Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
And what percentage of voters bother with Twitter, let alone 'follow' their candidates? It's a lot easier to reach people via a leaflet through the letterbox.
Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:
- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.
- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.
If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,
Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.
41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .
LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.
WTF are the SNP playing at? Are they trying to destroy Labour's chance of election? It is surely in their interests for them to be kingmakers to a weak Miliband. Are they that convinced that a Tory government is better for the SNP longterm?
Or are they just getting absurdly hubristic and cocky?
Alex Salmond being Salmond tbh.
Bad cop is bad cop !
He's probably far enough ahead in Gordon to win, but he has to be careful mind - Con -> LD tactical switching there has a coherent intellectual argument, and sound basis.
And the Labour leader Ed Miliband made a hugely useful contribution with a tweet saying that the people who died were among the poorest in the world and something should be done. I suppose if they had been moderately affluent it would have been less of a tragedy, Ed, you halfwit. Again, with Hodges and Miliband and the ludicrous Izzy Saunders, the response was all about infantile attitudinalising, nothing more than a wish to tell everybody else that they care more than every-body else and that therefore they are right.
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
I really dislike all the Something Must Be Done crowd - who don't actually do anything bar demanding sacking someone whose opinions they don't like. How completely self-righteous and pointless.
"Something must be done" gave us the Iraq War.
HMS Farage could sail out and pick up any floating Christians and put all the others on some sort of barge with homing instincts
Not hard to find -they're the ones being chucked off the boat by Muslims.
Looking at the LibDems seats it does appear there are 3 without an incumbent which have gone to the Tories.The LibDem brand has been damaged by coalition with the heartless Tories and so it will fall on the strengths of personality,independent thinking and constituency reputation.For these reasons I suggest evens at Corals is value for a LD hold in Torbay and St Ives is still backable for a LD hold at just under evens.Both candidates may just get over the line using their personal brand rather than their parties and certainly no pictures of Clegg on the leaflets.Places like these,Bath and Yeovil,the LibDems are like bindweed and you just can't get rid of them.
I think Andrew George is likely to be in trouble in St Ives following the dumb "no tory coalition" comments - unless, I suppose, some electors actually believe it rather than being tipped over the edge by one blatant lie too many.
The all important poster war is evenly blue and yellow. The LD posters have Andrew George in very large letters and a very small mention of the LDs. The Tory posters go one better and completely omit the party name.
The Spectator (@spectator) 22/04/2015 13:59 An ‘anti-racism’ event at a British university has banned white people specc.ie/1yS0JrM by @laraprendergast pic.twitter.com/DLlQfGUMon
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
And what percentage of voters bother with Twitter, let alone 'follow' their candidates? It's a lot easier to reach people via a leaflet through the letterbox.
The all important poster war is evenly blue and yellow. The LD posters have Andrew George in very large letters and a very small mention of the LDs. The Tory posters go one better and completely omit the party name.
I noted this in the Dore/Totley area of Hallam too. Obviously Hallam isn't a Tory/LD marginal - but Tory votes in Dore/Totley could kill Clegg whilst Coppard gets his from Crookes/Stannington.
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.
Nah, that'd never work...
Yep - in the process they've broken many of their international obligations.
Abbott is a right tool! He also considers war criminals like Rajapakse as 'close friends' - just about sums up the type of man Abbott is!
Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:
- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.
- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.
If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,
Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.
41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .
LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.
That's a different equation Mike. For Labour to gain net 42 seats they will need to take about 80 off the Libs and Tories. I didn't say for Labour to be largest party now did I?
My next grandson takes his 11+ in a couple of years and I cannot see him passing, what is the point of coaching your kids to pass an exam that sends them to a school they will struggle at and be unhappy?
Do remember that kids mature at different times. When I was seven, I was in the remedial class of a very state ordinary junior school in west London.
And I went on to go to Cambridge. I was just (a) young in my year, and (b) a late developer.
If your grandson is just a late developer, then not coaching him to get through the 11+ is doing him a great disservice.
