Once that is out of the way (if required), the election of a new leader can proceed. I don't think Vince would be a runner in that race - the question is how many survivors will make it into the lifeboats and who will they be ?
In the same way as many would have backed Portillo to lead a post-1997 Conservative Party, I think we need to see the runners and riders (so to speak). Farron looks to be a runner and I imagine there are a few other possibles but that's a long way off.
Reminds me of Portillo's comment on BBC1 This Week a couple of weeks ago.
He said that on the Monday before the 1997 GE a national newspaper (Daily Mail?) had the headline "Heseltine and Portillo to battle for Tory leadership"
A few days later Portillo had lost his seat and Heseltine had had a heart attack.
Yes agree with this. There are too many different possibilities to make working out who will be the next leader seem a little bit premature. The electoral fate of several of the likely candidates needs to be found out first, along with overall election result. Who is in residence at No.10 I think will influence thinking of party members. I do think that if it is Cable then it would only be on a interim basis if Clegg loses his seat. If Nick is in the next parliament (and I think he will be) and he decides to stand down as leader then Vince's age will probably count against him and I don't think he would look to take over.
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
There's a report in The Times that Mr Farage did deploy his HIV tactics to pump up his core vote. No surprises here but interesting to see it confirmed by "party sources" thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4401914.ece
So the only possible salvation for his soul - that it was a spur of the moment thing that just slipped out - has gone.
He's on the down escalator, come the Pearly Gates.
Happily I can confirm that the readings of the true Oracle (for it is It) confound your theory. Sufficient squirrels wings were provided to ensure an infallible result.
Hmm. Formally, I'm sure you know of what you speak. But could a party without either a leader or a deputy leader credibly discuss what would no doubt be a controversial choice of governing partners? Realistically, aren't they going to say "We won't bring down whatever government forms for now, hope that's helpful, call us again in 3 months"?
Fair comment, Nick, and my view for some time is that the party won't take part in any postelection discussions unless a) Nick Clegg survives and b) Coalition 2.0 was viable.
Assuming one or either of those conditions doesn't exist, I suspect the LDs will leave the Government building to the SNP, DUP and others. That may not be an easy option if the numbers don't add up or even if they do but getting the delegates of the Special Conference of a defeated and leaderless party to agree to something isn't going to be easy.
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
However any woman re-elected may go for it (Swinson, Featherstone, Burt, Munt, Willott) The LDs well aware of their poor gender balance would make whoever ran a very credible candidate - but none of them are favourites to hold their seats.
Do you think Burt can realistically hold Solihull? I suppose there isn't a huge student population.
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
It's shaping up to be a Monty Python fight between sensible vs silly, those who want to achieve whatever they can with compromise, against the more vocal campaigning that's much easier in opposition. One candidate is already in place, Tim Farron in the second category. Lamb vs Davey for the first - as it's AV no need for them to come to an arrangement - but Davey has no chance. Vince sits awkwardly between the two camps, and his star has waned. If it's as above, then Faron walks it.
However any woman re-elected may go for it (Swinson, Featherstone, Burt, Munt, Willott) The LDs well aware of their poor gender balance would make whoever ran a very credible candidate - but none of them are favourites to hold their seats.
Bit of a random question, but are you the same tpfkar that comments on sofabet? I'd wondered if there was an overlap the other day when I read someone describe Farage as having been thrown under a bus by the Daily Mail.
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
It's shaping up to be a Monty Python fight between sensible vs silly, those who want to achieve whatever they can with compromise, against the more vocal campaigning that's much easier in opposition. One candidate is already in place, Tim Farron in the second category. Lamb vs Davey for the first - as it's AV no need for them to come to an arrangement - but Davey has no chance. Vince sits awkwardly between the two camps, and his star has waned. If it's as above, then Faron walks it.
However any woman re-elected may go for it (Swinson, Featherstone, Burt, Munt, Willott) The LDs well aware of their poor gender balance would make whoever ran a very credible candidate - but none of them are favourites to hold their seats.
Bit of a random question, but are you the same tpfkar that comments on sofabet? I'd wondered if there was an overlap the other day when I read someone describe Farage as having been thrown under a bus by the Daily Mail.
Hi tig86 yes I am. I use it as a username in several places as it's so odd it's always available. I follow the X Factor on sofabet quite closely and do put (minimal) money down there as it's easier to get an edge as it's anything but a fair contest.
** TORY LEAD IN ELBOW ALERT ** TORY LEAD IN ELBOW ALERT **
#crossover
I know I should be enjoying the last day of my break here in Amsterdam, but you can take the boy out of ELBOW.... um you know what I mean!
OK here goes:
ELBOW week-ending 5th April, 13 polls, sample 14,798:
Con 34.1% (+0.5 - The Blues' first official lead in ELBOW - to 1 decimal place! - and their highest score in ELBOW to date!) Lab 33.8 (nc - Reds stuck on 33.8 for the third week in a row) UKIP 13.7 (-0.1 - a steady drip by drip fall, not a Purple collapse by any means) LD 8.0 (+0.1 - actually, where LDs where they were two weeks ago, so holding up) Green 4.8 (-0.9 - catastrophic collapse, the Green Team's lowest score since October)
Very off thread- am watching the Murray match. Djokovic surely has to be playing the greatest tennis in the history of the sport. He stands shoulders above the field. It is not that he has the elegance of Federer, or that forehand of Nadal; but he is just a brutal, machine.
** TORY LEAD IN ELBOW ALERT ** TORY LEAD IN ELBOW ALERT **
#crossover
I know I should be enjoying the last day of my break here in Amsterdam, but you can take the boy out of ELBOW.... um you know what I mean!
