"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. snip
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers. A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being. A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954.
Back in your hutch ting tong
You are the one who supports the ting tong sneering - 'ugly nativist' - wing of British politics. Where is the 'ting tong' lady in question? Oh I guess you don't know now she has been expelled - despite being so highly thought of she was second on UKIPs regional list
What happened to Margaret Thatcher's first Right to Buy council house?
One of the first council houses sold under Margaret Thatcher’s Right To Buy scheme was purchased for more than 20 times its original value 33 years later
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
My hubbie said it was impossible to buy anything pretty for females in Houston. All the nice cowboy stuff was geared to men - belt buckles, alligator boots, fancy hats - it was all male.
I got a black hat and black boots.
He brought me back the most FABULOUS Chinese art and a lovely gold pen from Switzerland - he was a great gift shopper on the whole, though tended towards the gaudy for my taste.
Dave has gone from the NHS being "Open all hours" to now offering "The Good life" !
In reality, it has One Foot in the Grave!
Hilarious - for a so-called Tory 90% of your posts could have been written by the Labour press office. You may have been posting for years but your colours are no longer blue.
Labour, having gone ludicrously over-the-top a few weeks ago in describing the Conservative plans as swingeing, ideologically-driven cuts, which will take us back to Victorian times, are now having to try to switch to the opposite argument and claim that Cameron is promising unfunded giveaways.
This looks like a deliberate trap set by Osborne, and a rather nifty one. The message which most voters will get is that Conservative austerity can't be all that bad after all. Given that the Conservatives have a considerable advantage in economic credibility, that's quite a good position.
At the same time, Labour seem to have got themselves into a strategic hole with their late conversion to the message: 'any austerity Osborne can do, we can do better'. That won't play well with their core vote, and certainly not in Scotland. What's more the timing is particularly difficult for Miliband: on Thursday he'll face the challengers' debate with three feisty ladies taking chunks from his left and Nigel Farage skewering him on credibility.
I expect the Conservatives to pull ahead (or further ahead) in the next week or two.
I'm afraid I have to agree.
I'm just at a loss to understand what the rationale for voting Labour is supposed to be now. This is the problem with having all these idiotic Westminster "game-players" in positions of power in Labour: they're good at short-term tactics, and their "more austerity than Osborne" tactic worked well for a day in the papers yesterday, but it's blown gaping holes in their overarching strategy for the whole election.
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
Very, very rare. Hounds are bred and trained to hunt their proper quarry and nothing else, and the ones that like moonlighting don't last very long. Crop damage does happen, and loss of livestock indirectly caused by leaving gates open, but the farmer gets compensated (or the hunt doesn't get to hunt on his land any more) and the individuals responsible get serious grief from the Field Master.
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
Very little if any crop damage is caused by hunts, which take place in winter when crops aren't growing. Farmers give permission for the hunt to enter their land they wouldn't if it involved damage to their crops. That said some damage does sometimes occur to hedges, fences, gates etc., where it does the hunt, if it is well run, will quickly put it right and/or provide compensation.
As to farm animals and pets killed by hunts, I have read of it but have never known a case locally. It probably happens but very infrequently and only when something has gone horribly wrong. Farmers lose more livestock to pet dogs not being kept under proper control than they ever do to hounds from the hunt.
Many thanks, both of you.
I can well believe the livestock issue and not just because there are many more pet pooches than foxhounds - there are plenty of sheep round here where I live. Last time I was in Dorset, I had to report a dog worrying sheep and helped secure the one that had bolted straight through the fence. I was asked if I was a farmer myself!
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
Westmorland is expected to declare at 4 am, I expect an absolute romp for Farron who will no doubt be eagerly awaiting the very tight news from Sheffield Hallam at 4:30 !
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
He is. If he loses, the Lib Dems are going to end up with less than 5 seats for sure. I make him just about the safest, safer than Yeovil, Bath, Orkney even.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
He is. If he loses, the Lib Dems are going to end up with less than 5 seats for sure. I make him just about the safest, safer than Yeovil, Bath, Orkney even.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
He is. If he loses, the Lib Dems are going to end up with less than 5 seats for sure. I make him just about the safest, safer than Yeovil, Bath, Orkney even.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
News from Huppertville is that with the Con candidate getting herself in a tangle at a local hustings over "writsbands for the mentally disabled" that Hupperts nailed on nails are now nailed on.