He will get some coaching, he is good at numbers and problem solving but his English work is not great.
Anyway he will be the England goalkeeper in the 2030 World Cup!
Sorting kids into at age 11 is counterproductive, they do develop at different rates (and boys slower than girls). Other posters have pointed out that kids could swap schools, but kids that age like to stay with their friends. The answer is streaming surely.
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
And what percentage of voters bother with Twitter, let alone 'follow' their candidates? It's a lot easier to reach people via a leaflet through the letterbox.
Oh, undoubtedly. But it all helps.
I guess it's a lot easier to use Twitter rather than leaflets to reach people who are a) on Twitter and b) habituated to throwing leaflets in the bin without reading them.
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
It's a different world isn't it.
Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.
Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate that was not on Twitter, not less. It is truly the communication medium of the Damned.
What matters more to me is whether the candidate has a personal website that concentrates on local issues, preferably in detail. Just parrotting the national party line is a big no-no to me.
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.
Nah, that'd never work...
Yep - in the process they've broken many of their international obligations.
Presumably he's calculated that Australians prefer the international obligations to be broken rather than have a load of migrants end up on their shores without them having any say in the matter. Has there been much political comeback for this decision?
If matters get worse in North Africa and the Middle East Europe too may have to make that choice. If we in Europe want to allow immigration but on our terms then we have to be able to turn away those we don't want. Otherwise we may as well tear up any immigration policy at all and simply accept whoever is lucky enough to survive the journey. That's not really a sensible policy.
Unless LD and SNP were both willing to prop up a LAB government (hard to see a scenario with those seat counts where LD&SNP don't both do extremely well
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
It's a different world isn't it.
Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.
Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly
Voted yesterday in the coop member elections. three candidates for three boardroom positions: I now see here that three other candidates were blackballed.
Anyway I have a general rule for such for/against elections where the number of candidates doesn't exceed the number of positions: simply don't make it clear that you're a Labour member and I'll give assent. Labour folks get the thumbs down. It's amazing how often the student union hacks shoot themselves in the foot by proudly proclaiming Labour membership.
Anyway the type of national candidates seemed remarkably establishment types so I took a different tack and voted against Hazel Blears and abstained on the other two. Quite happy to be able to officially give Blears the thumbs down. Of course I voted against all Co-op political donations too.
All pointless, but no more so than voting in any general election seat not decided by one vote.
Unless LD and SNP were both willing to prop up a LAB government (hard to see a scenario with those seat counts where LD&SNP don't both do extremely well
I'd give that 6 months before new elections and a Con/Kip landslide in England and Wales
They do. Apparently he's "local, committed, and able to deliver" which suggests a promising career as a delivery driver should be easy enough to come by if this politics lark doesn't work out.
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
It's a different world isn't it.
Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.
Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly
And now what the metro set do to show they are really w/c
Having a look through the local election results in Hallam at the moment, it shouldn't really be close for Clegg (He should be miles in front) on unnamed polling.
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
It's a different world isn't it.
Reminds me of Blair's claim a week or so ago, that he wasn't rich, and his massive earnings were all spent on 'infrastructure'.
Ed probably has flying ducks on the wall of the Nanny's kitchen, which he only calls the scullery in private. He's a man of the people, for the people and he understands them implicitly
And now what the metro set do to show they are really w/c
People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.
It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate that was not on Twitter, not less. It is truly the communication medium of the Damned.
My concerns about minority governments relate less to the deals that would have to be cut with the SNP, the Lib Dems or UKIP and more to the idea that the Prime Minister would need to consider seriously the views of the likes of Simon Danczuk or Peter Bone every time a backbencher fancied seeing his face in the newspapers.
The shocking footage which is just the same stuff that he said 2 weeks ago?
I also don't see any PB Tory shock at the potentially personally offensive comments by Mr Cameron about Mr Salmond being a thief. It's nothing new, either, but this time it's Mr Cameron choosing to revive them. No skin off my nose - or Mr Salmond's by now - but it does show a certain mentality, and one that won't help the Tory revival in Scotland.
