"Conservatives to "freeze" rail fares for five years.
Question for supporters of the Govt's Local Government policies. Why is it for Private Sector providers of Public services a "freeze" is always actually an inflationary increase, and it is not considered reasonable for them to make below inflationary rises on the back of efficiencies and increased passenger numbers (even though doing these things are supposed to be Private Sector strengths on the back of increased capacity to invest), but in local Govt land ,inflation is not believed to exist (even though much of their services are delivered by Private Sector contractors expecting inflationary increases every year...)
Cui bono.
Local government budgets are easy for central government to cut because someone else takes the blame.
Of course the rail fares policy is not a "freeze" in terms any normal person understands: they've shifted the maximum price increase for the basket of regulated fares from RPI+1 to RPI.
So if they felt like it, the rail companies could still impose stonking increases on selected routes...
That will be the RPI which the government says shouldn't be used when comparing inflation to pay rises.
To be fair to the coalition, I'd assume that RPI is written into the concessions and so it would be a pain to change to CPI (whereas they will have the right to amend the cap). It's the same reasoning as why some government debt is still RPI linked not CPI (although in that case the government has the right to change it unilaterally, but thought the reputational damage not worthwhile)
On topic - This bet is one of the riskiest I have ever seen.
The downside here is enourmous.
If the Conservatives get a majority, which is not completely out the question yet, and Labour underwhelm in ENgland (Alot of 18-24 yr olds amongst their VI so it is perfectly possible) along with the SNP getting over 50 seats in Scotland, you could be looking at a loss of around a hundred points.
So make sure you have 100* stake to cover potential losses imo.
I'm not saying its a bad bet, just a very risky one - far more so than selling UKIP even, or just a plain sale of Con.
No more Nationalisation please...I still remember the last batch..
Yeah East Coast rail was such a disaster.
Oh no, wait, it was flippin brilliant and made massive profits for the tax payer. My mistake.
British rail was an effing disaster, it made huge losses with out of date rolling stock, it was never much better than cattle trucks.. it never had the money to invest in the infrastructure nor adequately for decent rolling stock..
Well yes, we paid more in subsidies than we did in costs post and pre privatisation.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
They'll stick Ed in as PM and then best of luck getting any business through the house.
F1: there was a BBC poll held during practice about the most unexpected F1 winner. Button, Canada 2011, won. Of course, some of us thought that he'd win all along...
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
They'll stick Ed in as PM and then best of luck getting any business through the house.
Then there will be another election. And whichever party wins it will take the same view.
In any case, the SNP will not be advocating another referendum for a while. Economically and fiscally it is a non-starter. They know that.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
The UK is a country and one that the Scots have just voted to remain a part of in a referendum that those advocating separation consistently declared was a once in a lifetime/generation opportunity. Why should I, a citizen of this country, have to see its existence put at risk every few years unless it is the will of the people of the UK that this be the case? As we know, the SNP signed up to the Smith Commission which confirmed that issues pertaining to the UK constitution were a reserved matter.
Indeed. The matter, on the basis of the current constitution has been settled in regards independence.
You can't keep asking the question time and time again until you get to the one you want.
No more Nationalisation please...I still remember the last batch..
Yeah East Coast rail was such a disaster.
Oh no, wait, it was flippin brilliant and made massive profits for the tax payer. My mistake.
It's surprising that you mention East Coast, but not any of the other operators who returned a profit to the taxpayer. For instance South West Trains returned £300 million in 2013/14, far more than EC.
You also have to ask why EC is profitable: the fact several privatised ones were also profitable shows it is not just ownership structure. Payments for aged rolling stock and competition from the direct access operators are also factors.
Why do the pro-renationalisation people ignore the private franchises that return money to the taxpayer?
F1: there was a BBC poll held during practice about the most unexpected F1 winner. Button, Canada 2011, won. Of course, some of us thought that he'd win all along...
My wife still blames my screeching support for Button on the last laps of that race as the thing that tipped her into full blown Labour with our overdue youngest.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The incentive is to get Ed into No10. No party is going to turn it down unless you want chaos.
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
The UK is one country. The Scots decided they wanted it to remain that way. I am afraid they do not get the chance to change their minds for a while. Of course, that does not mean we do not need a new constitutional settlement. Perhaps a very well hung Parliament is the best way to get that as all parties will have to talk.
"Conservatives to "freeze" rail fares for five years.
Question for supporters of the Govt's Local Government policies. Why is it for Private Sector providers of Public services a "freeze" is always actually an inflationary increase, and it is not considered reasonable for them to make below inflationary rises on the back of efficiencies and increased passenger numbers (even though doing these things are supposed to be Private Sector strengths on the back of increased capacity to invest), but in local Govt land ,inflation is not believed to exist (even though much of their services are delivered by Private Sector contractors expecting inflationary increases every year...)
I would have thought the £4bn subsidy of the railways would be high on the list of anyone seriously wanting to make a dent in the deficit.
It would mean lines and services closing though.
Network Rail's debt (now in the public sector) is expected to reach £50 billion by 2019. Part of this is accounted for by the upgrades necessary to cope with growing passenger numbers, for instance the various electrification schemes (all hail the coalition government for that). But it is still a massive and unhealthy level of debt.
If anything, we need rail prices to be put up, so the passenger and freight companies pay more track access charges to NR. The current system is great for passengers, but terrible for the nation's finances. Passengers get the advantage of NR's debt, but don't pay for most of it.
I do not expect this post to be popular. ;-)
Well, I like it. So you're probably right. It won't be.
(I think there should be some formula whereby the cost and time for any given journey multiplied together should produce a constant irrespective of the transport mode used. For domestic journeys government can achieve this through taxation.)
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The incentive is to get Ed into No10. No party is going to turn it down unless you want chaos.
I am sure they'll take the SNP's votes. In fact, they have no choice on that. But if the SNP makes the country ungovernable subsequently there will be another general election.
"If they offer that to everyone wouldn't it lower the tone somewhat?"
Good point but I thought campaigning was so sophisticted they could tailor their message to indiviual voters.
Easterross for example could be offered midge repellent
Point of order: if Easterross lives in the place I think he does, then midges are not that much of a problem. It's far worse on the west coast.
Highlanders are the easiest-going people on the planet. If I had to live with the long, dark winters, only to be plagued with midges during the summer, then I'd become a homicidal maniac.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The statement by Mr Miliband has set me wondering, in view of the recent polling of a strong majority in Scotland pro indy-or-devomax/FFA, if he has finally abandoned Scotland and is focussing on the southern voters like Mr Cameron.
A nationalised rail service would be a disaster for whoever the transport minister was.
Indeed. Thank goodness that we have dispensed with the state running our railways and handed most of the franchises over to the french dutch and german state owned rail operators. So that those nationalised rail services can show us how much of a disaster nationalised rail services are.