OK here goes:
ELBOW week-ending 5th April, 13 polls, sample 14,798:
Con 34.1% (+0.5 - The Blue's first official lead in ELBOW - to 1 decimal place! - and their highest score in ELBOW to date!) Lab 33.8 (nc - Reds stuck on 33.8 for the third week in a row) UKIP 13.7 (-0.1 - a steady drip by drip fall, not a Purple collapse by any means) LD 8.0 (+0.1 - actually, where LDs where they were two weeks ago, so holding up) Green 4.8 (-0.9 - catastrophic collapse, the Green Team's lowest score since October)
"Just rejoice at that news!"
I don't know which I like more - your results, or the magisterial impartiality with which you present them.
There's a report in The Times that Mr Farage did deploy his HIV tactics to pump up his core vote. No surprises here but interesting to see it confirmed by "party sources" thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4401914.ece
So the only possible salvation for his soul - that it was a spur of the moment thing that just slipped out - has gone.
He's on the down escalator, come the Pearly Gates.
YouGov asked about this in their Sunday Times poll.
"And thinking specifically about Nigel Farage's comments, which of the following best reflects your view?
Nigel Farage was right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money: 52%
Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean 37%
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
435 Nuneaton 01:00 will give a huge steer as to whether Ed will become PM.
Even the Sunderland Seats will have interesting data on what the LAB--> UKIP swing is going to be - most are traditional Labour (ex heavy industry) rather than Public Sector.
Labour 45% --> Ed is doomed Labour 50% --> Ed stays on as LOTO Labour 55% --> Ed is PM
Dunno, Labour 45%, UKIP 25% could be very good for Ed over the course of the evening.
Labour 50%, UKIP 5% may not be...
No single seat is a reliable indicator of anything but itself.
IIRC those North East seats had swings last time which, taken at face value, would have forecast a substantial Con majority.
You need about 30 results to accurately forecast the overall outcome, and not even then, if it's going to be close, either in seat parity or near the majority threshold...
I've made some calculations after I've watched all the BBC election broadcasts since 1970 in order to answer this, and the minimum number is 3 seat declarations in order to get an accurate picture.
Unfortunately this time we will probably have to focus exclusively on E&W seat declarations, so it will take longer.
Bit of a random question, but are you the same tpfkar that comments on sofabet? I'd wondered if there was an overlap the other day when I read someone describe Farage as having been thrown under a bus by the Daily Mail.
Hi tig86 yes I am. I use it as a username in several places as it's so odd it's always available. I follow the X Factor on sofabet quite closely and do put (minimal) money down there as it's easier to get an edge as it's anything but a fair contest.
It's the bias of the X Factor that makes it an interesting watch. I find myself cheering on the acts who the producers want rid of, but the producers usually get their way in the end. With the 2015 GE, however, the Tory press might not get the result it's looking for.
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
There was a time when Torbay was up for the first declaration. It won't happen this time, with both local and mayoral elections also on the same day.....
Could come down to 12 votes again
rock, scissors, paper.
Lizard Spock
(Men tend to throw rock - so the best strategy is to throw scissors).
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
Digging up dirt on UKIP eh - this tweet is 4 years old FFS!
To use the local political cliché - as the lead negotiator in the Irish 2007 coalition talks told their hapless Green supplicants - "You're playing senior hurling now, lads".
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
Assuming Cameron negotiated DUP support it would be (excluding LDs!):
Con/DUP 308 (or 309) Lab/SNP/PC/Green 303ish
Do you think LDs would abstain and let Cameron stay in office?
Or vote against so Miliband became PM? In which case LDs would have to positively vote with Lab to pass a Lab Queens Speech (unless DUP immediately switched sides)?
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
Assuming Cameron negotiated DUP support it would be (excluding LDs!):
Con/DUP 308 (or 309) Lab/SNP/PC/Green 303ish
Do you think LDs would abstain and let Cameron stay in office?
Or vote against so Miliband became PM? In which case LDs would have to positively vote with Lab to pass a Lab Queens Speech (unless DUP immediately switched sides)?
I would think a Tory government in constant crisis trying to avoid defeat after defeat in parliament and by-elections.
There's a report in The Times that Mr Farage did deploy his HIV tactics to pump up his core vote. No surprises here but interesting to see it confirmed by "party sources" thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4401914.ece
So the only possible salvation for his soul - that it was a spur of the moment thing that just slipped out - has gone.
He's on the down escalator, come the Pearly Gates.
YouGov asked about this in their Sunday Times poll.
"And thinking specifically about Nigel Farage's comments, which of the following best reflects your view?
Nigel Farage was right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money: 52%
Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean 37%
Don't know: 11%"
1. Democracy is not morality! 2. Being "right to raise an issue" does not make the broacher agreeable or even attractive to people! See Ashcroft http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/dont-blame-coalition-parties-failed-test-set-2010/ - "more than half of all voters think UKIP “are prepared to say things other parties are scared to say”, but they are much less likely to think the party “reasonable and sensible” "
Andrew Neil @afneil 2m2 minutes ago "Sturgeon" memo written by Scotland Office official in Edinburgh after phone call from French diplomat. SNP claim SO "conjured it up".
Presumably, the LD's, for their long term survival must fashion themselves into a party of opposition. To get themselves into any kind of governing agreement would only reduce their role further.
The SNP are another beast altogether. If they can get into an influential role in Govt, then this would surely further their interests.
From the responses on the previous thread it seems that both Spain and Italy recharge health costs from British retirees to the UK Treasury.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
Andrew Neil @afneil 2m2 minutes ago "Sturgeon" memo written by Scotland Office official in Edinburgh after phone call from French diplomat. SNP claim SO "conjured it up".