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
when the tax ends up being applied to pretty much every house in the country.
I'm surprised the Tories haven't run up any 'Today's Mansion, is Tomorrow's Semi' posters, to get homeowners thinking.
And point out they will be after private renters next - if you can afford to rent a 'mansion' you should pay mansion rental tax
The Tory candidate in my constituency has done just that - some time back.
Edited: not the bit about the rental but about the mansion tax ending up being applied to every house.
Then he should take my advice and point out to renters they are next
Not immediately clear how an asset/wealth tax would apply to people with no asset, but it's a thought. Might be worth talking up the threat of CGT on the value of the house when you move out of it (deemed sale, right?) at the same time.
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate that was not on Twitter, not less. It is truly the communication medium of the Damned.
Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:
- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.
- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.
If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,
Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.
41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .
LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.
That's a different equation Mike. For Labour to gain net 42 seats they will need to take about 80 off the Libs and Tories. I didn't say for Labour to be largest party now did I?
Not correct. They won't. Every LAB gain from CON counts double in terms of plurality. LAB total up 1 CON total down 1 so gap moves by 2.
Golly, that's so one-eyed. It's about SNP = BogeyMan. They've been playing this card against the Tories for ages. Now the shoe is on the other foot against Labour in E&W. Or Scotland.
Oh, I forgot - everything is good news or no news for the SNP.
The shocking footage which is just the same stuff that he said 2 weeks ago?
I also don't see any PB Tory shock at the potentially personally offensive comments by Mr Cameron about Mr Salmond being a thief. It's nothing new, either, but this time it's Mr Cameron choosing to revive them. No skin off my nose - or Mr Salmond's by now - but it does show a certain mentality, and one that won't help the Tory revival in Scotland.
People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.
It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.
Quite some years ago Matthew Parris wrote an article saying that the 1951 Refugee Convention would need to be rewritten because conceived at a time when travel was far more difficult it was simply unworkable at a time when it was far easier. His argument was that we cannot accept every refugee who gets here so since it's a numbers game rather than a question of categorisation ("Is the Nigerian in the leaky boat landing in Sicily really a refugee or a migrant?") we may as well tear up the Convention and decide who we want to let into the country and how many. Anyone outside those categories gets turned away.
Sooner or later something like that is going to have to happen, it seems to me.
How many seats do people think will change hands? Perhaps this would make for an interesting spread bet.
My best guess is 130, based on a triumphant SNP, vanquished Liberal Democrats and a solid, if unspectacular, performance by Labour in the Conservative/Labour marginals. For comparison, the number of seats changing hands in previous elections was:
How many seats do people think will change hands? Perhaps this would make for an interesting spread bet.
My best guess is 130, based on a triumphant SNP, vanquished Liberal Democrats and a solid, if unspectacular, performance by Labour in the Conservative/Labour marginals. For comparison, the number of seats changing hands in previous elections was:
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.
Nah, that'd never work...
Do as the Aussies do, intercept early and tow them back to their point of departure. Absolutely criminal to bring them to Europe, just encourages them.
Of course they know the risk when they set out so I am not sure why they are presented as innocent victims rather than as calculating criminals breaking the law and in the process endangering others.
I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.
Given 1992 seems to be 'in vogue' as the benchmark for this years election, here's some sobering facts for the Tories:
- If Cameron does 'as well' as Major did in '92 (-40 Seats) He wont be Prime Minister.
- If Miliband does 'as badly' as Kinnock did in '92 (+42 Seats) He will be Prime Minister.
If Labour are plus 42 seats, they will have taken 80-90 off the Tories and Liberals If the Cons lose net 40, they'll have lost ca 60 to Labour,
Your maths are wrong. To win most seats allowing for, say, 5 SLAB MPs to be saved, LAB needs to make 41 gains off CON assuming that both parties are equal in net terms from LD and UKIP battles.