"Conservatives to "freeze" rail fares for five years.
Question for supporters of the Govt's Local Government policies. Why is it for Private Sector providers of Public services a "freeze" is always actually an inflationary increase, and it is not considered reasonable for them to make below inflationary rises on the back of efficiencies and increased passenger numbers (even though doing these things are supposed to be Private Sector strengths on the back of increased capacity to invest), but in local Govt land ,inflation is not believed to exist (even though much of their services are delivered by Private Sector contractors expecting inflationary increases every year...)
I would have thought the £4bn subsidy of the railways would be high on the list of anyone seriously wanting to make a dent in the deficit.
It would mean lines and services closing though.
Network Rail's debt (now in the public sector) is expected to reach £50 billion by 2019. Part of this is accounted for by the upgrades necessary to cope with growing passenger numbers, for instance the various electrification schemes (all hail the coalition government for that). But it is still a massive and unhealthy level of debt.
If anything, we need rail prices to be put up, so the passenger and freight companies pay more track access charges to NR. The current system is great for passengers, but terrible for the nation's finances. Passengers get the advantage of NR's debt, but don't pay for most of it.
I do not expect this post to be popular. ;-)
If NR deserve more cash why should it come from pax and not TOCs?
Where do TOCs get their money from? TOC profits are relatively low compared to NR spending, and direct TOC subsidy is very low at the moment. The subsidies are all going to NR as part of their network grant.
These posts are discussing two things: the amount of money that franchises return (or take) from the taxpayer, and their underlying company profits after that money. The following document gives some details if you want to spontaneously fall asleep:
Aged 10 me and two friends waited at the gates of Old Trafford for an hour to get Benaud's autograph. When he finally came out and we went up to him with our autograph books flapping he said 'bugger of sonny' and walked onto his coach.
Betting post. If you have a deep Betfair account there's currently £4.5k at 1.01 waiting to be hoovered up on the Boat Race will there be a record time market. There absolutely won't be and this is free money. 1% return for just over a day isn't a bad return.
"If they offer that to everyone wouldn't it lower the tone somewhat?"
Good point but I thought campaigning was so sophisticted they could tailor their message to indiviual voters.
Easterross for example could be offered midge repellent
Point of order: if Easterross lives in the place I think he does, then midges are not that much of a problem. It's far worse on the west coast.
Highlanders are the easiest-going people on the planet. If I had to live with the long, dark winters, only to be plagued with midges during the summer, then I'd become a homicidal maniac.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The statement by Mr Miliband has set me wondering, in view of the recent polling of a strong majority in Scotland pro indy-or-devomax/FFA, if he has finally abandoned Scotland and is focussing on the southern voters like Mr Cameron.
Labour will inevitably become a more English (and Welsh) party if Scotland ceases to return Labour MPs. That will be a shame, but I can't see how it won't happen.
Looking at the helpful YouGov moving averages from Gadfly, the stability of the situation really jumps out. But it does appear that the LibDems are off the bottom. They had two core votes: (a) "radicals" on the left (b) people who didn't like Tories or Labour but didn't want a party they considered extreme. (a) disappeared immediately when they formed the coalition, and won't be back any time soon. (b) is drifting back to the LibDems. This group thinks that UKIP is nuts, Greens too far out, and they still don't like Tories or Labour. They see Clegg even-handledly having a go at both sides and then think yeah. maybe still the least bad option.
It's not a big group - maybe 3% of the electorate. But if you were on 6%, an extra 3% is a big deal.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The incentive is to get Ed into No10. No party is going to turn it down unless you want chaos.
I am sure they'll take the SNP's votes. In fact, they have no choice on that. But if the SNP makes the country ungovernable subsequently there will be another general election.
One which I'm sure the opposition parties would point out that the country would be ungovernable with labour/snp.
So it would be a matter of who would have more to lose, the answer is labour clearly, so they'll submit to the SNP's demands to a lesser or greater degree.
One of the big issues I have with the coalition copying Blairism. The Railways are now neither fish nor fowl, like Universities and some other stuff. If Railways, Schools, Hospitals are going to be either nationalised or privatised we should go the whole shebang. Privatising the profits and nationalising the debt is the worst of both worlds.
A nationalised rail service would be a disaster for whoever the transport minister was.
It would be as troublesome and irritating as the unionised London Tube is to the Mayor.
I suspect that devolution and FFA would focus a few minds on the cost of it all when you see the comparative per mile subsidies.
Total rail subsidies are 4 billion, Scottish rail subsidies are under 300 million.
Aged 10 me and two friends waited at the gates of Old Trafford for an hour to get Benaud's autograph. When he finally came out and we went up to him with our autograph books flapping he said 'bugger of sonny' and walked onto his coach.
One of the big issues I have with the coalition copying Blairism. The Railways are now neither fish nor fowl, like Universities and some other stuff. If Railways, Schools, Hospitals are going to be either nationalised or privatised we should go the whole shebang. Privatising the profits and nationalising the debt is the worst of both worlds.
A nationalised rail service would be a disaster for whoever the transport minister was.
It would be as troublesome and irritating as the unionised London Tube is to the Mayor.
I suspect that devolution and FFA would focus a few minds on the cost of it all when you see the comparative per mile subsidies.
Total rail subsidies are 4 billion, Scottish rail subsidies are under 300 million.
How is that comparable with the number of users or each system?
edit: looked it up. 86m in Scotland, 1.3bn in the UK.... so well over 10 times as much when you take into account England only.
Mike Smithson in his thread header confidently asserts that: " What’s the most you can lose and in this case I can’t envisage the circumstances in which the Tories are more than 30 seats ahead – in which case my loss would be 18 units."
That's interesting because just three days ago JackW's latest ARSE projection had the Tories winning 312 seats with Labour trailing on 246 seats, a hefty 66 seats behind.
Were Jack to be proved correct, and using OGH's own example of £20 per seat (not his actual bet he assures us, without indicating whether it was more or less than this figure), this would result in losses of a whopping great £1080, i.e (66-12) x £20.
One or other of these two gentleman appears likely to be proved very, very wrong. In pugilistic terms, this seems certain to be the contest for the World Heavyweight Championship of the forthcoming General Election.
I enjoy the occasional testosterone-fuelled spread bet, but this one wouldn't be for me.
I agree. This is potentially a very high risk bet as the seat difference could become a great deal more volatile than it has been over the past few weeks. The main point is to use a stop loss and not to go into the election night without a significant profit buffer.
I love spread betting but I wouldn't go anywhere near this one.
Favourite spread bet is Fat Lady on the football markets.
"Conservatives to "freeze" rail fares for five years.
