'When he was consulted on how Spartans might best forestall invasion of their homeland, Lycurgus advised, "By remaining poor, and each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow."[11]'
'The ancient Spartan melas zomos (μέλας ζωμός), or black soup / black broth, was a staple soup made of boiled pigs' legs, blood, salt and vinegar.[1] It is thought that the vinegar was used as an emulsifier to keep the blood from clotting during the cooking process. The armies of Sparta mainly ate this. It was not a delicacy, but used for sustenance.
According to legend, a man from Sybaris, a city in southern Italy infamous for its luxury and gluttony (which gave rise to the word sybarite), after tasting the Spartans' black soup remarked with disgust, "Now I know why the Spartans do not fear death".'
Mr. Eagles, you're expecting Cameron to have his career terminated within a year of his triumph?
I don't rule anything out whilst there are Tory eurosceptics around.
They are properly bat shit mental.
Yes, imagine it - actually putting the constitution and the future of the country over party political expediency and personal advancement - someone fetch the straightjackets!
Interesting election results in Italy reinforcing the notion that southern Europe as a while is moving to the left. This is the real ticking time-bomb for the EU. Greece on its own may be manageable - Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece is another thing altogether. It should certainly strengthen David Cameron's negotiating position over the coming year or two.
'When he was consulted on how Spartans might best forestall invasion of their homeland, Lycurgus advised, "By remaining poor, and each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow."[11]'
'The ancient Spartan melas zomos (μέλας ζωμός), or black soup / black broth, was a staple soup made of boiled pigs' legs, blood, salt and vinegar.[1] It is thought that the vinegar was used as an emulsifier to keep the blood from clotting during the cooking process. The armies of Sparta mainly ate this. It was not a delicacy, but used for sustenance.
According to legend, a man from Sybaris, a city in southern Italy infamous for its luxury and gluttony (which gave rise to the word sybarite), after tasting the Spartans' black soup remarked with disgust, "Now I know why the Spartans do not fear death".'
Sounds extremely nutritious though. Bone broths have been used for good health by many cultures throughout the ages. They think it's the gelatin.
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
Yes, Intersex
The Green party manifesto referrred to LGBTIQ, a length I had not before seen. Q was for Queer.
Are you sure? Queer doesn't mean anything specific that I know of for that terminology.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Mr T. In the Green Party manifesto the "Q" stands for "Queer". (See page 26 in the PDF version)
The term "queer" is now more frequently used as a self-identify for those who reject a hetero/homosexual dichotomy (or less frequently a cis-/trans- gender one) and find themselves otherwise restricted by those labels.
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
A glorious isolation that offers competence versus chaos? Electoral reform is just not that far up most people's agenda. Some might even say the question has been settled for a generation...
Mr. Eagles, you're expecting Cameron to have his career terminated within a year of his triumph?
I don't rule anything out whilst there are Tory eurosceptics around.
They are properly bat shit mental.
Yes, imagine it - actually putting the constitution and the future of the country over party political expediency and personal advancement - someone fetch the straightjackets!
Unfortunately in a Coalition you don't get to pick and choose what you vote for. As part of the Coalition, the LDs got enacted some things that the Conservatives wouldn't have freely supported and vice versa.
As to whether Clegg should have used this as a reason for ending the Coalition, I don't know, Many in the Party would have backed him if he had - I suspect reaction elsewhere would have been less favourable and as it turned out had the election been held at any time between 2012 and 2015 the net result for the LDs would probably have been the same.
Self-serving nonsense, I'm afraid. Firstly, none of the measures cited was contained in the Coalition Agreement of 2010. The Liberal Democrats could have blocked all of them consistently with remaining in coalition (cf. the postponement of the boundary review to 2018). Secondly, the Liberal Democrats were in some areas more authoritarian than the Tories, being enthusiastic supporters of statutory regulation of the press, for example (see the Crime and Courts Act 2013, ss. 34-42; Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, s. 96).
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
The Lib Dems won't recover until they can complete the following sentence in fifteen words or less:
"You should vote Lib Dem because..."
Having lost the None Of The Above vote and the Not Tory vote in seats where Labour can't win, and having lost the Local Party For Local People vote, what are they left with?
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
The public rejected AV by a large proportion. Any attempt to bring PR in would be equally defeated if not more so as most people want an MP of their own...
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
Yes, Intersex
The Green party manifesto referrred to LGBTIQ, a length I had not before seen. Q was for Queer.
Are you sure? Queer doesn't mean anything specific that I know of for that terminology.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Mr T. In the Green Party manifesto the "Q" stands for "Queer". (See page 26 in the PDF version)
The term "queer" is now more frequently used as a self-identify for those who reject a hetero/homosexual dichotomy (or less frequently a cis-/trans- gender one) and find themselves otherwise restricted by those labels.