Indeed, Mr Carmichael has confirmed it's from the Scotland Office (at least in the sense of having been written there):
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
Agree on Labour. The relations would be terrible, and Labour would want to say how useless the last Govt were and blame them for everything, putting the Lib Dems in an impossible position . With the Tories, I think it will depend on a May 8th calculation as to whether they could get an EU referendum Bill through the commons without LD support - if so then get a big price (e.g. mansion tax, PR for local government and referendum on Lords Reform) and insist that 16 year olds vote in referendum, I don't see that as a deal-breaker, but then I've always been relaxed about a referendum anyway.
Why would the DUP back the Tories? Apart from their historical hatred of the Blues, they have said an end to austerity and the bedroom tax is key to any deal. That puts them in the Labour pile not the Tory pile
Some people haven't realized that whatever happens it's very likely that the next government might be as stable as that of Callaghan's or less.
Best case for Tories is that they keep all their seats and go into a coalition with the scorched LD, that at best will have a majority in single figures that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections. Best case for Labour is being again to form a coalition with the LD, that will have a few seats majority that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
I think your numbers need a little refining especially with reference to Ulster (and no mention of UKIP). I believe Lady Hermon and the three SDLP members would side with Labour but on the other hand if we assume Naomi Long is defeated, that would give the DUP nine seats. You've also omitted the Speaker's seat but he "counts" on the Government side anyway.
I would expect Cameron to invite Nick Clegg (if he survives) to form a second Coalition while also seeking DUP support (Labour would be doing the same of course) and the horse trading would start. Could a second deal be done ? Don't know - the problem for Cameron is that IF the LDs don't support the Referendum and actively oppose it, Cameron doesn't have the numbers for his precious vote.
So what would be the LD price for not opposing the EU Referendum ? Again, don't know but there would or ought to be one.
In any case, Cameron's position is much stronger on those numbers because the theory of Labour/SNP et al voting down his minority is one thing - the fact is another. I suspect Labour will want a post-election post-mortem of their own so it might be that Cameron will simply form his minority Government, throw a bone or two to the SNP and LDs and carry on.
Reduce the Tory number by 10 and increase the Lab/SNP number by 10 and ask the question again - that's when it gets REALLY interesting.
On a further point Southam's view that immigrants are a cashcow to the UK economy doesn't correlate to the general economic picture.
Because a decade of record immigration shouldn't be a decade in which the government has borrowed a trillion pounds, the economy has barely grown, productivity has stagnated, the current account deficit has reached record levels and inequality has worsened if they are so economically beneficial.
As the average person has to earn well over average wages to be a net financial contributor to the UK then only if the average immigrant reaches this level would they be a cashcow to the UK economy rather than a cash drain.
Of course there is the argument that the average worker is a less frequent user of public services than a retired person. But the working age immigrant will themselves become a heavy public services user as they get older.
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
Assuming Cameron negotiated DUP support it would be (excluding LDs!):
Con/DUP 308 (or 309) Lab/SNP/PC/Green 303ish
Do you think LDs would abstain and let Cameron stay in office?
Or vote against so Miliband became PM? In which case LDs would have to positively vote with Lab to pass a Lab Queens Speech (unless DUP immediately switched sides)?
I would vote against any arrangement with Labour on those numbers - Ed would have been thrashed in votes and seats ( and probably a backbencher by lunchtime May 8th.) but not keen on Tory coalition on those numbers - 332 wouldn't be enough to get anything contentious through given likely rebels. Unless the Tories made big policy concessions, I'd prefer confidence and supply, with a deal on LD top priorities for EU referendum and all other bills to be considered case by case.
Why would the DUP back the Tories? Apart from their historical hatred of the Blues, they have said an end to austerity and the bedroom tax is key to any deal. That puts them in the Labour pile not the Tory pile
Robinson has said they're happy to support either side.
I think it's almost certain they'll go with the "winner" as long as they get whatever concessions they want.
And the good thing for Cameron / Miliband is that NI is small enough that the money required is really just loose change in the overall scheme of things.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
Some people haven't realized that whatever happens it's very likely that the next government might be as stable as that of Callaghan's or less.
Best case for Tories is that they keep all their seats and go into a coalition with the scorched LD, that at best will have a majority in single figures that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections. Best case for Labour is being again to form a coalition with the LD, that will have a few seats majority that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections.
It seemed to take ages for a majority to push Callaghan out, though the loss of a vote of no confidence ushered in Mrs T, thanks to the SNP. Might explain the frothing from the more excitable Cyber Nats.
@Speedy's point is important, Callaghan limped on and on, because there was a rainbow coalition on the opposition benches which couldn't or wouldn't combine to oust him.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
From the responses on the previous thread it seems that both Spain and Italy recharge health costs from British retirees to the UK Treasury.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
I'm sure that this is extremely similar to the EHIC that we can all use. There would be no financial burden on the host government, and it's very unlikely to me that recharging at a profit would happen in the framework.
I suspect the English expats in Spain are seen like English expats in Cornwall or foreign expats in London - incomers who drive up property prices, but whose contribution to the rest of the local economy is, fairly or unfairly, imperceptible.
As another in the LD electorate, Stodge's comment is the most useful in the thread.
Cable's chances rely on the Lib Dems winning enough seats to negotiate a coalition but with Clegg losing his seat. Clegg is facing an epic swing away, so not impossible there will be 35 LDs but the leader gone. However I'd price us above 8/1 already.
You then need the parliamentary party to elect a caretaker leader, actually I think Vince could win this as he performed admirably in this role before. However the Tories don't trust him so this would only work with a Lab negotiation, getting it through the party's procedures ( federal executive, parliamentary party, special conference) he then stands down once full leader elected. Not impossible but you are looking at 40/1 ish on all the above from here.
Thanks for the kind word - I call it as I see it. I simply don't detect any mood for going into any kind of deal with Labour but that's not to say the Party would actively seek to bring down a Labour-SNP Government even if the numbers provided for that eventuality.