Question for supporters of the Govt's Local Government policies. Why is it for Private Sector providers of Public services a "freeze" is always actually an inflationary increase, and it is not considered reasonable for them to make below inflationary rises on the back of efficiencies and increased passenger numbers (even though doing these things are supposed to be Private Sector strengths on the back of increased capacity to invest), but in local Govt land ,inflation is not believed to exist (even though much of their services are delivered by Private Sector contractors expecting inflationary increases every year...)
I would have thought the £4bn subsidy of the railways would be high on the list of anyone seriously wanting to make a dent in the deficit.
It would mean lines and services closing though.
Network Rail's debt (now in the public sector) is expected to reach £50 billion by 2019. Part of this is accounted for by the upgrades necessary to cope with growing passenger numbers, for instance the various electrification schemes (all hail the coalition government for that). But it is still a massive and unhealthy level of debt.
If anything, we need rail prices to be put up, so the passenger and freight companies pay more track access charges to NR. The current system is great for passengers, but terrible for the nation's finances. Passengers get the advantage of NR's debt, but don't pay for most of it.
I do not expect this post to be popular. ;-)
If NR deserve more cash why should it come from pax and not TOCs?
Where do TOCs get their money from? TOC profits are relatively low compared to NR spending, and direct TOC subsidy is very low at the moment. The subsidies are all going to NR as part of their network grant.
These posts are discussing two things: the amount of money that franchises return (or take) from the taxpayer, and their underlying company profits after that money. The following document gives some details if you want to spontaneously fall asleep:
Aged 10 me and two friends waited at the gates of Old Trafford for an hour to get Benaud's autograph. When he finally came out and we went up to him with our autograph books flapping he said 'bugger of sonny' and walked onto his coach.
I'm sure you and your prep school friends were ghastly spoilt brats. I wish the great man had given you a good kick up the backsides, you got off lightly.
"If they offer that to everyone wouldn't it lower the tone somewhat?"
Good point but I thought campaigning was so sophisticted they could tailor their message to indiviual voters.
Easterross for example could be offered midge repellent
Point of order: if Easterross lives in the place I think he does, then midges are not that much of a problem. It's far worse on the west coast.
Highlanders are the easiest-going people on the planet. If I had to live with the long, dark winters, only to be plagued with midges during the summer, then I'd become a homicidal maniac.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The statement by Mr Miliband has set me wondering, in view of the recent polling of a strong majority in Scotland pro indy-or-devomax/FFA, if he has finally abandoned Scotland and is focussing on the southern voters like Mr Cameron.
Labour will inevitably become a more English (and Welsh) party if Scotland ceases to return Labour MPs. That will be a shame, but I can't see how it won't happen.
And for the same reason, after Smith, Blair (sort of) and Brown, Labour will probably never again elect a Scottish leader ....... Hurrah! (only joking).
Betting post. If you have a deep Betfair account there's currently £4.5k at 1.01 waiting to be hoovered up on the Boat Race will there be a record time market. There absolutely won't be and this is free money. 1% return for just over a day isn't a bad return.
Thanks Chris.
I should think no boat to sink would be a fairly safe bet too?
One of the big issues I have with the coalition copying Blairism. The Railways are now neither fish nor fowl, like Universities and some other stuff. If Railways, Schools, Hospitals are going to be either nationalised or privatised we should go the whole shebang. Privatising the profits and nationalising the debt is the worst of both worlds.
A nationalised rail service would be a disaster for whoever the transport minister was.
It would be as troublesome and irritating as the unionised London Tube is to the Mayor.
I suspect that devolution and FFA would focus a few minds on the cost of it all when you see the comparative per mile subsidies.
Total rail subsidies are 4 billion, Scottish rail subsidies are under 300 million.
How is that comparable with the number of users or each system?
Every Scotch man is worth at least 3 of the out lily livered Englishers.
on a more serious note it is about double the subsidy per person mile.
Aged 10 me and two friends waited at the gates of Old Trafford for an hour to get Benaud's autograph. When he finally came out and we went up to him with our autograph books flapping he said 'bugger of sonny' and walked onto his coach.
Betting post. If you have a deep Betfair account there's currently £4.5k at 1.01 waiting to be hoovered up on the Boat Race will there be a record time market. There absolutely won't be and this is free money. 1% return for just over a day isn't a bad return.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The incentive is to get Ed into No10. No party is going to turn it down unless you want chaos.
I am sure they'll take the SNP's votes. In fact, they have no choice on that. But if the SNP makes the country ungovernable subsequently there will be another general election.
One which I'm sure the opposition parties would point out that the country would be ungovernable with labour/snp.
So it would be a matter of who would have more to lose, the answer is labour clearly, so they'll submit to the SNP's demands to a lesser or greater degree.
The SNP have all the cards, and not much to lose.
It depends on what Labour does when it is in power. There are popular measures that can be introduced. There are measures that the SNP may abstain on, but which the LDs may support. There are measures that the SNP may vote against - eg, Trident - which the Tories will support. Depending on the seat distribution, there is also the opportunity to introduce EV4EL, which will reduce the SNP's options significantly. And so on. The bottom line is that at some stage the SNP will either have to ensure Labour stays in power or they will have to vote with the Tories to bring a Labour government down. But forming an impotent government is not a good option for any party. Far better to go to the country in such circumstances.
Betting post. If you have a deep Betfair account there's currently £4.5k at 1.01 waiting to be hoovered up on the Boat Race will there be a record time market. There absolutely won't be and this is free money. 1% return for just over a day isn't a bad return.
Thanks Chris.
I should think no boat to sink would be a fairly safe bet too?
12mph Westerly wind will be fairly uncomfortable but I risked a largeish bet at 1.08. I could still be tempted more at the current 1.05. The men are rowing in Empachers and I'm more confident those will cope than the women's Hudsons. I'd also predict a winning time of 18:20 or thereabout and have bet accordingly there but market not very liquid at the moment.
"If they offer that to everyone wouldn't it lower the tone somewhat?"
Good point but I thought campaigning was so sophisticted they could tailor their message to indiviual voters.
Easterross for example could be offered midge repellent
Point of order: if Easterross lives in the place I think he does, then midges are not that much of a problem. It's far worse on the west coast.
Highlanders are the easiest-going people on the planet. If I had to live with the long, dark winters, only to be plagued with midges during the summer, then I'd become a homicidal maniac.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The statement by Mr Miliband has set me wondering, in view of the recent polling of a strong majority in Scotland pro indy-or-devomax/FFA, if he has finally abandoned Scotland and is focussing on the southern voters like Mr Cameron.
Labour will inevitably become a more English (and Welsh) party if Scotland ceases to return Labour MPs. That will be a shame, but I can't see how it won't happen.
And for the same reason, after Smith, Blair (sort of) and Brown, Labour will probably never again elect a Scottish leader ....... Hurrah! (only joking).
Depends on where he/she holds a seat. I guess the same thing will apply to all parties. If the Tories can get Ruth Davidson into an English or Welsh seat she would be a great option for them after Dave goes.