I imagine the Lib Dems will be desperate to round up as many of the same MPs as possible to try and win back their old seats. They are still second place in most of these seats after all and already people like Huppert, Hemming and Hughes seem keen to come back. The Lib Dem fightback will need to start with them holding/winning seats in the local elections to build a base in their target areas.
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
Yes, Intersex
The Green party manifesto referrred to LGBTIQ, a length I had not before seen. Q was for Queer.
Are you sure? Queer doesn't mean anything specific that I know of for that terminology.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Mr T. In the Green Party manifesto the "Q" stands for "Queer". (See page 26 in the PDF version)
The term "queer" is now more frequently used as a self-identify for those who reject a hetero/homosexual dichotomy (or less frequently a cis-/trans- gender one) and find themselves otherwise restricted by those labels.
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
The public rejected AV by a large proportion. Any attempt to bring PR in would be equally defeated if not more so as most people want an MP of their own...
And Margaret Beckett this very morning was having none of it. It really doesn't suit the two main parties*.
Even her dismissal/inside knowledge of why 4m voted Kipper seemed sensible: "a protest vote".
(Edit:* for clarification, the other main party being Lab, not SNP)
Katie Ghose ex Labour SPAD and failed candidate in Stoke and Grimsby heads this pressure group.
Yep, it's been going for a long time. It's not unreasonable to believe that parties getting 36% or 37% of the vote should not be in a position to secure Parliamentary majorities, and that four million UKIP voters deserve more representation in the Commons than one MP.
I'm very fond of spaghetti, I was brought up by an Italian family [I was outsourced by my parents] and was taught to cook by an ancient 4' lady when I was about 7yrs old.
Gloopy/slimey spaghetti/all pasta is revolting.
I can't eat any shell fish from the shell - like oysters or whelks etc - just no way. And that applies to those rubber bands that masquerade as squid. Just no.
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
The public rejected AV by a large proportion. Any attempt to bring PR in would be equally defeated if not more so as most people want an MP of their own...
The trouble is it is not a great "shortfall" - they can survive several by-election loses and it seems to me unlikely that there will be enough Tory MPs who die or retire or get EU jobs in the next five years to reduce the majority enough. Apart from anything else, Cameron will not be moving any Tories with low majorities into plum jobs in EU or diplomatic service. Too risky. It's possible there will be some defections after the EU ref result, but that's the only way I can see Tories falling before 2020. And that's before the DUP get factored in.
With Labour so far off a majority and the Conservatives short of potential allies if they make the short fall below it, there is never a better chance for the case of electoral reform to be heard. If either main party went for it, they'd have the support all of all the smaller parties, leaving the other party looking isolated.
The public rejected AV by a large proportion. Any attempt to bring PR in would be equally defeated if not more so as most people want an MP of their own...
A lot of people said in the AV debate that they were voting against because it wasn't proportional. In some cases it can be less proportional than FPTP. The Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies method of PR means that the link with the area is maintained and that an elector is more likely to be represented by someone from their party and representing their area. It also gives the elector a chance to choose between candidates within a party, useful when you'd prefer a Eurosceptic tory to a Europhile or vice versa.
OT for fans of BGT, there's also an Indian version on Colors - its on Freesat at 1330 Thurs/Fri or Sat/Sun 2100. It's just started and I'm expecting much fun and entertainment.
I imagine the Lib Dems will be desperate to round up as many of the same MPs as possible to try and win back their old seats. They are still second place in most of these seats after all and already people like Huppert, Hemming and Hughes seem keen to come back. The Lib Dem fightback will need to start with them holding/winning seats in the local elections to build a base in their target areas.
Agreed: I think the local election results in the next three-to-four years will let us know if the LibDems are likely to remain a force or not.
A lot of people said in the AV debate that they were voting against because it wasn't proportional. .
Yeah, I know a lot of people who voted against AV because they thought once it was decisively defeated that would clearly show that people wanted a truly proportional system and PR would be introduce within mere moments of AV being defeated.
Andrew Rawnsley has written an article in the Observer complaining about the Tories winning with 37%, but did he say the same thing when Blair won in 2005 with 36%?
I did :-)
Why didn't Labour change the voting system when they had a huge majority between 1997 and 2005? The only answer I can think of is that they honestly believed they could go on winning elections indefinitely and therefore there wasn't any need to do so. They must have seriously overdosed on hubris if that was their thinking at the time.