41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .
LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.
That's a different equation Mike. For Labour to gain net 42 seats they will need to take about 80 off the Libs and Tories. I didn't say for Labour to be largest party now did I?
Not correct. They won't. Every LAB gain from CON counts double in terms of plurality. LAB total up 1 CON total down 1 so gap moves by 2.
No that's a different equation. AllyPally set the benchmark as being +42 seats as LAB did in '92. Allowing for 5 SLAB that means 77 gains in E&W to be +42 seats and on par with '92.
The Tories are redundant in that equation. The comparison was to net changes for LAB in 92, not to the Tories.
How many seats do people think will change hands? Perhaps this would make for an interesting spread bet.
My best guess is 130, based on a triumphant SNP, vanquished Liberal Democrats and a solid, if unspectacular, performance by Labour in the Conservative/Labour marginals. For comparison, the number of seats changing hands in previous elections was:
People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.
It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.
Quite some years ago Matthew Parris wrote an article saying that the 1951 Refugee Convention would need to be rewritten because conceived at a time when travel was far more difficult it was simply unworkable at a time when it was far easier. His argument was that we cannot accept every refugee who gets here so since it's a numbers game rather than a question of categorisation ("Is the Nigerian in the leaky boat landing in Sicily really a refugee or a migrant?") we may as well tear up the Convention and decide who we want to let into the country and how many. Anyone outside those categories gets turned away.
Sooner or later something like that is going to have to happen, it seems to me.
I don't know whether Matthew Parris would still agree with what he wrote then, but he was right.
Ed Miliband says he will pay Mansion Tax on his £2.7m home, but insists it is not a mansion. 'That's just a term that's used...
when the tax ends up being applied to pretty much every house in the country.
I'm surprised the Tories haven't run up any 'Today's Mansion, is Tomorrow's Semi' posters, to get homeowners thinking.
And point out they will be after private renters next - if you can afford to rent a 'mansion' you should pay mansion rental tax
The Tory candidate in my constituency has done just that - some time back.
Edited: not the bit about the rental but about the mansion tax ending up being applied to every house.
Then he should take my advice and point out to renters they are next
Not immediately clear how an asset/wealth tax would apply to people with no asset, but it's a thought. Might be worth talking up the threat of CGT on the value of the house when you move out of it (deemed sale, right?) at the same time.
Well if you have an asset whose price is £2.1 mio but you have a mortgage of £1.9 mio you only own - outright - a £200K asset so shouldn't be caught at all. But that's not the basis of the Labour policy.
Personally, I'd have thought it a racing certainty that if Labour get in and introduce the tax it will end up being levied on houses worth very much less than £2 mio and, inevitably, on all property. I wouldn't be surprised to see CGT levied on sale on the owner as well as stamp duty on the buyer.
Certainly it will no more remain a "mansion tax" than income tax has remained a temporary tax to fight the Napoleonic wars.
That's the argument the Tories ought to be going with. But one suspects that once in they too will make use of this source of revenue.
People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.
It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.
Quite some years ago Matthew Parris wrote an article saying that the 1951 Refugee Convention would need to be rewritten because conceived at a time when travel was far more difficult it was simply unworkable at a time when it was far easier. His argument was that we cannot accept every refugee who gets here so since it's a numbers game rather than a question of categorisation ("Is the Nigerian in the leaky boat landing in Sicily really a refugee or a migrant?") we may as well tear up the Convention and decide who we want to let into the country and how many. Anyone outside those categories gets turned away.
Sooner or later something like that is going to have to happen, it seems to me.
I don't know whether Matthew Parris would still agree with what he wrote then, but he was right.
'Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned. 'The process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the Internet.'
''I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.''
What an absurd comparison.
It's entirely reasonable that people should want to leave poverty-stricken third world countries and settle in rich countries. And, it's entirely reasonable that rich countries should not wish to admit them in huge numbers.