Looking at the helpful YouGov moving averages from Gadfly, the stability of the situation really jumps out. But it does appear that the LibDems are off the bottom. They had two core votes: (a) "radicals" on the left (b) people who didn't like Tories or Labour but didn't want a party they considered extreme. (a) disappeared immediately when they formed the coalition, and won't be back any time soon. (b) is drifting back to the LibDems. This group thinks that UKIP is nuts, Greens too far out, and they still don't like Tories or Labour. They see Clegg even-handledly having a go at both sides and then think yeah. maybe still the least bad option.
It's not a big group - maybe 3% of the electorate. But if you were on 6%, an extra 3% is a big deal.
The return to the 'traditional' parties becomes more obvious with a longer time scale and 20-poll moving average.
Moving average chart of YouGov polls since the 2012 local elections. Click to enlarge...
. But it does appear that the LibDems are off the bottom. They had two core votes: (a) "radicals" on the left (b) people who didn't like Tories or Labour but didn't want a party they considered extreme. (a) disappeared immediately when they formed the coalition, and won't be back any time soon. (b) is drifting back to the LibDems. This group thinks that UKIP is nuts, Greens too far out, and they still don't like Tories or Labour. They see Clegg even-handledly having a go at both sides and then think yeah. maybe still the least bad option.
Up to a point, Mr Palmer. I think you are over-generalising. The picture is much more patchy than that.
In places your Group A did not disappear when the Coalition was formed, so it is rather difficult for them to "come back". In fact, we despise the Labour Party as a gang of authoritarian bully-boys, incompetents and traitors, whose word cannot be trusted.
That is your record, however much you try to spin it.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
Still not recognising Crimea's long sought reunification with Russia, let alone pressuring Kiev to implement Minsk II by devolving power and restarting basic state services?
Neither Tories or labour like the thought of people's democracy, it has top be their version or none.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
The UK is a country and one that the Scots have just voted to remain a part of in a referendum that those advocating separation consistently declared was a once in a lifetime/generation opportunity. Why should I, a citizen of this country, have to see its existence put at risk every few years unless it is the will of the people of the UK that this be the case? As we know, the SNP signed up to the Smith Commission which confirmed that issues pertaining to the UK constitution were a reserved matter.
SO , absolute rubbish , when the Scottish people decide they want another vote on it then that is when it should happen. It should not be down to some balloon in Westminster.
"Mr. Roger, some usernames can be horrendously misleading."
Indeed. When I was working in Istanbul with with a girl called 'Maetap' she helpfully told me I could call her 'Moonshine' which was the English meaning of her name.
She then asked what 'Roger' means? I explained that in English names don't have meanings."Roger is just Roger"
She then looked in her dictionary and asked "What means 'copulation'?"
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
Still not recognising Crimea's long sought reunification with Russia, let alone pressuring Kiev to implement Minsk II by devolving power and restarting basic state services?
Neither Tories or labour like the thought of people's democracy, it has top be their version or none.
Malcolm, it's you who has the problem with the sovereign democratic will of the Scottish people to remain part of the Union. It's time you accelerated your plans to emigrate to your Fatherland.
MD Sturgeon may not hold another referendum even if the SNP win another majority, in 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 49% at the general election in Canada and still lost the 1995 referendum, killing the independence issue for good
MD Sturgeon may not hold another referendum even if the SNP win another majority, in 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 49% at the general election in Canada and still lost the 1995 referendum, killing the independence issue for good
They will want to have some reason for holding the referendum that goes beyond winning an election with 40-something percent of the vote.
Something where the Unionist parties can be shown to have broken the Vow, or a practical way in ten years or so that DevoMax can be shown to not be working in Scotland's interest.
The political challenge is keeping all their enthusiastic new members and supporters on board until they have the opportunity to win over the extra wedge of support they need to win independence.
Roger (sometimes spelled Rodger) is an English surname of Anglo-Saxon origin.[1] The name Roger is derived from the pre-7th century Anglo-Saxon (Teutonic) name Hroðgar, which means 'fame and spear' ('hroð' fame or renown, 'gar' spear), the first reference to which is in Beowulf, the epic poem of the Dark Ages.
Scotland has given up on Labour. Why flog a dead horse?
For the obvious reason they will pareto themselves out of existence, like the Tories.
Scotland clearly sees itself as a distinct political entity. With independence off the table, at some stage politics will return to the day-to-day. When it does, what may happen is that new parties will develop. For example, SNP social democrats will have to decide whether separation really is their primary objective when there is so much devolved power (with a lot more to come) and so much that can be done within the UK. Likewise, the centre right may decide that it needs a rejig. The Tories get 500,000 votes in Scotland. If they were no longer called the Tories, but were a distinctly Scottish party they may well get many more. These parties would then align with other UK parties in the Commons. It's what happens elsewhere in Europe. We will catch up.
Miss DiCanio, Mr. G, those are both valid perspectives. That's one of the reasons why the situation is absolutely not resolved [unless the SNP tide goes out quite soon].
This Tory policy (an extension of what is happening now btw) is just like most of the Labour ones where the headline doesn't quite match the detail. "Rail price freeze" it ain't
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
The UK is a country and one that the Scots have just voted to remain a part of in a referendum that those advocating separation consistently declared was a once in a lifetime/generation opportunity. Why should I, a citizen of this country, have to see its existence put at risk every few years unless it is the will of the people of the UK that this be the case? As we know, the SNP signed up to the Smith Commission which confirmed that issues pertaining to the UK constitution were a reserved matter.
SO , absolute rubbish , when the Scottish people decide they want another vote on it then that is when it should happen. It should not be down to some balloon in Westminster.
Scotland has voted to be part of the UK. Those leading the campaign to separate made clear that this was a once in a lifetime/generation opportunity. They then accepted the Smith Commission report, which made clear UK constitutional matters were reserved to Westminster. It's our country too, Malc. We get a say in what happens to it. That's what the Scots agreed to when they voted No.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
The incentive is to get Ed into No10. No party is going to turn it down unless you want chaos.
I am sure they'll take the SNP's votes. In fact, they have no choice on that. But if the SNP makes the country ungovernable subsequently there will be another general election.
One which I'm sure the opposition parties would point out that the country would be ungovernable with labour/snp.
So it would be a matter of who would have more to lose, the answer is labour clearly, so they'll submit to the SNP's demands to a lesser or greater degree.
The SNP have all the cards, and not much to lose.
But forming an impotent government is not a good option for any party. Far better to go to the country in such circumstances.
Depends on the opinion polls, I expect if we're in a position where a weak labour minority government is struggling then they'll be well behind in the opinion polls. Not many governments choose to commit suicide if they can avoid it.
no election is good to lose, but it's looking like 'winning' (in the sense of getting into government) without any strength is going to be a poisioned chalice for both tories and labour in this election.