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
He is. If he loses, the Lib Dems are going to end up with less than 5 seats for sure. I make him just about the safest, safer than Yeovil, Bath, Orkney even.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
News from Huppertville is that with the Con candidate getting herself in a tangle at a local hustings over "writsbands for the mentally disabled" that Hupperts nailed on nails are now nailed on.
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
The Conservatives coming second means he'll get a whole bunch of Labour "tactical" votes.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
He is. If he loses, the Lib Dems are going to end up with less than 5 seats for sure. I make him just about the safest, safer than Yeovil, Bath, Orkney even.
"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. snip
A very reasonable post SO.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers. A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being. A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954.
Back in your hutch ting tong
You are the one who supports the ting tong sneering - 'ugly nativist' - wing of British politics. Where is the 'ting tong' lady in question? Oh I guess you don't know now she has been expelled - despite being so highly thought of she was second on UKIPs regional list
Labour, having gone ludicrously over-the-top a few weeks ago in describing the Conservative plans as swingeing, ideologically-driven cuts, which will take us back to Victorian times, are now having to try to switch to the opposite argument and claim that Cameron is promising unfunded giveaways.
This looks like a deliberate trap set by Osborne, and a rather nifty one. The message which most voters will get is that Conservative austerity can't be all that bad after all. Given that the Conservatives have a considerable advantage in economic credibility, that's quite a good position.
At the same time, Labour seem to have got themselves into a strategic hole with their late conversion to the message: 'any austerity Osborne can do, we can do better'. That won't play well with their core vote, and certainly not in Scotland. What's more the timing is particularly difficult for Miliband: on Thursday he'll face the challengers' debate with three feisty ladies taking chunks from his left and Nigel Farage skewering him on credibility.
I expect the Conservatives to pull ahead (or further ahead) in the next week or two.
The bit in bold might be a short-term issue. But I agree with the overall thrust of your analysis.
Labour, having gone ludicrously over-the-top a few weeks ago in describing the Conservative plans as swingeing, ideologically-driven cuts, which will take us back to Victorian times, are now having to try to switch to the opposite argument and claim that Cameron is promising unfunded giveaways.
This looks like a deliberate trap set by Osborne, and a rather nifty one. The message which most voters will get is that Conservative austerity can't be all that bad after all. Given that the Conservatives have a considerable advantage in economic credibility, that's quite a good position.
At the same time, Labour seem to have got themselves into a strategic hole with their late conversion to the message: 'any austerity Osborne can do, we can do better'. That won't play well with their core vote, and certainly not in Scotland. What's more the timing is particularly difficult for Miliband: on Thursday he'll face the challengers' debate with three feisty ladies taking chunks from his left and Nigel Farage skewering him on credibility.
I expect the Conservatives to pull ahead (or further ahead) in the next week or two.
That's pretty astute. The big danger for the Tories now is that they actually have to deliver on this and can't let certain commitments go because of a hung Parliament.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
e's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
News from Huppertville is that with the Con candidate getting herself in a tangle at a local hustings over "writsbands for the mentally disabled" that Hupperts nailed on nails are now nailed on.
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
The Conservatives coming second means he'll get a whole bunch of Labour "tactical" votes.
Chortle.
2nd place will be interesting this time around - Cons were hot favourites to be 3rd in 2010 - but weren't..
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
If Farron is out there won't be enough LibDems to form a coalition. The predictions on here are getting more extreme by the day. I hope nobody's risking too much money on some of these.
I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.
He's not predicting anything at all this time though, he's just using Hanretty's model.
No, he's quite open about it:
U.K. General Election Predictions
"FiveThirtyEight is publishing forecasts for the 2015 parliamentary election developed by Chris Hanretty, Ben Lauderdale and Nick Vivyan, a group of U.K. academics. Their model combines opinion polls, historical election results and census data. More U.K. election coverage »"
As the day goes on, other policies - beyond the headline-grabbers - in the Conservative manifesto are coming to light. The party wants to change the rules on industrial action so a strike could only go ahead "based on a ballot in which half the workforce has voted". And public sector workers would only be able to go out on strike if it was directly supported by 40% of people entitled to take part. The manifesto states: "We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic strike action."