Just noticed the Graun live feed reporting a Press Association study of the use of Twitter by PPCs:
"Of the seven main parties, the SNP has managed to get all of its parliamentary candidates on Twitter - while Ukip has only managed to do so with 52% of its prospective MPs.
The Scottish nationalists and Ukip top-and-tailed a Press Association table on Twitter participation. Labour were in second place with 92% of candidates on the micro-blogging site, while you can expect to see tweets from 84% of the Tories’ hopefuls.
Plaid Cymru had 83% of its candidates on Twitter, compared to 77% of the Greens’ and 69% of the Lib Dems".
I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate that was not on Twitter, not less. It is truly the communication medium of the Damned.
Blimey, who have you been following?
I don't follow anyone. I forge my own path. ;-)
The moment you go on Twitter, you become one of the Damned. It's official.
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.
Nah, that'd never work...
Do as the Aussies do, intercept early and tow them back to their point of departure. Absolutely criminal to bring them to Europe, just encourages them.
Of course they know the risk when they set out so I am not sure why they are presented as innocent victims rather than as calculating criminals breaking the law and in the process endangering others.
I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.
What law did they break when they sailed across the Atlantic?
@bbcnickrobinson: Are you shocked or amused ? Was Alex Salmond boasting or joking when he he told an @SNP meeting "I’m writing the Labour Party Budget!”
@George_Osborne: Salmond remarks confirm that weak Miliband + SNP in charge = economic chaos for UK. Two big risks of election have just collided
Thing is, if Miliband is weak etc etc, maybe Salmond writing the budget would be an upgrade, right? Or is he definitionally unfit to write budgets cos he's Scottish, like?
Ha! Been a long time since I tried any fruit or veg and thought YUCK!
The most revolting was pomegranate - like unripe bananas on steroids/teeth suckingly dry - and star fruit, urgh. Oh and kumquats. I'd like to try jack fruit - they're like uber pineapples from Mexico IIRC. I'm not too keen on pineapples myself but always willing to try something new.
My mum loved exotic/novelty stuff and I endured so many I've lost count. Nothing is more horrible than school dinner stewed rhubarb. Visually ghastly.
Here’s the deal. There are two ways in which we can act to prevent future boatloads of migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, and only two ways. Let them all in, or stop them trying to come.
Or maybe some kind of search and rescue operations.
Nah, that'd never work...
Do as the Aussies do, intercept early and tow them back to their point of departure. Absolutely criminal to bring them to Europe, just encourages them.
Of course they know the risk when they set out so I am not sure why they are presented as innocent victims rather than as calculating criminals breaking the law and in the process endangering others.
I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.
What law did they break when they sailed across the Atlantic?
According to Nick Clegg there was no exit check on their passports.
@bbcnickrobinson: Are you shocked or amused ? Was Alex Salmond boasting or joking when he he told an @SNP meeting "I’m writing the Labour Party Budget!”
The clue is in whether Eck laughed - he laughs at all of his own jokes - a psychology student could probably expand on the reasons why.
Tories and SNP playing a mutually beneficial game.MILI needs to rule out a deal with SNO
Of course it's deliberate - Alex and Nicola know exactly what they are doing. Miliband can rule out whatever he likes, but the fact is that if Con > Lab and Lab + SNP > 323 he is dependent on them. That's the point.
Ha! Been a long time since I tried any fruit or veg and thought YUCK!
The most revolting was pomegranate - like unripe bananas on steroids/teeth suckingly dry - and star fruit, urgh. Oh and kumquats. I'd like to try jack fruit - they're like uber pineapples from Mexico IIRC. I'm not too keen on pineapples myself but always willing to try something new.
My mum loved exotic/novelty stuff and I endured so many I've lost count. Nothing is more horrible than school dinner stewed rhubarb. Visually revolting.
Not immediately clear how an asset/wealth tax would apply to people with no asset, but it's a thought. Might be worth talking up the threat of CGT on the value of the house when you move out of it (deemed sale, right?) at the same time.