Damn that Democracy thing, need to clamp down on it.
Democracy does not mean that poverty-stricken loony hayseeds get to have the same referendum over and over again until they get a result they like, which they then declare to be the final and permanently binding outcome.
Mr. Rog, also worth recalling Roger Mortimer, ruler of England after Edward II, and Roger, King of Sicily, who was (I think) the most powerful man in Europe for quite a few years and a menace to Byzantium.
Mr. Carnyx, one finds a good Roger universally approved of.
. But it does appear that the LibDems are off the bottom. They had two core votes: (a) "radicals" on the left (b) people who didn't like Tories or Labour but didn't want a party they considered extreme. (a) disappeared immediately when they formed the coalition, and won't be back any time soon. (b) is drifting back to the LibDems. This group thinks that UKIP is nuts, Greens too far out, and they still don't like Tories or Labour. They see Clegg even-handledly having a go at both sides and then think yeah. maybe still the least bad option.
Up to a point, Mr Palmer. I think you are over-generalising. The picture is much more patchy than that.
In places your Group A did not disappear when the Coalition was formed, so it is rather difficult for them to "come back". In fact, we despise the Labour Party as a gang of authoritarian bully-boys, incompetents and traitors, whose word cannot be trusted.
That is your record, however much you try to spin it.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
They'll stick Ed in as PM and then best of luck getting any business through the house.
Then there will be another election. And whichever party wins it will take the same view.
In any case, the SNP will not be advocating another referendum for a while. Economically and fiscally it is a non-starter. They know that.
And if the Scots vote SNP at this election, they'll vote SNP again.
And again. And again. Till Labour finally gives up the mind blowingly entitled attitude to Scotland.
No more Nationalisation please...I still remember the last batch..
Yeah East Coast rail was such a disaster.
Oh no, wait, it was flippin brilliant and made massive profits for the tax payer. My mistake.
It's surprising that you mention East Coast, but not any of the other operators who returned a profit to the taxpayer. For instance South West Trains returned £300 million in 2013/14, far more than EC.
You also have to ask why EC is profitable: the fact several privatised ones were also profitable shows it is not just ownership structure. Payments for aged rolling stock and competition from the direct access operators are also factors.
Why do the pro-renationalisation people ignore the private franchises that return money to the taxpayer?
Only a handful of franchises actually make money for the government - most are in revenue support where the government has to subsidise the TOC so they achieve a minimum profit level, or are management contracts which would probabliy be cheaper to be run in-house.
The absurd fragmentation of the rail industry since privatization has massively increased costs. For example, in signaling all the experienced engineers left BR at privatization with Railtrack making no effort to train any replacements. Now there is a criticla skills shortage and those employees still working are charged out to NR at 4 figure day rates. Great for them but terrible for the taxpayer and passengers.
Oblitus Indeed, provided the Smith plans are legislated for post-election I cannot see another referendum for 10-15 years, unless the UK votes the exit the EU and Scotland votes in (though of course SNP voters on some polls favour EU exit)
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
They'll stick Ed in as PM and then best of luck getting any business through the house.
The idea that the Tories won't join with the SNP to block pretty much any Labour legislation is comical. They'll love watching Miliband squirm as much as the rest of us will.
roger (ˈrɒdʒə) interj 1. (Telecommunications) (used in signalling, telecommunications, etc) message received. Compare wilco 2. an expression of agreement vb 3. (of a man) to copulate (with) [C20: from the name Roger, representing R for received] Usage: The verb sense of this word was formerly considered to be taboo, and it was labelled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use
Betting post. If you have a deep Betfair account there's currently £4.5k at 1.01 waiting to be hoovered up on the Boat Race will there be a record time market. There absolutely won't be and this is free money. 1% return for just over a day isn't a bad return.
Thanks Chris.
I should think no boat to sink would be a fairly safe bet too?
12mph Westerly wind will be fairly uncomfortable but I risked a largeish bet at 1.08. I could still be tempted more at the current 1.05. The men are rowing in Empachers and I'm more confident those will cope than the women's Hudsons. I'd also predict a winning time of 18:20 or thereabout and have bet accordingly there but market not very liquid at the moment.
Shame there's no spread bet on the time.
Back on topic, I think Mike's bet is a winning one, but Pulpstar is right to point out the dangers. There's a big exposure if events take an unexpected turn (or an expected one if you are Audreyanne.)
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
The UK is one country. The Scots decided they wanted it to remain that way. I am afraid they do not get the chance to change their minds for a while. Of course, that does not mean we do not need a new constitutional settlement. Perhaps a very well hung Parliament is the best way to get that as all parties will have to talk.
Keep repeating the mantra to yourself.
In 2016 a Referendum will be on the SNP Manifesto and 50% of Scotland will vote them into every FPTP seat with a further 12% backing the Greens on the list giving 16 seats to back up hte SNP Majority,.
The Union is over and no amount of BBC Scotland claiming "oh the SNP can't have another Referendum" nonsense will stop it.
So that's both Cameron and Miliband coming out against the universal right for self determination. Interesting.
If neither Labour nor the Conservatives want another go - well it's up to them. But they in return will get no favours from SNP MPs.
Labour couldn't have played a better game than it has so far to lose Scotland tbh.
With Scotland lost, Labour has no incentive to play any SNP game. It's up to the SNP to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to support in the UK parliament.
They'll stick Ed in as PM and then best of luck getting any business through the house.
Then there will be another election. And whichever party wins it will take the same view.
In any case, the SNP will not be advocating another referendum for a while. Economically and fiscally it is a non-starter. They know that.
And if the Scots vote SNP at this election, they'll vote SNP again.
And again. And again. Till Labour finally gives up the mind blowingly entitled attitude to Scotland.
The Scots are not going to vote Labour again. At some point the SNP is going to have to focus on governing - especially when it is much more closely tied to the taxes collected and spent in Scotland.
Mr. Jessop, in a few years you'll be able to take your offspring with you. Can't you take a short holiday now and then to indulge your perambulating proclivities?
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
The UK is one country. The Scots decided they wanted it to remain that way. I am afraid they do not get the chance to change their minds for a while. Of course, that does not mean we do not need a new constitutional settlement. Perhaps a very well hung Parliament is the best way to get that as all parties will have to talk.
Keep repeating the mantra to yourself.
In 2016 a Referendum will be on the SNP Manifesto and 50% of Scotland will vote them into every FPTP seat with a further 12% backing the Greens on the list giving 16 seats to back up hte SNP Majority,.
The Union is over and no amount of BBC Scotland claiming "oh the SNP can't have another Referendum" nonsense will stop it.
Ummm hasn't Sturgeon ruled out a another referendum 'on the current basis'.
This article is well worth a read. The theme is that Labour is being very inefficient at allocating its resources, with resources being poured into London, where there will only be marginal gains.
