Cameron's arguments as the much more straightforward and powerful ones (whether you agree with them or not) which will stick in people's minds.
Perhaps I'm naive but I don't associate AIDS with immigrants. It is more prevalent in parts of Africa, as is hunger. I'd be keen to provide food and medicine to poorer regions, so why not call it part of the International Aid budget?
It's the hysterical response to key words and the assumption that you automatically know what someone is thinking. Stereotyping is so yesterday.
Ed Miliband's robotic pieces to camera leave the 'people at home' divided during leaders' debate
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-milibands-robotic-pieces-to-camera-leave-the-people-at-home-divided-during-leaders-debate-10153866.html
Cameron,Clegg and Milliband all lack credibility.With none does one get the impression they actually believe privately what they express publicly.Leanne Wood as the only `warm` person of the 7 missed an opportunity.Depressing that once again the podium played the populist line of milking the rich without anyone pointing out that this is what the Hollande govt in France set out to do and has ended up predictably disastrously with the French govt doing a u-turn
Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.
Less so with Clegg.
On your substantive comments I disagree completely.
Both Conservative and LibDems have exercised remarkable restraint for two such differing parties and the amount of cohesion has been remarkable especially if you recall the Blair/Brown administrations.
Even Vince and his "mighty organ" have stayed zipped up and where have the LibDems shown they have been "regularly urinating" on the Conservatives from within government?
As for the debate you seem to think Clegg shouldn't criticize future Conservative plans in a general election campaign which is a bizarre notion more suited to the wilder fringes of ConHome.
Here is one from last year. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/how-lib-dems-attacks-tories-help-labour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32172669
would only be news if the UK was NOT spying on Argentina because of the Falklands.
Also, it's possible the Tories will have an even more formidable opponent next time, if they pick Boris as next leader (though admittedly if Euromania completely takes over they might choose some no-mark like Philip Hammond).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11514147/Ukip-MP-refuses-to-endorse-Nigel-Farage-aids-comment.html
Cameron - OK performance, probably won't win over too many new voters but won't lose many. Did score a superb soundbite with his "zero jobs" jibe at Ed, but was poorly executed. I think he knew that which is why he tried to repeat it a short while later.
Miliband - On message but dreadful in front of cameras when trying to give initial answers to question, coming over weird and over sincere. Did better when jousting with others, although came off worse with Clegg on the economy spat. Labour voters might not be too concerned but will struggle to pick up floaters on that performance.
Clegg - Fairly good in front of cameras but duplicitous when discussing coalitions matters being happy to take credit for some stuff but blaming Cameron for stuff that he wanted to distance himself from.
Farage - Will have appealed to supporters as much as he repulsed his detractors. Interestingly, I think his pitch was more to WWC than disaffected euro-sceptic tories, which if resonating will hurt Labour more.
Sturgeon - As someone else noted correctly - The Szriza of the North.
Wood/Bennett - Didn't really take much notice of what they said but remember being roughly equally sexually attracted to Wood as sexually repulsed by Bennett. Bet Clegg wishes he was next to Wood and not Bennett!
Labour needs to show it is willing to challenge the fatcats and unaccountability of the public sector plus the inherited privilege within its own leadership ranks.
Return to your constituency and prepare for Coalition Mk II.
I think he came up with it up on the spot, which is why it seemed like that.
Last night Cameron was busy presenting Coalition success stories as though they had been Conservative-alone ones, and said very little about what a Tory-alone government would be like. It was this that Nick Clegg was trying to highlight.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
Let's hope these people win:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11513803/Paris-supermarket-hostages-sue-media-over-live-coverage.html
If only to make news organisations behave more responsibly in the future. I know, fat chance.