Well if you have an asset whose price is £2.1 mio but you have a mortgage of £1.9 mio you only own - outright - a £200K asset so shouldn't be caught at all. But that's not the basis of the Labour policy.
Personally, I'd have thought it a racing certainty that if Labour get in and introduce the tax it will end up being levied on houses worth very much less than £2 mio and, inevitably, on all property. I wouldn't be surprised to see CGT levied on sale on the owner as well as stamp duty on the buyer.
Certainly it will no more remain a "mansion tax" than income tax has remained a temporary tax to fight the Napoleonic wars.
That's the argument the Tories ought to be going with. But one suspects that once in they too will make use of this source of revenue.
I do agree that it should be a net equity tax rather than an absolute value tax, there's an inherent injustice there. Unfortunately in countries with wealth taxes (Spain springs to mind) there's a lot of scope of avoidance through combinations of artificial holding companies and/or leveraging the asset with an offshore loan which you effectively make to yourself via some kind of concealed structure. So it's a lot cleaner to tax the gross asset.
CGT on principal private residence with a reinvestment relief would be a much better way to raise revenue, deal with the socially and economically damaging transfer of wealth up the generations as a result of house price superinflation, and generally distribute housing stock more efficiently. But it would be too easy for the Daily Mail to portray it as harming those it would benefit so it's not going to happen.
Comments
Alex Salmond = total operator.
41 gains would put LAB on 263 and reduce CON to 262. Add on to that the net seats from LD/UKIP encounters with CON and LAB .
LAB would get to 41 gains from CON on a theoretical 3.51% CON to LAB swing in England+Wales.
Most peculiar.
Not hard to find -they're the ones being chucked off the boat by Muslims.
The all important poster war is evenly blue and yellow. The LD posters have Andrew George in very large letters and a very small mention of the LDs. The Tory posters go one better and completely omit the party name.
22/04/2015 13:59
An ‘anti-racism’ event at a British university has banned white people specc.ie/1yS0JrM by @laraprendergast pic.twitter.com/DLlQfGUMon
@RossBrierley: "The name's Surname. Name Surname" http://t.co/ITula3yrnw
Yep - in the process they've broken many of their international obligations.
Abbott is a right tool! He also considers war criminals like Rajapakse as 'close friends' - just about sums up the type of man Abbott is!
*HaHaHa Face*
What a result that would be.
262 Lab, 263 Con is far more problematic for the yellow peril
What matters more to me is whether the candidate has a personal website that concentrates on local issues, preferably in detail. Just parrotting the national party line is a big no-no to me.
Presumably he's calculated that Australians prefer the international obligations to be broken rather than have a load of migrants end up on their shores without them having any say in the matter. Has there been much political comeback for this decision?
If matters get worse in North Africa and the Middle East Europe too may have to make that choice. If we in Europe want to allow immigration but on our terms then we have to be able to turn away those we don't want. Otherwise we may as well tear up any immigration policy at all and simply accept whoever is lucky enough to survive the journey. That's not really a sensible policy.
Edited: not the bit about the rental but about the mansion tax ending up being applied to every house.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/12/co-op-group-members-revolt-over-boardroom-elections
So much for democracy.
Anyway I have a general rule for such for/against elections where the number of candidates doesn't exceed the number of positions: simply don't make it clear that you're a Labour member and I'll give assent. Labour folks get the thumbs down. It's amazing how often the student union hacks shoot themselves in the foot by proudly proclaiming Labour membership.
Anyway the type of national candidates seemed remarkably establishment types so I took a different tack and voted against Hazel Blears and abstained on the other two. Quite happy to be able to officially give Blears the thumbs down. Of course I voted against all Co-op political donations too.
All pointless, but no more so than voting in any general election seat not decided by one vote.
Likud 30
Zionist Union 24
Joint List 13
Yesh Atid 11
Kulanu 10
The Jewish Home 8
Shas Aryeh Deri 7
Yisrael Beiteinu 6
etc
Similiarly the Finns in their election.