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
Assuming Cameron negotiated DUP support it would be (excluding LDs!):
Con/DUP 308 (or 309) Lab/SNP/PC/Green 303ish
Do you think LDs would abstain and let Cameron stay in office?
Or vote against so Miliband became PM? In which case LDs would have to positively vote with Lab to pass a Lab Queens Speech (unless DUP immediately switched sides)?
I would think a Tory government in constant crisis trying to avoid defeat after defeat in parliament and by-elections.
Perhaps it would be an incentive to stop adding laws and inventing new crimes just for the sake of "something must be done". Hopefully instability will result in a period of inaction.
All government interferes and does harm in one way or another.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
Hounds kill a fox before "ripping it to shreds". Foxes are still shot because they can't be hunted. If a fox is shot but not killed, it doesn't lick its wounds and dies a lingering and horrible death, to keep you happy. This is happening all over the country, in real time, as we speak, this being the lambing season. Well done. The foxes must be grateful to you.
435 Nuneaton 01:00 will give a huge steer as to whether Ed will become PM.
Even the Sunderland Seats will have interesting data on what the LAB--> UKIP swing is going to be - most are traditional Labour (ex heavy industry) rather than Public Sector.
Labour 45% --> Ed is doomed Labour 50% --> Ed stays on as LOTO Labour 55% --> Ed is PM
Dunno, Labour 45%, UKIP 25% could be very good for Ed over the course of the evening.
Labour 50%, UKIP 5% may not be...
No single seat is a reliable indicator of anything but itself.
IIRC those North East seats had swings last time which, taken at face value, would have forecast a substantial Con majority.
You need about 30 results to accurately forecast the overall outcome, and not even then, if it's going to be close, either in seat parity or near the majority threshold...
I've made some calculations after I've watched all the BBC election broadcasts since 1970 in order to answer this, and the minimum number is 3 seat declarations in order to get an accurate picture.
Unfortunately this time we will probably have to focus exclusively on E&W seat declarations, so it will take longer.
Problem is variation in swing has increased from ~2% in 1970 to ~4% in 2010, and will increase massively this time due to a huge "swing" to the Tories in Scotland. Even without Scotland I would expect England&Wales variation to increase owing to the differential impact of the UKIP rise and the LD fall, as well as regional voting patterns.
In 2005 and 2010 the first three results significantly over-estimated the Tories, in 1979 they significantly underestimated them. In 1964 and Feb 74, they overestimated Labour.
Oddly in 1992 the first three were pretty indicative. It just took the pundits ages to believe the evidence - they remained in denial far too long.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
A serious question.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
Some people haven't realized that whatever happens it's very likely that the next government might be as stable as that of Callaghan's or less.
Best case for Tories is that they keep all their seats and go into a coalition with the scorched LD, that at best will have a majority in single figures that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections. Best case for Labour is being again to form a coalition with the LD, that will have a few seats majority that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections.
It seemed to take ages for a majority to push Callaghan out, though the loss of a vote of no confidence ushered in Mrs T, thanks to the SNP.
Thanks to Frank Maguire, actually, who turned up to "abstain in person"? WTF?
I saw three foxes in the middle of fields in broad daylight here in Hungary today. They're very handsome, though their fur is sandier and their brushes are bushier than British foxes.
Why would the DUP back the Tories? Apart from their historical hatred of the Blues, they have said an end to austerity and the bedroom tax is key to any deal. That puts them in the Labour pile not the Tory pile
Robinson has said they're happy to support either side.
I think it's almost certain they'll go with the "winner" as long as they get whatever concessions they want.
And the good thing for Cameron / Miliband is that NI is small enough that the money required is really just loose change in the overall scheme of things.
If its such loose change than every backbench oddball and malcontent will also want 'loose change' spending on their constituency / region / area of interest.
As will every MP with a marginal constituency.
The sight of the DUP giving it large about how much money they're getting will be more than a little provocative. Not just for other politicians but for voters as well.
From the responses on the previous thread it seems that both Spain and Italy recharge health costs from British retirees to the UK Treasury.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
I'm sure that this is extremely similar to the EHIC that we can all use. There would be no financial burden on the host government, and it's very unlikely to me that recharging at a profit would happen in the framework.
I suspect the English expats in Spain are seen like English expats in Cornwall or foreign expats in London - incomers who drive up property prices, but whose contribution to the rest of the local economy is, fairly or unfairly, imperceptible.
Exactly the opposite, in fact. The Spanish economy around here particularly is in a mess and whole developments up and down the costas lie empty - abandoned by developers and repossessed by the banks. In many areas near here English expats are the owners of houses on ghost estates and they *are* the local economy.
What do you think would happen if the numbers were as follows and Cameron attempted to carry on?
Con 300 Lab 260 LD 32 SNP+PC+Green 40 NI 18
I think your numbers need a little refining especially with reference to Ulster (and no mention of UKIP). I believe Lady Hermon and the three SDLP members would side with Labour but on the other hand if we assume Naomi Long is defeated, that would give the DUP nine seats. You've also omitted the Speaker's seat but he "counts" on the Government side anyway.
I would expect Cameron to invite Nick Clegg (if he survives) to form a second Coalition while also seeking DUP support (Labour would be doing the same of course) and the horse trading would start. Could a second deal be done ? Don't know - the problem for Cameron is that IF the LDs don't support the Referendum and actively oppose it, Cameron doesn't have the numbers for his precious vote.
So what would be the LD price for not opposing the EU Referendum ? Again, don't know but there would or ought to be one.
In any case, Cameron's position is much stronger on those numbers because the theory of Labour/SNP et al voting down his minority is one thing - the fact is another. I suspect Labour will want a post-election post-mortem of their own so it might be that Cameron will simply form his minority Government, throw a bone or two to the SNP and LDs and carry on.