Self-interest. Labour can only win a majority under a FPTP system and it's the system that keeps most Labour MPs in parliament. Exactly the same applies to the Tories. It will be interesting to see whether the SNP maintains its support for PR now that it has delivered them over 90% of Scottish seats on a 50% vote. I guess they can in the knowledge that the big two will not change. If one of them does, though, it will give the SNP some serious thinking to do. One of the great - and delicious - ironies of Labour's wipe-out in Scotland was that so many of the MPs up there opposed PR on the basis that they believed they had jobs for life.
If I remember Blair and Ashdown's diaries, there was a plan to introduce PR straight after 1997. Prescott blocked it (on behalf of the 'self-interest' party vote).
As ever with PR, the fundamental problem, as Rawnsley pointed out, was the party in power never wants to introduce it. I can see circumstances where Labour might now sign up to it (although which 'it' will be an interesting one), but whether they will be a position to do anything within the next decade is anyone's guess.
I can't eat any shell fish from the shell - like oysters or whelks etc - just no way. And that applies to those rubber bands that masquerade as squid. Just no.
Miss Plato, the last time I tried eating spaghetti I had the same problem.
I agree, but I extend the loathing to just about all seafood. It's not normal, I know, and I'm famous in my family for it. Maybe my notable love of vegetables compensates. "Five a day"---poof!
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
Yes, Intersex
The Green party manifesto referrred to LGBTIQ, a length I had not before seen. Q was for Queer.
Are you sure? Queer doesn't mean anything specific that I know of for that terminology.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Mr T. In the Green Party manifesto the "Q" stands for "Queer". (See page 26 in the PDF version)
The term "queer" is now more frequently used as a self-identify for those who reject a hetero/homosexual dichotomy (or less frequently a cis-/trans- gender one) and find themselves otherwise restricted by those labels.
Why not extend the acronym to LGBTIQS, S being for "straight"? How inclusive and non-restricting would that be!
I imagine the Lib Dems will be desperate to round up as many of the same MPs as possible to try and win back their old seats. They are still second place in most of these seats after all and already people like Huppert, Hemming and Hughes seem keen to come back. The Lib Dem fightback will need to start with them holding/winning seats in the local elections to build a base in their target areas.
Agreed: I think the local election results in the next three-to-four years will let us know if the LibDems are likely to remain a force or not.
Newly-minted one-party states create opposition almost organically. One will form whatever happens so the trick is to be well positioned for that (cf. UKIP in the North).
Large chunks of both Scotland and the south of England are currently awaiting their opposition.
Sushi - bleugh. It's very unfashionable to dislike seafood and raw fish. Frankly, I've no idea why.
I don't like crab or prawns and only once had lobster - meh and very rich. The only thing I do like is bbq'd fresh shrimps. Had them on holiday in Morocco and they were delicious.
Veggies are yummy - my fridge heaves with them too. I'm very partial to courgettes, french beans, mangetout, onions and peppers. No meal is complete without them - and mushrooms.
I can't eat any shell fish from the shell - like oysters or whelks etc - just no way. And that applies to those rubber bands that masquerade as squid. Just no.
Miss Plato, the last time I tried eating spaghetti I had the same problem.
I agree, but I extend the loathing to just about all seafood. It's not normal, I know, and I'm famous in my family for it. Maybe my notable love of vegetables compensates. "Five a day"---poof!
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix. Top eggs.
Did anyone actually bet on him, given he was something like 1/4 before the weekend even started and 1/10 after qualifying?
Huge amounts of money goes on "certainties" in all aspects of betting. Sometimes there is value at short odds, but more often than not it is "money buyers" whose approach is usually compared to picking up pennies from in front of a steamroller.
Way back in the 80s, I had a most flamboyant gay boss who delighted in meeting as many eye-candy male candidates as possible. He insisted that we wrote window posters up with "if you have any queeries, ask for David".
He really should've been in showbiz - he was hilarious company and not at all camp until he turned it on - then was shameless.
Mr. Jessop, selflessly, I shall think of the lesbians.
Saw a video in the Youtube sidebar the other day which had the acronym LGBTI. Not sure about the final letter. Intersex?
Yes, Intersex
The Green party manifesto referrred to LGBTIQ, a length I had not before seen. Q was for Queer.
Are you sure? Queer doesn't mean anything specific that I know of for that terminology.
I think Q is for Questioning. Ie those Questioning their own sexuality (not willing/ready to either come out or adopt a firm term for themselves yet).
My Student Union when I was at union had LBGTQ with Q for Questioning at the end.