" Take for instance Battersea, where those south of the river are being deployed in numbers other seats outside London can but envy. It hasn’t been polled by Lord Ashcroft’s comprehensive polling of marginal seats, and was marked as a safe Conservative seat on both the ITV and Standard polls.
But activists are being told, quite vehemently, that Labour is some “500 votes ahead” in the seat and the local party is demanding some 400 volunteers on election day. From a recent canvassing session, backed up by the recent polls, not much struck Uncut that this is a seat on the cusp of overturning a 6,000 Tory majority. But money, manpower and effort are being poured into a seat that if it wasn’t in Zone Two wouldn’t get a look in."
Have to say from the comments on the Labour sites, they do not seem too optimistic...
MD Sturgeon may not hold another referendum even if the SNP win another majority, in 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 49% at the general election in Canada and still lost the 1995 referendum, killing the independence issue for good
They will want to have some reason for holding the referendum that goes beyond winning an election with 40-something percent of the vote.
Something where the Unionist parties can be shown to have broken the Vow, or a practical way in ten years or so that DevoMax can be shown to not be working in Scotland's interest.
The political challenge is keeping all their enthusiastic new members and supporters on board until they have the opportunity to win over the extra wedge of support they need to win independence.
I'm astounded there wasn't more of a call for independence in the early 90s tbh - the offshore GERS for the 80s are astonishing.
To be honest I'm surprised there isn't a London Independent party about now, for the very same reasons.
"Mr. Roger, some usernames can be horrendously misleading."
Indeed. When I was working in Istanbul with with a girl called 'Maetap' she helpfully told me I could call her 'Moonshine' which was the English meaning of her name.
She then asked what 'Roger' means? I explained that in English names don't have meanings."Roger is just Roger"
She then looked in her dictionary and asked "What means 'copulation'?"
I remember a delightful receptionist at a top Bangkok hotel - no seedy joint this - whose brass name-tag informed all that she was Supaporn....
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
The UK is one country. The Scots decided they wanted it to remain that way. I am afraid they do not get the chance to change their minds for a while. Of course, that does not mean we do not need a new constitutional settlement. Perhaps a very well hung Parliament is the best way to get that as all parties will have to talk.
Keep repeating the mantra to yourself.
In 2016 a Referendum will be on the SNP Manifesto and 50% of Scotland will vote them into every FPTP seat with a further 12% backing the Greens on the list giving 16 seats to back up hte SNP Majority,.
The Union is over and no amount of BBC Scotland claiming "oh the SNP can't have another Referendum" nonsense will stop it.
But the Union isn't over. It was just reaffirmed by the Scottish people last year.
Damn that Democracy thing, need to clamp down on it.
The Scots voted No in a referendum billed by the Yes side as a once in a lifetime opportunity. The SNP then signed up to the findings of the Smith Commission, which reserved UK constitutional issues to the UK government. That was all done perfectly democratically. If it is the democratic will of the citizens of the UK - the country that the Scots have just voted to remain a part of - that there be another referendum in Scotland, then there will be one.
Watching QT last night (and as much of the BBC Scottish debate recorded the night before as I could stomach), it really is no surprise that the SNP is riding so high in Scotland and Labour looks set to assume power across the UK despite the damage wreaked by the last Government.
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
Even though the Tories aren't really challenging that view much (trimming a bit more here and there and quicker than Labour), many voters have fallen hook line and sinker for the Left's collective line that the Tories are evil baby-eaters ideologically driven to screw "the poor" and hand cash to their wealthy mates. The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
This article is well worth a read. The theme is that Labour is being very inefficient at allocating its resources, with resources being poured into London, where there will only be marginal gains.
" Take for instance Battersea, where those south of the river are being deployed in numbers other seats outside London can but envy. It hasn’t been polled by Lord Ashcroft’s comprehensive polling of marginal seats, and was marked as a safe Conservative seat on both the ITV and Standard polls.
But activists are being told, quite vehemently, that Labour is some “500 votes ahead” in the seat and the local party is demanding some 400 volunteers on election day. From a recent canvassing session, backed up by the recent polls, not much struck Uncut that this is a seat on the cusp of overturning a 6,000 Tory majority. But money, manpower and effort are being poured into a seat that if it wasn’t in Zone Two wouldn’t get a look in."
Have to say from the comments on the Labour sites, they do not seem too optimistic...
I'm on the Blues in Battersea ! - if Labour are going to focus resources in London... Ilford and Enfield Southgate please
No more Nationalisation please...I still remember the last batch..
Yeah East Coast rail was such a disaster.
Oh no, wait, it was flippin brilliant and made massive profits for the tax payer. My mistake.
It's surprising that you mention East Coast, but not any of the other operators who returned a profit to the taxpayer. For instance South West Trains returned £300 million in 2013/14, far more than EC.
You also have to ask why EC is profitable: the fact several privatised ones were also profitable shows it is not just ownership structure. Payments for aged rolling stock and competition from the direct access operators are also factors.
Why do the pro-renationalisation people ignore the private franchises that return money to the taxpayer?
Only a handful of franchises actually make money for the government - most are in revenue support where the government has to subsidise the TOC so they achieve a minimum profit level, or are management contracts.
The absurd fragmentation of the rail industry since privatization has massively increased costs. For example, in signaling all the experienced engineers left BR at privatization with Railtrack making no effort to train any replacements. Now there is a criticla skills shortage and those employees still working are charged out to NR at 4 figure day rates. Great for them but terrible for the taxpayer and passengers.
And again, the vast majority of public subsidy go not to the TOCs, but directly to Network Rail.
Network Rail has been deprivatised for fourteen years now. They have had fourteen years to train new staff. Blaming lack of trained staff (wrongly, IMHO) on privatisation is weird.
And a massive driver of increased costs has been increased safety standards that require more staff for on-track jobs, and working hour limitations. These are all for the good, IMHO.
Dair In 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 49% at the Canadian general election, in 1995 Yes won 49% in the Quebec referendum and lost, an SNP majority does not equate to a majority for independence as 2011 and 2014 showed. Indeed latest yougov polls show No would still win a rerun referendum, Sturgeon will not hold another for now unless sure of victory from the polls
Scotland has given up on Labour. Why flog a dead horse?
For the obvious reason they will pareto themselves out of existence, like the Tories.
Scotland clearly sees itself as a distinct political entity. With independence off the table, at some stage politics will return to the day-to-day. When it does, what may happen is that new parties will develop. For example, SNP social democrats will have to decide whether separation really is their primary objective when there is so much devolved power (with a lot more to come) and so much that can be done within the UK. Likewise, the centre right may decide that it needs a rejig. The Tories get 500,000 votes in Scotland. If they were no longer called the Tories, but were a distinctly Scottish party they may well get many more. These parties would then align with other UK parties in the Commons. It's what happens elsewhere in Europe. We will catch up.