Reduce the Tory number by 10 and increase the Lab/SNP number by 10 and ask the question again - that's when it gets REALLY interesting.
Thanks for your reply - for the record I had the "opposition" on 303 to allow for 3 SDLP. But agree my numbers didn't allow for UKIP. I count the Speaker as Con (like the BBC) because Lab has to provide two Deputy Speakers and Con only one - and none of the four vote.
I guess it comes down to whether the LDs are willing to have anything to do with the SNP. If not it seems to me that the PM will probably come from whichever side has most seats (not counting LDs on either side) - perhaps with the proviso that Cameron would be able to get the DUP if he is well ahead of Lab on seats as the DUP won't like the SNP (and he also has the slight advantage of incumbency).
Why would the DUP back the Tories? Apart from their historical hatred of the Blues, they have said an end to austerity and the bedroom tax is key to any deal. That puts them in the Labour pile not the Tory pile
Robinson has said they're happy to support either side.
I think it's almost certain they'll go with the "winner" as long as they get whatever concessions they want.
And the good thing for Cameron / Miliband is that NI is small enough that the money required is really just loose change in the overall scheme of things.
If its such loose change than every backbench oddball and malcontent will also want 'loose change' spending on their constituency / region / area of interest.
As will every MP with a marginal constituency.
The sight of the DUP giving it large about how much money they're getting will be more than a little provocative. Not just for other politicians but for voters as well.
Especially considering that the purpose of the cash will be to end EWS-style austerity in NI and to buy peace in the Assembly - galling for Tories to let others enjoy an easing up of rigour, no?
From the responses on the previous thread it seems that both Spain and Italy recharge health costs from British retirees to the UK Treasury.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
I'm sure that this is extremely similar to the EHIC that we can all use. There would be no financial burden on the host government, and it's very unlikely to me that recharging at a profit would happen in the framework.
I suspect the English expats in Spain are seen like English expats in Cornwall or foreign expats in London - incomers who drive up property prices, but whose contribution to the rest of the local economy is, fairly or unfairly, imperceptible.
Exactly the opposite, in fact. The Spanish economy around here particularly is in a mess and whole developments up and down the costas lie empty - abandoned by developers and repossessed by the banks. In many areas near here English expats are the owners of houses on ghost estates and they *are* the local economy.
Perhaps I should say... I suspect the Spanish see it that way!
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Not overly great, but a whole different ball game than just killing mammals for fun, which for me is sick and twisted. Fish and birds are different from mammals. Plus many anglers return their quarry- something that is quite difficult to do if you have just torn it's body to shreds, or planted a 12 bore in it's heart.
I have pets and feed them chicken and fish- I m not one of those real crazies who has vegan pets. We were out at lunch today, and someone gave our dog (Trotsky) some steak. She was a very happy hound.
I find it difficult though that the same people who have mammals as pets, dogs and cats and love them dearly, can equally tuck into a mammal for their lunch.
Most of the comments seem to be from numpties. Is any one capable of a sensible debate ?
What would you like to talk about?
I like to talk about punctuation. You said:
"We are moving towards the abyss. We need strong government . We are living in dangerous times . Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it."
The rule is word-punctuation mark-space. There is a school of labour troll here which distinctively omits the space after the punctuation mark. You seem to be over-compensating for this tendency.
From the responses on the previous thread it seems that both Spain and Italy recharge health costs from British retirees to the UK Treasury.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
I'm sure that this is extremely similar to the EHIC that we can all use. There would be no financial burden on the host government, and it's very unlikely to me that recharging at a profit would happen in the framework.
I suspect the English expats in Spain are seen like English expats in Cornwall or foreign expats in London - incomers who drive up property prices, but whose contribution to the rest of the local economy is, fairly or unfairly, imperceptible.
Recharging at a profit probably wouldn't happen officially but its very easy to arrange unofficially - overhead costs, professional fees, management charges, transfer pricing and other accounting techniques.
On a further point Southam's view that immigrants are a cashcow to the UK economy doesn't correlate to the general economic picture.
Because a decade of record immigration shouldn't be a decade in which the government has borrowed a trillion pounds, the economy has barely grown, productivity has stagnated, the current account deficit has reached record levels and inequality has worsened if they are so economically beneficial.
...
The government has borrowed ever since 2000. Brown increased public spending by 50% in real terms for 10 years. Thats why we have had deficits and debt. A massive and unprecedented increase in spending which was not sustainable. There was a financial crash in 2008 which wiped some 7% of the productive capacity of the economy. None of this had anything to do with immigration. What has had something to do with it is a growing economy and a great increase in jobs and employment levels since 2010 despite that previous loss of capacity. Any comparison with 2000-2010 and 2010-2015 will show just how much this govt has clamped down on spending. The economy is growing significantly.
Most of the comments seem to be from numpties. Is any one capable of a sensible debate ?
What would you like to talk about?
I like to talk about punctuation. You said:
"We are moving towards the abyss. We need strong government . We are living in dangerous times . Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it."
The rule is word-punctuation mark-space. There is a school of labour troll here which distinctively omits the space after the punctuation mark. You seem to be over-compensating for this tendency.
Most of the comments seem to be from numpties. Is any one capable of a sensible debate ?
What would you like to talk about?
I like to talk about punctuation. You said:
"We are moving towards the abyss. We need strong government . We are living in dangerous times . Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it."
The rule is word-punctuation mark-space. There is a school of labour troll here which distinctively omits the space after the punctuation mark. You seem to be over-compensating for this tendency.
Pedant's off the world unite
(Did you see what I did there?)
It's just a very unusual error, and an extraordinary coincidence that the three definitely separate, individual posters who make it all have the same ill-thought-out and uninteresting wannabe leftie views; and now here's another one doing the same thing in reverse. Very odd.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
A serious question.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
Is that honestly a serious question?