Mr T. In the Green Party manifesto the "Q" stands for "Queer". (See page 26 in the PDF version)
The term "queer" is now more frequently used as a self-identify for those who reject a hetero/homosexual dichotomy (or less frequently a cis-/trans- gender one) and find themselves otherwise restricted by those labels.
Why not extend the acronym to LGBTIQS, S being for "straight"? How inclusive and non-restricting would that be!
A lot of people said in the AV debate that they were voting against because it wasn't proportional. .
Yeah, I know a lot of people who voted against AV because they thought once it was decisively defeated that would clearly show that people wanted a truly proportional system and PR would be introduce within mere moments of AV being defeated.
Well I don't know about that, but those saying that people voted in favour of FPTP are wrong. It was more against AV. It should have been a 'preferendum'.
@NeilMcGarvey: The case of the missing marginals: Labour’s task in 2020 is harder than they currently realise | British Politics LSE http://t.co/eK21fivywc
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix. Top eggs.
Did anyone actually bet on him, given he was something like 1/4 before the weekend even started and 1/10 after qualifying?
Huge amounts of money goes on "certainties" in all aspects of betting. Sometimes there is value at short odds, but more often than not it is "money buyers" whose approach is usually compared to picking up pennies from in front of a steamroller.
I can understand loads of money going on e.g. some of the 1/10 Con seats, I may have even been on a few of them myself.
I just can't see the value in these for sports betting, there's much more chance of something going wrong, although Monaco is the most likely race to be won by the pole sitter.
And as I write this England go out to 9/1 to win the cricket, with nearly two days still to go - *reaches into pocket for a fiver*
Mr. Eagles, you're expecting Cameron to have his career terminated within a year of his triumph?
If his very name is used as a basis for a ruler for almost the next 2000 years I'm sure he wouldn't mind. He would need a very good successor though.
In all honesty Cameron probably has 2-3 years left. 2 if he loses the referendum, 3 if he wins, as he goes out on a high but not straight away so he can steer the party to his choice.
Mr. Eagles, aye. In 2010 my F1 tips were flat overall and I may've made an annual loss in 2011. Last year's first half was extremely good (best half-season I've had, I think). It's just frustrating.
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix. Top eggs.
Did anyone actually bet on him, given he was something like 1/4 before the weekend even started and 1/10 after qualifying?
Paddy said that it cost them a significant six figure amount.
People bet on "certainties" like us who bet on Witney being a Tory hold at 1/25.
Add in the patriotic betting aspect and you can see a lot of money being staked on Lewis
If it cost them six figures then fair play, they obviously have a marketing budget for things like this as they're always in the news refunding or paying out losing bets.
You got 1/25 on Witney? It was 1/500 when I looked! I did have a few of the 1/10 and 1/25 Tory constituencies with 2-3 weeks to go as it was better than keeping it in the bank. If the polls had been 6% wrong in the other direction I would have been Donald Ducked though, and with some explaining to do to the missus about the holiday fund!
Did you have a couple of enjoyable days at Headingley?
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix. Top eggs.
Did anyone actually bet on him, given he was something like 1/4 before the weekend even started and 1/10 after qualifying?
Paddy said that it cost them a significant six figure amount.
People bet on "certainties" like us who bet on Witney being a Tory hold at 1/25.
Add in the patriotic betting aspect and you can see a lot of money being staked on Lewis
If it cost them six figures then fair play, they obviously have a marketing budget for things like this as they're always in the news refunding or paying out losing bets.
You got 1/25 on Witney? It was 1/500 when I looked! I did have a few of the 1/10 and 1/25 Tory constituencies with 2-3 weeks to go as it was better than keeping it in the bank. If the polls had been 6% wrong in the other direction I would have been Donald Ducked though, and with some explaining to do to the missus about the holiday fund!
Did you have a couple of enjoyable days at Headingley?
I'm not sure it was 1/25 on Witney, I backed a slew of safe Tory and Lab seats.
As a cricket fan, it was entertaining, the weather, on Friday and Saturday was a bit chilly on one's Achilles
I think the problem for the LDs is that there is not a large group of voters left who want a statist, pretend libertarian party that used to be in coalition with the Conservatives. One of the - many- ironies of the election result is that despite what we were repeatedly lectured on here, is that many of their votes went blue along with the bulk of their seats - Labour only got the fag ends - in London and a few scattered elsewhere. they have a few second places where they were still close but they face stern fights in several of the held 7! I would probably hazard on a growth in UKIP, especially against Labour ahead of any LD revival. Similarly in Scotland I'd expect the Tories to gain a seat or two ahead of the rest.
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix. Top eggs.
Did anyone actually bet on him, given he was something like 1/4 before the weekend even started and 1/10 after qualifying?