With 50% of Scots desperate to hold another Referendum and dissolve the United Kingdom, the idea politics will "return to normal" any time soon is risible.
Labour have a bit of a decison to make. To give up on Scotland, or to try to claw back there, but devoting resources which might be better in use in England.
Mr. Observer, a legitimate perspective, as is the view that if the Scots vote SNP overwhelmingly at Holyrood next year they're voting for another referendum.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
The UK is one country. The Scots decided they wanted it to remain that way. I am afraid they do not get the chance to change their minds for a while. Of course, that does not mean we do not need a new constitutional settlement. Perhaps a very well hung Parliament is the best way to get that as all parties will have to talk.
Keep repeating the mantra to yourself.
In 2016 a Referendum will be on the SNP Manifesto and 50% of Scotland will vote them into every FPTP seat with a further 12% backing the Greens on the list giving 16 seats to back up hte SNP Majority,.
The Union is over and no amount of BBC Scotland claiming "oh the SNP can't have another Referendum" nonsense will stop it.
The SNP has agreed that issues relating to the UK constitution are reserved to the UK government. The Scots have just voted to remain in the UK. In a once in a lifetime/generation referendum.
I've been mulling over what Ed M could do to shore up his core vote at minimal cost and I think I've lit on a winner.
All new cars to be delivered with one envy vandal key scratch along the paintwork per £20,000 of new retail price.
So the new Ford Focus your neighbour buys that you envy would be delivered with one key scratch in the paint, your other bastard neighbour's Golf GTI that you envy would be delivered with two key scratches in it, and that rich git you envy in the semi-detached 3-bed mansion who's just bought a Mercedes SL would take delivery of it with no fewer than five vandal scratches already in it.
This delivers for Labour supporters in several ways:
- the state does something (scratches nicer cars than yours) that you really ought to do yourself; - fairness: if you can't have a nice new car, nobody else should have one either; - equality: all car companies now essentially manufacture second-hand cars; - the Tories.
And it would raise money for our NHS - every scratch would be a compulsory option at £500 plus VAT, so one new Golf GTI would pay for 1,000 nurses in Scotland.
"Mr. Roger, some usernames can be horrendously misleading."
Indeed. When I was working in Istanbul with with a girl called 'Maetap' she helpfully told me I could call her 'Moonshine' which was the English meaning of her name.
She then asked what 'Roger' means? I explained that in English names don't have meanings."Roger is just Roger"
She then looked in her dictionary and asked "What means 'copulation'?"
Very funny.
Although since we are laughing about names... I do love Archibald Clarke Kerr's letter to Reggie Pembroke...
Scotland has given up on Labour. Why flog a dead horse?
For the obvious reason they will pareto themselves out of existence, like the Tories.
Scotland clearly sees itself as a distinct political entity. With independence off the table, at some stage politics will return to the day-to-day. When it does, what may happen is that new parties will develop. For example, SNP social democrats will have to decide whether separation really is their primary objective when there is so much devolved power (with a lot more to come) and so much that can be done within the UK. Likewise, the centre right may decide that it needs a rejig. The Tories get 500,000 votes in Scotland. If they were no longer called the Tories, but were a distinctly Scottish party they may well get many more. These parties would then align with other UK parties in the Commons. It's what happens elsewhere in Europe. We will catch up.
With 50% of Scots desperate to hold another Referendum and dissolve the United Kingdom, the idea politics will "return to normal" any time soon is risible.
Just face it, the UK is a dead parrot.
Jeeez, it was only 6 months ago you had only 45% and you lost....
Opinion polls are not referendums.
You lost, you lost, you lost.....get that into your thick skulls for a least a while.
Another reason to dislike him. I'd love to be walking in Scotland, the lucky git. ;-)
(I haven't done a 'proper' walk for over a year now. I'm really suffering from withdrawal symptoms.)
Ed Miliband won't be walking around Scotland.
One absolute certainty of an Ed Miliband visit to Scotland is that he will never go near the public (he tried once it did not go well). All Labour events in Scotland are held in closed spaces with invited guests. Scottish Labout do not do "the public".
Comments
The downside here is enourmous.
If the Conservatives get a majority, which is not completely out the question yet, and Labour underwhelm in ENgland (Alot of 18-24 yr olds amongst their VI so it is perfectly possible) along with the SNP getting over 50 seats in Scotland, you could be looking at a loss of around a hundred points.
So make sure you have 100* stake to cover potential losses imo.
I'm not saying its a bad bet, just a very risky one - far more so than selling UKIP even, or just a plain sale of Con.
It's almost as if the current constitutional set-up is deranged and unsustainable.
If the SNP 'lose' [ie don't get an overall majority] in 2016 then the tide may recede. But if they win, one suspects it could be quite otherwise.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/booking-glitch-causes-chaos-for-caledonian-sleeper-tourists-reserved-non-existent-coa.122741393
In any case, the SNP will not be advocating another referendum for a while. Economically and fiscally it is a non-starter. They know that.
You can't keep asking the question time and time again until you get to the one you want.
You also have to ask why EC is profitable: the fact several privatised ones were also profitable shows it is not just ownership structure. Payments for aged rolling stock and competition from the direct access operators are also factors.
Why do the pro-renationalisation people ignore the private franchises that return money to the taxpayer?
(I think there should be some formula whereby the cost and time for any given journey multiplied together should produce a constant irrespective of the transport mode used. For domestic journeys government can achieve this through taxation.)
Mr. Observer, I fear your optimism is as misplaced as a wasp in a codpiece.
A hung Parliament will just result in everyone scrabbling to get their own bit of gerrymandering.
The answer's obvious - an English Parliament with power equal to that of Holyrood.
It won't happen. The ignorant want to carve England into useless little political fiefdoms, the fearful are worried about emasculating Westminster.
These posts are discussing two things: the amount of money that franchises return (or take) from the taxpayer, and their underlying company profits after that money. The following document gives some details if you want to spontaneously fall asleep:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-benchmarking-report-2012.pdf
Aged 10 me and two friends waited at the gates of Old Trafford for an hour to get Benaud's autograph. When he finally came out and we went up to him with our autograph books flapping he said 'bugger of sonny' and walked onto his coach.
It's not a big group - maybe 3% of the electorate. But if you were on 6%, an extra 3% is a big deal.
So it would be a matter of who would have more to lose, the answer is labour clearly, so they'll submit to the SNP's demands to a lesser or greater degree.
The SNP have all the cards, and not much to lose.
"Point of order: if Easterross lives in the place I think he does........."
I think there's a clue in the name
edit: looked it up. 86m in Scotland, 1.3bn in the UK.... so well over 10 times as much when you take into account England only.
Favourite spread bet is Fat Lady on the football markets.
I should think no boat to sink would be a fairly safe bet too?
on a more serious note it is about double the subsidy per person mile.