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
Lest we forget, the Lib Dems did sort of come from nowhere in W&L in 2005, a Tory safe seat since its creation, and they did so by winning the backing of Labour voters or Labour-inclined voters who couldn't be bothered in a safe Tory seat, particularly against the backdrop of Howard's 2005 campaign. Farron won his stonking majority on the back of the Cleggasm, and a catalogue of disaster and infighting amongst the local W&L Tories (and their HQ and voter lists were lost to a fire IIRC), and whilst he's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
If Farron is out there won't be enough LibDems to form a coalition. The predictions on here are getting more extreme by the day. I hope nobody's risking too much money on some of these.
Not at 1-12, doesn't justify the liquidity loss for me. But it's probably a sound enough bet.
Whatever sympathies one might have for David Laws, it wouldn't be difficult to paint him as an expenses cheat who was lucky to get a slap on the wrist. I wonder how the local Tories are campaigning?
As the day goes on, other policies - beyond the headline-grabbers - in the Conservative manifesto are coming to light. The party wants to change the rules on industrial action so a strike could only go ahead "based on a ballot in which half the workforce has voted". And public sector workers would only be able to go out on strike if it was directly supported by 40% of people entitled to take part. The manifesto states: "We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic strike action."
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
As the day goes on, other policies - beyond the headline-grabbers - in the Conservative manifesto are coming to light. The party wants to change the rules on industrial action so a strike could only go ahead "based on a ballot in which half the workforce has voted". And public sector workers would only be able to go out on strike if it was directly supported by 40% of people entitled to take part. The manifesto states: "We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic strike action."
Labour, having gone ludicrously over-the-top a few weeks ago in describing the Conservative plans as swingeing, ideologically-driven cuts, which will take us back to Victorian times, are now having to try to switch to the opposite argument and claim that Cameron is promising unfunded giveaways.
This looks like a deliberate trap set by Osborne, and a rather nifty one. The message which most voters will get is that Conservative austerity can't be all that bad after all. Given that the Conservatives have a considerable advantage in economic credibility, that's quite a good position.
At the same time, Labour seem to have got themselves into a strategic hole with their late conversion to the message: 'any austerity Osborne can do, we can do better'. That won't play well with their core vote, and certainly not in Scotland. What's more the timing is particularly difficult for Miliband: on Thursday he'll face the challengers' debate with three feisty ladies taking chunks from his left and Nigel Farage skewering him on credibility.
I expect the Conservatives to pull ahead (or further ahead) in the next week or two.
I'm afraid I have to agree.
I'm just at a loss to understand what the rationale for voting Labour is supposed to be now.
"The party wants to change the rules on democracy so a Govt. could only go ahead "based on a ballot in which half the Electorate has voted". And Govt. would only be able govern if it was directly supported by 40% of people entitled to take part. The manifesto states: "We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic Government."
Whatever sympathies one might have for David Laws, it wouldn't be difficult to paint him as an expenses cheat who was lucky to get a slap on the wrist. I wonder how the local Tories are campaigning?
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
e's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
News from Huppertville is that with the Con candidate getting herself in a tangle at a local hustings over "writsbands for the mentally disabled" that Hupperts nailed on nails are now nailed on.
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
The Conservatives coming second means he'll get a whole bunch of Labour "tactical" votes.
Chortle.
2nd place will be interesting this time around - Cons were hot favourites to be 3rd in 2010 - but weren't..
Ashcroft has the Tories dropping to low 20s in Cambridge, to the benefit of Huppert.
They guess I'll be voting Tory then. Probably right.
I had to think hard about some questions though, on both, and not sure the chosen answers always entirely aligned but were better than the alternative option.
On a reading of the actual documents, I think 20% unfairly represents my view of the Labour prospectus, and let's face it, the Sun questions are loaded to make you come out as a Tory.
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers. A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being. A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954.
I realise some people like the idea of government taking a moral lead more than others, but this idea of using the Pests Act 1954 (which i just googled to check you weren't being satirical) as a guide to where we should draw moral equivalence is absurd.
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.
Best get on fast.
e's undoubtedly popular locally, his party is pretty toxic up north now and I reckon many in W&L may be less inclined to come out in great numbers for the LDs.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
Will have big implications for any renewal of the Con/Lib coalition and/or LibDem leadership contest if Farron is out.
It'll have big implications for the Lib Dems too as Julian Huppert is the sole remaining MP.