These are often sentient, intelligent creatures.
Not existing is not relevant. The idea of killing animals for nothing more than fun is detestable.
Would you breed highly intelligent monkeys and then kill them, painfully and slowly?
On a further point Southam's view that immigrants are a cashcow to the UK economy doesn't correlate to the general economic picture.
Because a decade of record immigration shouldn't be a decade in which the government has borrowed a trillion pounds, the economy has barely grown, productivity has stagnated, the current account deficit has reached record levels and inequality has worsened if they are so economically beneficial.
...
The government has borrowed ever since 2000. Brown increased public spending by 50% in real terms for 10 years. Thats why we have had deficits and debt. A massive and unprecedented increase in spending which was not sustainable. There was a financial crash in 2008 which wiped some 7% of the productive capacity of the economy. None of this had anything to do with immigration. What has had something to do with it is a growing economy and a great increase in jobs and employment levels since 2010 despite that previous loss of capacity. Any comparison with 2000-2010 and 2010-2015 will show just how much this govt has clamped down on spending. The economy is growing significantly.
Do you ever stop reciting from the sheets CCHQ provide ?
Perhaps you'd like to ask them why Cameron and Osborne promised to match Brown's 'massive and unprecedented increase in spending which was not sustainable' ?
Or why this government has so increased Overseas Aid if it is committed to a spending clampdown ?
We are moving towards the abyss. We need strong government . We are living in dangerous times . Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it.
The end is nigh? Are you a Jehovah by chance? Let's ring the bells of doom. Perhaps we are going to get waves of ISISS beheaders swarming our high streets? Maybe Putin will finish us off? Or maybe not.
One thing might interest you. At Geneva they have re-strarted the particle accelerator at heightened speeds. Mankind is on the verge of learning great things. The world is a richer place as millions are taken out of poverty every year. In a hundred years our global birth rate will start reducing, as we begin to manage the world's resources in a more constructive way through global institutions like the EU.
In my view this is the most positive time it has ever been to be human. It'll get better for sure. The thing with humans, it always does, barring the odd blip.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
Great - so you've spent an hour torturing a fish with a hook through its mouth and then release it so hopefully you can do it again! What more do you want? Blood?
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
I have pets and feed them chicken and fish- I m not one of those real crazies who has vegan pets. We were out at lunch today, and someone gave our dog (Trotsky) some steak. She was a very happy hound.
I thought your sympathies were with Stalin not Trotsky ?
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
As That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
Apart from Sunil who professed to be being a vegetarian (and then offered little else other than his bony ELBOW), finally on this site we have another poster who's empathic about animals.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
I have pets and feed them chicken and fish- I m not one of those real crazies who has vegan pets. We were out at lunch today, and someone gave our dog (Trotsky) some steak. She was a very happy hound.
I thought your sympathies were with Stalin not Trotsky ?
"Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists ... Leninism is a weapon for the workers!" - Communist Party of Great Britain.
Apologies, I just caught your comments on angling. Aside, from your knobbly ELBOW, and for professing your vegetarianism, you do provide views on animals.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
A serious question.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
Is that honestly a serious question?
These are often sentient, intelligent creatures.
Not existing is not relevant. The idea of killing animals for nothing more than fun is detestable.
Would you breed highly intelligent monkeys and then kill them, painfully and slowly?
Is that honestly a serious answer ?
Perhaps you think farmers breed cattle, sheep, pigs etc for nothing more than the fun of killing them.
And I must admit to never seeing any monkey, highly intelligent or otherwise, in a field in this country.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
Great - so you've spent an hour torturing a fish with a hook through its mouth and then release it so hopefully you can do it again! What more do you want? Blood?
Is it true that vegetarian men have better tasting... um... er... you know...
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
A serious question.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
Is that honestly a serious question?
These are often sentient, intelligent creatures.
Not existing is not relevant. The idea of killing animals for nothing more than fun is detestable.
Would you breed highly intelligent monkeys and then kill them, painfully and slowly?
Is that honestly a serious answer ?
Perhaps you think farmers breed cattle, sheep, pigs etc for nothing more than the fun of killing them.
And I must admit to never seeing any monkey, highly intelligent or otherwise, in a field in this country.
There is a vast difference between killing animals for food as humanely as possible, as farmers do, and for fun.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
As That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
I think the fish forget quite quickly otherwise they wouldn't take the bait every time. Kind of like humans with alcohol and hangovers.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
As That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
No, he then moves on to his next investigation of alleged river monster story.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
I have pets and feed them chicken and fish- I m not one of those real crazies who has vegan pets. We were out at lunch today, and someone gave our dog (Trotsky) some steak. She was a very happy hound.
I thought your sympathies were with Stalin not Trotsky ?
"Trotskyism is a tool of the capitalists ... Leninism is a weapon for the workers!" - Communist Party of Great Britain.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
What's your opinion on angling?
Jeremy Wade on "River Monsters" always tends to let the fish he catches back into the river.
As That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
I think the fish forget quite quickly otherwise they wouldn't take the bait every time. Kind of like humans with alcohol and hangovers.
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
So do you disapprove of the wholesale killing of animals or just the retail killing.
I really, really disapprove of the killing of any animal that is breathing and wants to live, especially when it is completely needless, to satisfy a taste, or worse still for fun. Humans are top of the food chain. That effectively means that they are in control- so they can equally choose not to kill. In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
A serious question.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
Is that honestly a serious question?
These are often sentient, intelligent creatures.
Not existing is not relevant. The idea of killing animals for nothing more than fun is detestable.
Would you breed highly intelligent monkeys and then kill them, painfully and slowly?
Is that honestly a serious answer ?