"He was always a sound judge."
I put him down as a Tory and the rest is history!
Moving average chart of YouGov polls since the 2012 local elections. Click to enlarge...
In places your Group A did not disappear when the Coalition was formed, so it is rather difficult for them to "come back". In fact, we despise the Labour Party as a gang of authoritarian bully-boys, incompetents and traitors, whose word cannot be trusted.
That is your record, however much you try to spin it.
"Mr. Roger, some usernames can be horrendously misleading."
Indeed. When I was working in Istanbul with with a girl called 'Maetap' she helpfully told me I could call her 'Moonshine' which was the English meaning of her name.
She then asked what 'Roger' means? I explained that in English names don't have meanings."Roger is just Roger"
She then looked in her dictionary and asked "What means 'copulation'?"
It's time you accelerated your plans to emigrate to your Fatherland.
Send in Ed Miliband.
Hahahahah.
One of the characters in Journey to Altmortis is called Roger the Goat [not based on you, of course].
Something where the Unionist parties can be shown to have broken the Vow, or a practical way in ten years or so that DevoMax can be shown to not be working in Scotland's interest.
The political challenge is keeping all their enthusiastic new members and supporters on board until they have the opportunity to win over the extra wedge of support they need to win independence.
Roger (sometimes spelled Rodger) is an English surname of Anglo-Saxon origin.[1] The name Roger is derived from the pre-7th century Anglo-Saxon (Teutonic) name Hroðgar, which means 'fame and spear' ('hroð' fame or renown, 'gar' spear), the first reference to which is in Beowulf, the epic poem of the Dark Ages.
:-)
no election is good to lose, but it's looking like 'winning' (in the sense of getting into government) without any strength is going to be a poisioned chalice for both tories and labour in this election.
Happy to clear that up for you. Don't mention it.
Mr. Carnyx, one finds a good Roger universally approved of.
And again. And again. Till Labour finally gives up the mind blowingly entitled attitude to Scotland.
Only a handful of franchises actually make money for the government - most are in revenue support where the government has to subsidise the TOC so they achieve a minimum profit level, or are management contracts which would probabliy be cheaper to be run in-house.
The absurd fragmentation of the rail industry since privatization has massively increased costs. For example, in signaling all the experienced engineers left BR at privatization with Railtrack making no effort to train any replacements. Now there is a criticla skills shortage and those employees still working are charged out to NR at 4 figure day rates. Great for them but terrible for the taxpayer and passengers.
(I haven't done a 'proper' walk for over a year now. I'm really suffering from withdrawal symptoms.)
"To all Rogers everywhere"
roger (ˈrɒdʒə)
interj
1. (Telecommunications) (used in signalling, telecommunications, etc) message received. Compare wilco
2. an expression of agreement
vb
3. (of a man) to copulate (with)
[C20: from the name Roger, representing R for received]
Usage: The verb sense of this word was formerly considered to be taboo, and it was labelled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use
Back on topic, I think Mike's bet is a winning one, but Pulpstar is right to point out the dangers. There's a big exposure if events take an unexpected turn (or an expected one if you are Audreyanne.)
In 2016 a Referendum will be on the SNP Manifesto and 50% of Scotland will vote them into every FPTP seat with a further 12% backing the Greens on the list giving 16 seats to back up hte SNP Majority,.
The Union is over and no amount of BBC Scotland claiming "oh the SNP can't have another Referendum" nonsense will stop it.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/04/09/labour-obsesses-over-london-while-scotland-burns/
It mentions Battersea as an example:
" Take for instance Battersea, where those south of the river are being deployed in numbers other seats outside London can but envy. It hasn’t been polled by Lord Ashcroft’s comprehensive polling of marginal seats, and was marked as a safe Conservative seat on both the ITV and Standard polls.
But activists are being told, quite vehemently, that Labour is some “500 votes ahead” in the seat and the local party is demanding some 400 volunteers on election day. From a recent canvassing session, backed up by the recent polls, not much struck Uncut that this is a seat on the cusp of overturning a 6,000 Tory majority. But money, manpower and effort are being poured into a seat that if it wasn’t in Zone Two wouldn’t get a look in."
Have to say from the comments on the Labour sites, they do not seem too optimistic...
To be honest I'm surprised there isn't a London Independent party about now, for the very same reasons.
There is a large body of voters who really think it is the role of the state to support their every need, and the needs of anyone else who cannot take responsibility for their own lives and live within their means, regardless of the cost, as it can all be funded by "the rich" (and not them).
Even though the Tories aren't really challenging that view much (trimming a bit more here and there and quicker than Labour), many voters have fallen hook line and sinker for the Left's collective line that the Tories are evil baby-eaters ideologically driven to screw "the poor" and hand cash to their wealthy mates. The seething sentiment of the many economic illiterates in the audience to the QT debate on "non-doms" was very illuminating.
Watching QT in the run-up to an election scares me more than watching the dissembling politicans. They worry me more than PM Miliband worries me.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/14497/rail-finance-statistical-release-2013-14.pdf
And again, the vast majority of public subsidy go not to the TOCs, but directly to Network Rail.
Network Rail has been deprivatised for fourteen years now. They have had fourteen years to train new staff. Blaming lack of trained staff (wrongly, IMHO) on privatisation is weird.
And a massive driver of increased costs has been increased safety standards that require more staff for on-track jobs, and working hour limitations. These are all for the good, IMHO.
Just face it, the UK is a dead parrot.
Not easy fighting a war on two fronts.
All new cars to be delivered with one envy vandal key scratch along the paintwork per £20,000 of new retail price.
So the new Ford Focus your neighbour buys that you envy would be delivered with one key scratch in the paint, your other bastard neighbour's Golf GTI that you envy would be delivered with two key scratches in it, and that rich git you envy in the semi-detached 3-bed mansion who's just bought a Mercedes SL would take delivery of it with no fewer than five vandal scratches already in it.
This delivers for Labour supporters in several ways:
- the state does something (scratches nicer cars than yours) that you really ought to do yourself;
- fairness: if you can't have a nice new car, nobody else should have one either;
- equality: all car companies now essentially manufacture second-hand cars;
- the Tories.
And it would raise money for our NHS - every scratch would be a compulsory option at £500 plus VAT, so one new Golf GTI would pay for 1,000 nurses in Scotland.
It's a winner.
Although since we are laughing about names... I do love Archibald Clarke Kerr's letter to Reggie Pembroke...
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/we-all-feel-like-that-now-and-then.html
Opinion polls are not referendums.
You lost, you lost, you lost.....get that into your thick skulls for a least a while.
One absolute certainty of an Ed Miliband visit to Scotland is that he will never go near the public (he tried once it did not go well). All Labour events in Scotland are held in closed spaces with invited guests. Scottish Labout do not do "the public".