News from Huppertville is that with the Con candidate getting herself in a tangle at a local hustings over "writsbands for the mentally disabled" that Hupperts nailed on nails are now nailed on.
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
The Conservatives coming second means he'll get a whole bunch of Labour "tactical" votes.
Chortle.
2nd place will be interesting this time around - Cons were hot favourites to be 3rd in 2010 - but weren't..
Ashcroft has the Tories dropping to low 20s in Cambridge, to the benefit of Huppert.
And as for Labour's idea of mini-manifestos for specific sub-groups...
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
Indeed. Labour's pink lady bus annoyed a lot of women simply because it was PINK. It is a nice colour but it could equally have been red.
Would the Labour "Men's Policy Bus" go round painted BLUE?
Miss Plato, a lot of decent people will be offended. But some really buy into the bullshit of identity politics (cf Khan with his ethnic minority quotas).
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
Neither of those are the centrepiece, imo. The centrepiece is the childcare.
A decade ago we had some female cancer thingy at work which demanded that we wore pink. I was browbeaten into playing along by my HR Dir as *showing concern*
I looked at my wardrobe and noticed that with over 20ft of hanging space - there wasn't a single pink garment. Not even undies.
I really don't like this identity politics stuff - at all.
And as for Labour's idea of mini-manifestos for specific sub-groups...
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
Indeed. Labour's pink lady bus annoyed a lot of women simply because it was PINK. It is a nice colour but it could equally have been red.
Would the Labour "Men's Policy Bus" go round painted BLUE?
Cleggars is just terrible on attacking the Tories with his fake laughter on Sky.
Whatever he's doing, it just sounds silly.
I trust he's not making another desperate attempt to distance his party from Cyril Smith, the predatory paedophile MP.
I prefer the expression "kiddie-fiddling lard mountain." Either way, it would be extraordinary if a Lib Dem who routinely sought to defend the repellent old pervert, were to attack another poster for undue tribalism.
You're right. IIRC the 24-35 age group tend to drift Labour as they're family orientated. Being brazenly offered by the PM £5000 next year is a big bribe that will shift votes purely based on self-interest.
It's a cute move, I don't like it fiscally - but I get it.
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
Neither of those are the centrepiece, imo. The centrepiece is the childcare.
So basically they are going to stuff the civil service and elsewhere with people based upon meeting quotas, rather than address the real underlying issues. Apparently, it is a really bad thing that our civil service hires people from the worlds best universities, so they will cut down on that.
You're right. IIRC the 24-35 age group tend to drift Labour as they're family orientated. Being brazenly offered by the PM £5000 next year is a big bribe that will shift votes purely based on self-interest.
It's a cute move, I don't like it fiscally - but I get it.
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
Neither of those are the centrepiece, imo. The centrepiece is the childcare.
1.6 million kids aged 3 or 4. Plus of course another 2.4 million aged 0-2, and a few twinkles in eyes to boot.
I'm a really bad constituency of one to ask about this. I detest wimmin things. I've used my feminine wiles to great effect. And I think like a bloke in a guys' world.
Being patronised by other wimmin and worse I'm A Feminist Man just annoys me more than anything.
So, the notion of a pink bus to portray me as a *victim* just blows the socks off it.
Whatever sympathies one might have for David Laws, it wouldn't be difficult to paint him as an expenses cheat who was lucky to get a slap on the wrist. I wonder how the local Tories are campaigning?
Tories, expenses? Glasshouses, Moats and Duck Houses spring to mind.
You're right. IIRC the 24-35 age group tend to drift Labour as they're family orientated. Being brazenly offered by the PM £5000 next year is a big bribe that will shift votes purely based on self-interest.
It's a cute move, I don't like it fiscally - but I get it.
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
Neither of those are the centrepiece, imo. The centrepiece is the childcare.
1.6 million kids aged 3 or 4. Plus of course another 2.4 million aged 0-2, and a few twinkles in eyes to boot.
A decade ago we had some female cancer thingy at work which demanded that we wore pink. I was browbeaten into playing along by my HR Dir as *showing concern*
I looked at my wardrobe and noticed that with over 20ft of hanging space - there wasn't a single pink garment. Not even undies.