Perhaps you think farmers breed cattle, sheep, pigs etc for nothing more than the fun of killing them.
And I must admit to never seeing any monkey, highly intelligent or otherwise, in a field in this country.
There is a vast difference between killing animals for food as humanely as possible, as farmers do, and for fun.
Which was the point I was alluding to in my question to Tyson.
Why you needed to have a rant about 'highly intelligent monkeys' baffles me.
Front page of the Times, Labour strategists are only releasing what the PB Tories pointed out at the time
>
Are we dragging a LOTO out of their natural environment, throwing him to a pack of wild nationalists to get ripped to shreds......and worse still filming it Just for fun?
Comments
I do think that if it is Cable then it would only be on a interim basis if Clegg loses his seat. If Nick is in the next parliament (and I think he will be) and he decides to stand down as leader then Vince's age will probably count against him and I don't think he would look to take over.
Assuming one or either of those conditions doesn't exist, I suspect the LDs will leave the Government building to the SNP, DUP and others. That may not be an easy option if the numbers don't add up or even if they do but getting the delegates of the Special Conference of a defeated and leaderless party to agree to something isn't going to be easy.
But I think it will be the LibDems asking....
Sunil - is there anything in your post?
JackW - anything in yours?
I know I'm going to regret this post but nice to get to the BOTTOM of things.
BOTTOM - Bloody obvious terms tested (by) obvious mugs.
Decision by short straws - Bury council election
I follow the X Factor on sofabet quite closely and do put (minimal) money down there as it's easier to get an edge as it's anything but a fair contest.
OK here goes:
ELBOW week-ending 5th April, 13 polls, sample 14,798:
Con 34.1% (+0.5 - The Blues' first official lead in ELBOW - to 1 decimal place! - and their highest score in ELBOW to date!)
Lab 33.8 (nc - Reds stuck on 33.8 for the third week in a row)
UKIP 13.7 (-0.1 - a steady drip by drip fall, not a Purple collapse by any means)
LD 8.0 (+0.1 - actually, where LDs where they were two weeks ago, so holding up)
Green 4.8 (-0.9 - catastrophic collapse, the Green Team's lowest score since October)
"Just rejoice at that news!"
Djokovic surely has to be playing the greatest tennis in the history of the sport. He stands shoulders above the field. It is not that he has the elegance of Federer, or that forehand of Nadal; but he is just a brutal, machine.
@junayed_: This UKIP parliamentary candidate for Banbury seems like a lovely chap. http://t.co/X0CkGG5Bz6
Rejoicing as ordered.
"And thinking specifically about Nigel Farage's comments, which of the following best reflects your view?
Nigel Farage was right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money: 52%
Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean 37%
Don't know: 11%"
As for the Tories, Coalition 2.0 is a long way from happening even if the numbers stack up. There isn't a strong desire to go back into Government with Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and May and I don't know how a deal can be struck with the elephant in the room being the EU Referendum.
There was a hurried council, and Roy Jenkins was replaced as leader of the campaign.
Could something like that happen this time?
Just wondering about possibilities, and throwing another log on the fire.
Unfortunately this time we will probably have to focus exclusively on E&W seat declarations, so it will take longer.
If it is, then down the bin it goes.
scissors,
paper.
Spock
(Men tend to throw rock - so the best strategy is to throw scissors).
Christies won a £10.6M auction by throwing scissors. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4521589.stm
Ah- how cute. Pity DC supports packs of hounds ripping to shreds terrified wild foxes, and deer, and needlessly slaughtering wild badgers to boot. DC likes to shoot wild animals too- oh what fun that must be, can you imagine?. To point a gun at a wild, sentient animal and bang- to kill it. The thrill, the fun. The blood. What a lovely man he is.
Con 300
Lab 260
LD 32
SNP+PC+Green 40
NI 18
Assuming Cameron negotiated DUP support it would be (excluding LDs!):
Con/DUP 308 (or 309)
Lab/SNP/PC/Green 303ish
Do you think LDs would abstain and let Cameron stay in office?
Or vote against so Miliband became PM? In which case LDs would have to positively vote with Lab to pass a Lab Queens Speech (unless DUP immediately switched sides)?
2. Being "right to raise an issue" does not make the broacher agreeable or even attractive to people! See Ashcroft http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/dont-blame-coalition-parties-failed-test-set-2010/ - "more than half of all voters think UKIP “are prepared to say things other parties are scared to say”, but they are much less likely to think the party “reasonable and sensible” "
"Sturgeon" memo written by Scotland Office official in Edinburgh after phone call from French diplomat. SNP claim SO "conjured it up".
The SNP are another beast altogether. If they can get into an influential role in Govt, then this would surely further their interests.
Which rather demolishes the claim, made endless times on PB, that these countries are losing out from British people retiring there.
On the contrary Spain and Italy gain from the retirees spending their savings and pensions in the local economies plus gain from recharging (almost certainly at a profit) any health costs the retirees incur.
http://news.channel4.com/election2015/04/05/#update-931
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/tories-labour-democratic-unionist-support
Best case for Tories is that they keep all their seats and go into a coalition with the scorched LD, that at best will have a majority in single figures that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections.
Best case for Labour is being again to form a coalition with the LD, that will have a few seats majority that would be eroded by rebellions and by-elections.
I would expect Cameron to invite Nick Clegg (if he survives) to form a second Coalition while also seeking DUP support (Labour would be doing the same of course) and the horse trading would start. Could a second deal be done ? Don't know - the problem for Cameron is that IF the LDs don't support the Referendum and actively oppose it, Cameron doesn't have the numbers for his precious vote.
So what would be the LD price for not opposing the EU Referendum ? Again, don't know but there would or ought to be one.