Belgium can't, but that's err Belgium.
Whatever the result I'm pretty confident we'll have a Gov't after the election.
Had delicious lambs liver with courgettes, french beans, mushrooms and onions yesterday. Oh and of course a bit of bubble and squeak.
People are starting to want politicians who will put them first. Politicians who will think about the effect on them before calling for expensive help for Africans, many of whom could be criminals or even ISIS supporters.
It's a novel idea, putting your constituents first, but I reckon it might catch on.
http://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/cuisine/european/french/salmon-en-croute.html
EDIT Mr @SimonStClare Ah Ha! Great. Have some Colman's cheese sauce in the cupboard. Job done. And charlotte potatoes too...
Tories cannot be allowed to get to GE2015 without explaining the £30bn black hole
Fewer Lab than Con would make it tricky, especially once by-elections increase the opposition lead further.
Oh, I forgot - everything is good news or no news for the SNP.
Sooner or later something like that is going to have to happen, it seems to me.
My best guess is 130, based on a triumphant SNP, vanquished Liberal Democrats and a solid, if unspectacular, performance by Labour in the Conservative/Labour marginals. For comparison, the number of seats changing hands in previous elections was:
2010 - 115
2005 - 62
2001 - 27
1997 - 184
1992 - 52
1987 - 46
1983 - 70
1979 - 73
1974O - 29
1974F - 63
1970 - 86
1966 - 55
1964 - 75
1959 - 39
Of course they know the risk when they set out so I am not sure why they are presented as innocent victims rather than as calculating criminals breaking the law and in the process endangering others.
I look forward to the passengers of the Mayflower being described as calculating criminals.
The Tories are redundant in that equation. The comparison was to net changes for LAB in 92, not to the Tories.
The main parties 'closed shop' reaction to this may be a bit more significant than they think.
I feel a late tilt to UKIP coming on....
Though I also had a poached egg with my asparagus,
45 SNP gains
Something like 20 to 25 other Lib Dem losses
Say 40 Labour/Tory shifts
Roughly 5 others
That makes 110-115. So, around the same as last time.
20 LD losses
20 Labour/Tory shifts
3 others
I would go under 100 .
What an absurd comparison.
30 LD losses
30 Labour gains
2 UKIP gains.
Personally, I'd have thought it a racing certainty that if Labour get in and introduce the tax it will end up being levied on houses worth very much less than £2 mio and, inevitably, on all property. I wouldn't be surprised to see CGT levied on sale on the owner as well as stamp duty on the buyer.
Certainly it will no more remain a "mansion tax" than income tax has remained a temporary tax to fight the Napoleonic wars.
That's the argument the Tories ought to be going with. But one suspects that once in they too will make use of this source of revenue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-390230/Britain-faces-mass-migration-warns-Admiral.html
The moment you go on Twitter, you become one of the Damned. It's official.
What law did they break when they sailed across the Atlantic?
The most revolting was pomegranate - like unripe bananas on steroids/teeth suckingly dry - and star fruit, urgh. Oh and kumquats. I'd like to try jack fruit - they're like uber pineapples from Mexico IIRC. I'm not too keen on pineapples myself but always willing to try something new.
My mum loved exotic/novelty stuff and I endured so many I've lost count. Nothing is more horrible than school dinner stewed rhubarb. Visually ghastly.
According to Nick Clegg there was no exit check on their passports.
Andrew Neil "How does the Mansion Tax work?"
Chris Leslie "Danny Alexander said it would..."
Ummm
We've got an exclusive poll of voters in #UKIP target seats out later today for @ITVNews. Tune in this evening for full results. #GE2015
CGT on principal private residence with a reinvestment relief would be a much better way to raise revenue, deal with the socially and economically damaging transfer of wealth up the generations as a result of house price superinflation, and generally distribute housing stock more efficiently. But it would be too easy for the Daily Mail to portray it as harming those it would benefit so it's not going to happen.