I have a pink vest top. The only problem is that even I look "chesty" in it. Definitely Not Suitable For Work but if I had been "browbeaten" as you werr I would have worn it anyway... or my one other pink item, a magenta coloured satin nightie (knee length - very modest)
Whatever sympathies one might have for David Laws, it wouldn't be difficult to paint him as an expenses cheat who was lucky to get a slap on the wrist. I wonder how the local Tories are campaigning?
Tories, expenses? Glasshouses, Moats and Duck Houses spring to mind.
You're right. IIRC the 24-35 age group tend to drift Labour as they're family orientated. Being brazenly offered by the PM £5000 next year is a big bribe that will shift votes purely based on self-interest.
It's a cute move, I don't like it fiscally - but I get it.
I'm perplexed that the STORY is about RTB, I thought the No Tax Minimum Wage is the killer message for Joe Average. Recycling old Fatcha stuff is just so uninteresting. Many voters weren't born when she was in power. It's a plaster bogeyman.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
Neither of those are the centrepiece, imo. The centrepiece is the childcare.
1.6 million kids aged 3 or 4. Plus of course another 2.4 million aged 0-2, and a few twinkles in eyes to boot.
So basically they are going to stuff the civil service and elsewhere with people based upon meeting quotas, rather than address the real underlying issues. Apparently, it is a really bad thing that our civil service hires people from the worlds best universities, so they will cut down on that.
The inescapable fact is that people from good universities are going to dominate the top jobs. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Whatever sympathies one might have for David Laws, it wouldn't be difficult to paint him as an expenses cheat who was lucky to get a slap on the wrist. I wonder how the local Tories are campaigning?
Tories, expenses? Glasshouses, Moats and Duck Houses spring to mind.
Perhaps, but the Tory challenger does not have an expenses record to defend.
A decade ago we had some female cancer thingy at work which demanded that we wore pink. I was browbeaten into playing along by my HR Dir as *showing concern*
I looked at my wardrobe and noticed that with over 20ft of hanging space - there wasn't a single pink garment. Not even undies.
I really don't like this identity politics stuff - at all.
And as for Labour's idea of mini-manifestos for specific sub-groups...
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
Indeed. Labour's pink lady bus annoyed a lot of women simply because it was PINK. It is a nice colour but it could equally have been red.
Would the Labour "Men's Policy Bus" go round painted BLUE?
Is it true that CRUK's "Race for Life" is only meant for women/girls?
Be gone dull care! David Cameron chose a warm April day in Swindon to announce his manifesto. The sun streamed through the windows of a bright white room and the chill of Labour’s wintry event 24 hours earlier seemed a world away.
The prime minister made a speech without a trace of negativity. All the language smacked of springtime: “aspiration”, “ambition”, “a good life”, “a brighter future” and “security”. No mention of Labour, Ed Miliband or back-stabbing. Beforehand, Mr Blue Sky, his perky old theme tune, played on the sound system.
Most startlingly there was this: “We are the party of working people offering security at every stage of your life,” he announced, every bit as brazenly as Mr Miliband had called Labour the party of fiscal responsibility. Coming next: “Brussels is brilliant” — Nigel Farage. “No, it’s rubbish” — Nick Clegg.
A decade ago we had some female cancer thingy at work which demanded that we wore pink. I was browbeaten into playing along by my HR Dir as *showing concern*
I looked at my wardrobe and noticed that with over 20ft of hanging space - there wasn't a single pink garment. Not even undies.
I have a pink vest top. The only problem is that even I look "chesty" in it. Definitely Not Suitable For Work but if I had been "browbeaten" as you werr I would have worn it anyway... or my one other pink item, a magenta coloured satin nightie (knee length - very modest)
Comments
To be fair, Bit of challenge to bring back pressies the missus likes.
I thought wifey would like the Mikimoto jewelry I brought back from Japan. This was in the '80s when you could not get it online.
But no.
I'd love to see W&L back in the Tory column. I spend a lot of my time there, and still find it hard to believe it's not blue!
I got a black hat and black boots.
He brought me back the most FABULOUS Chinese art and a lovely gold pen from Switzerland - he was a great gift shopper on the whole, though tended towards the gaudy for my taste.
I'm just at a loss to understand what the rationale for voting Labour is supposed to be now. This is the problem with having all these idiotic Westminster "game-players" in positions of power in Labour: they're good at short-term tactics, and their "more austerity than Osborne" tactic worked well for a day in the papers yesterday, but it's blown gaping holes in their overarching strategy for the whole election.