In any case, Cameron's position is much stronger on those numbers because the theory of Labour/SNP et al voting down his minority is one thing - the fact is another. I suspect Labour will want a post-election post-mortem of their own so it might be that Cameron will simply form his minority Government, throw a bone or two to the SNP and LDs and carry on.
Reduce the Tory number by 10 and increase the Lab/SNP number by 10 and ask the question again - that's when it gets REALLY interesting.
Because a decade of record immigration shouldn't be a decade in which the government has borrowed a trillion pounds, the economy has barely grown, productivity has stagnated, the current account deficit has reached record levels and inequality has worsened if they are so economically beneficial.
As the average person has to earn well over average wages to be a net financial contributor to the UK then only if the average immigrant reaches this level would they be a cashcow to the UK economy rather than a cash drain.
Of course there is the argument that the average worker is a less frequent user of public services than a retired person. But the working age immigrant will themselves become a heavy public services user as they get older.
Unless the Tories made big policy concessions, I'd prefer confidence and supply, with a deal on LD top priorities for EU referendum and all other bills to be considered case by case.
I think it's almost certain they'll go with the "winner" as long as they get whatever concessions they want.
And the good thing for Cameron / Miliband is that NI is small enough that the money required is really just loose change in the overall scheme of things.
In the future the killing of animals to sustain only human tastes will be viewed as pretty barbaric. The justified killing of animals in neolithic and hunter gatherer times (as a means of survival) will be viewed differently.
@Speedy's point is important, Callaghan limped on and on, because there was a rainbow coalition on the opposition benches which couldn't or wouldn't combine to oust him.
I suspect the English expats in Spain are seen like English expats in Cornwall or foreign expats in London - incomers who drive up property prices, but whose contribution to the rest of the local economy is, fairly or unfairly, imperceptible.
All government interferes and does harm in one way or another.
Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it.
In 2005 and 2010 the first three results significantly over-estimated the Tories, in 1979 they significantly underestimated them. In 1964 and Feb 74, they overestimated Labour.
Oddly in 1992 the first three were pretty indicative. It just took the pundits ages to believe the evidence - they remained in denial far too long.
What's your view on the killing of animals which are only brought into existence in order to be killed and used as food ?
Isn't it preferable for a food animal to have a few months / years of happy life and then be killed rather than never to exist at all ?
As will every MP with a marginal constituency.
The sight of the DUP giving it large about how much money they're getting will be more than a little provocative. Not just for other politicians but for voters as well.
I guess it comes down to whether the LDs are willing to have anything to do with the SNP. If not it seems to me that the PM will probably come from whichever side has most seats (not counting LDs on either side) - perhaps with the proviso that Cameron would be able to get the DUP if he is well ahead of Lab on seats as the DUP won't like the SNP (and he also has the slight advantage of incumbency).
None tomorrow either I think, Ashcroft is taking a week's holiday, Populus will publish Tuesday and YouGov don't like polling on Easter Monday
I have pets and feed them chicken and fish- I m not one of those real crazies who has vegan pets. We were out at lunch today, and someone gave our dog (Trotsky) some steak. She was a very happy hound.
I find it difficult though that the same people who have mammals as pets, dogs and cats and love them dearly, can equally tuck into a mammal for their lunch.
"Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PB Tories... Rejoice!"
I like to talk about punctuation. You said:
"We are moving towards the abyss. We need strong government . We are living in dangerous times .
Will we acknowledge this . I doubt it."
The rule is word-punctuation mark-space. There is a school of labour troll here which distinctively omits the space after the punctuation mark. You seem to be over-compensating for this tendency.
There was a financial crash in 2008 which wiped some 7% of the productive capacity of the economy.
None of this had anything to do with immigration. What has had something to do with it is a growing economy and a great increase in jobs and employment levels since 2010 despite that previous loss of capacity.
Any comparison with 2000-2010 and 2010-2015 will show just how much this govt has clamped down on spending.
The economy is growing significantly.
(Did you see what I did their*?)
*I know it should be there.
These are often sentient, intelligent creatures.
Not existing is not relevant. The idea of killing animals for nothing more than fun is detestable.
Would you breed highly intelligent monkeys and then kill them, painfully and slowly?
Perhaps you'd like to ask them why Cameron and Osborne promised to match Brown's 'massive and unprecedented increase in spending which was not sustainable' ?
Or why this government has so increased Overseas Aid if it is committed to a spending clampdown ?
One thing might interest you. At Geneva they have re-strarted the particle accelerator at heightened speeds. Mankind is on the verge of learning great things. The world is a richer place as millions are taken out of poverty every year. In a hundred years our global birth rate will start reducing, as we begin to manage the world's resources in a more constructive way through global institutions like the EU.
In my view this is the most positive time it has ever been to be human. It'll get better for sure. The thing with humans, it always does, barring the odd blip.
That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
Apart from Sunil who professed to be being a vegetarian (and then offered little else other than his bony ELBOW), finally on this site we have another poster who's empathic about animals.
Saw one of their flyers recently
http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=leaflets&subName=display&leafletId=89
Apologies, I just caught your comments on angling. Aside, from your knobbly ELBOW, and for professing your vegetarianism, you do provide views on animals.
Perhaps you think farmers breed cattle, sheep, pigs etc for nothing more than the fun of killing them.
And I must admit to never seeing any monkey, highly intelligent or otherwise, in a field in this country.
https://twitter.com/DJack_Journo/status/584827568655859713
Why you needed to have a rant about 'highly intelligent monkeys' baffles me.
That's ok? He drags a living sentient feeling creature from its natural environment then throwsa it back so this can be repeated again and again.
I think the fish forget quite quickly otherwise they wouldn't take the bait every time. Kind of like humans with alcohol and hangovers.
Yeah, that must be it.
I think that was my best off the cuff one liner I have delivered on pbCOM in 10 years. Leave it to an Easter Sunday slow news night.