I can well believe the livestock issue and not just because there are many more pet pooches than foxhounds - there are plenty of sheep round here where I live. Last time I was in Dorset, I had to report a dog worrying sheep and helped secure the one that had bolted straight through the fence. I was asked if I was a farmer myself!
Westmorland is expected to declare at 4 am, I expect an absolute romp for Farron who will no doubt be eagerly awaiting the very tight news from Sheffield Hallam at 4:30 !
When you get something for the wife there is a temptation as a bloke to make it a 'trophy' purchase.
It's a pity Labour are not running on ''Sorry!'
I have a sad feeling there is a rich seam to be mined here.
Has the manifesto fallen into the sea, or is it more or less ok?
Can't believe the way the odds have moved that the bookies have taken much on the reds for the seat.
Chortle.
Mansion tax must be a big issue there.
The predictions on here are getting more extreme by the day. I hope nobody's risking too much money on some of these.
70%
Simple of average of this week's six polls so far = Tory lead 0.7%
ELBOW aggregate = Lab lead 0.5%
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-ethnic-minority-voters-manifesto-top-jobs-quotas-hate-crime-reforms
... Was there ever a dafter idea? At best it's incredibly patronising ("we didn't think you were important enough to include these policies in our grown-up manifesto"), or else it looks like a deliberate attempt to present contradictory messages to different groups. Or even to deliberately encourage division on ethnic and other grounds.
Excellent stuff.
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
US soul singer Percy Sledge, famed for his song When a Man Loves a Woman, has died aged 73 http://bbc.in/1Ho9nQn pic.twitter.com/uqaWLbikT0
Whatever he's doing, it just sounds silly.
So the same as before really.
"The party wants to change the rules on democracy so a Govt. could only go ahead "based on a ballot in which half the Electorate has voted". And Govt. would only be able govern if it was directly supported by 40% of people entitled to take part. The manifesto states: "We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic Government."
He's vulnerable for sure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02p4wn9
Labour manifesto - 20%
They guess I'll be voting Tory then. Probably right.
I had to think hard about some questions though, on both, and not sure the chosen answers always entirely aligned but were better than the alternative option.
On a reading of the actual documents, I think 20% unfairly represents my view of the Labour prospectus, and let's face it, the Sun questions are loaded to make you come out as a Tory.
It effects more people. Most peculiar, then again I'm a PR wonk with a bias.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3037813/How-Red-Ken-helped-write-Ed-s-manifesto-ANDREW-PIERCE-stories-spin-doctors-DON-T-want-read.html
I'd be insulted.
@WingsScotland: Nobody on the minimum wage paying income tax is the sort of policy Labour ought to have had, not the Tories.
And one that, on the face of it, labour would rather the majority did not know about...??
And in terms of the previous Sun "How Tory are you" quiz, I got 80% and am, apparently "backing David Cameron all the way".
So there you are.
Would the Labour "Men's Policy Bus" go round painted BLUE?
It Was Rigged!!!
Miss Plato, a lot of decent people will be offended. But some really buy into the bullshit of identity politics (cf Khan with his ethnic minority quotas).
http://www2.labour.org.uk/harman-and-miliband-launch-labours-bame-manifesto
I looked at my wardrobe and noticed that with over 20ft of hanging space - there wasn't a single pink garment. Not even undies.
I really don't like this identity politics stuff - at all.
That shows how serious it was.
It's a cute move, I don't like it fiscally - but I get it.
There are some big ifs in the tory manifesto.
12 billion savings from benny cuts...??
5 billion from tax avoidance clampdown....???
really....??
Being patronised by other wimmin and worse I'm A Feminist Man just annoys me more than anything.
So, the notion of a pink bus to portray me as a *victim* just blows the socks off it.
Glasshouses, Moats and Duck Houses spring to mind.
https://twitter.com/ChrisGibsonNews/status/587967536026746880
I have a pink vest top. The only problem is that even I look "chesty" in it. Definitely Not Suitable For Work but if I had been "browbeaten" as you werr I would have worn it anyway... or my one other pink item, a magenta coloured satin nightie (knee length - very modest)
I'm sure they'd be banned nowadays. It was a bit much but a great distraction when I wanted to sway an argument."No, I'm up here..."