Paddy said that it cost them a significant six figure amount.
People bet on "certainties" like us who bet on Witney being a Tory hold at 1/25.
Add in the patriotic betting aspect and you can see a lot of money being staked on Lewis
If it cost them six figures then fair play, they obviously have a marketing budget for things like this as they're always in the news refunding or paying out losing bets.
You got 1/25 on Witney? It was 1/500 when I looked! I did have a few of the 1/10 and 1/25 Tory constituencies with 2-3 weeks to go as it was better than keeping it in the bank. If the polls had been 6% wrong in the other direction I would have been Donald Ducked though, and with some explaining to do to the missus about the holiday fund!
Did you have a couple of enjoyable days at Headingley?
I'm not sure it was 1/25 on Witney, I backed a slew of safe Tory and Lab seats.
As a cricket fan, it was entertaining, the weather, on Friday and Saturday was a bit chilly on one's Achilles
The way the Kiwis are playing Test cricket is something of a revelation, to run at 5 an over is more like one day pace. Can't see us chasing down 450 or 500 though, unfortunately - 2 days of rain now England's only hope for this Test. Bring on the Aussies next!
Blimey, Sharapova lost in straight sets. She was barely over evens to win 2-0.
But her prowess was no match for the Curse of Morris Dancer.
Morris, any chance of tipping the Black Caps? Edit: Damn you, TSE - beat me to it! Edit2: So with 19 off the last over, they can't be bothered with their last two wickets and McCullum calls them in. Target 455
There seems to be an assumption that the LD’s won’t recover. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, since the anti-Civil Liberties attitude of the Conservative Government will cause some concerns in the Party
Why would anyone who is committed to the liberty of the subject vote for the Liberal Democrats? The party voted for the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (control orders-lite), and then for control orders proper (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Part 2). It also supported the introduction of closed material procedures into all civil proceedings bar inquests (Justice and Security Act 2013), and increases in the state's power to intercept communications (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014). To top it all off, they voted to give the executive a power of exile enforceable by criminal penalties, for restrictions on free speech in the universities, and for Orwellian "panels" to assess individuals' vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism (2015 Act, Chapter 2 of Part 1, and Part 5). No one in their right mind who is committed to individual liberty could ever vote Lib Dem. At least the Tories and Labour do not pretend to be in favour of civil liberties.
Thats right ... Do nothing as loony terrorists plot to blow us up. Better still do nothing as mad religious terrorists blow up and behead all sorts of other people all over the world. Do nothing do nothing do nothing except witter contemptuously and fatuously quote clause numbers of acts of parliament.
Andrew Rawnsley has written an article in the Observer complaining about the Tories winning with 37%, but did he say the same thing when Blair won in 2005 with 36%?
I did :-)
Why didn't Labour change the voting system when they had a huge majority between 1997 and 2005? The only answer I can think of is that they honestly believed they could go on winning elections indefinitely and therefore there wasn't any need to do so. They must have seriously overdosed on hubris if that was their thinking at the time.
Self-interest. Labour can only win a majority under a FPTP system and it's the system that keeps most Labour MPs in parliament. Exactly the same applies to the Tories. It will be interesting to see whether the SNP maintains its support for PR now that it has delivered them over 90% of Scottish seats on a 50% vote. I guess they can in the knowledge that the big two will not change. If one of them does, though, it will give the SNP some serious thinking to do. One of the great - and delicious - ironies of Labour's wipe-out in Scotland was that so many of the MPs up there opposed PR on the basis that they believed they had jobs for life.
It's given then no serious thinking to do. They support PR and were on the steps of Downing Street on Friday with the Greens, Kippers and the Liberals (who have suddenly rediscovered their desire for PR).
It is bizarre that after recent events, especially the last 12 months, that so many people who are interested in Politics fail to grasp the one fundamental truth about the SNP. They have no interest in power.
Let's play out this post's scenario as back-seat back-room politicos. If "we" trust leadership more than vote intention, "we" should remove a new leader quickly, quick-step IDS-time, if they don't do well on that question, and forget transient mid-term VI.
Andrew Rawnsley has written an article in the Observer complaining about the Tories winning with 37%, but did he say the same thing when Blair won in 2005 with 36%?
I did :-)
Why didn't Labour change the voting system when they had a huge majority between 1997 and 2005? The only answer I can think of is that they honestly believed they could go on winning elections indefinitely and therefore there wasn't any need to do so. They must have seriously overdosed on hubris if that was their thinking at the time.
Self-interest. Labour can only win a majority under a FPTP system and it's the system that keeps most Labour MPs in parliament. Exactly the same applies to the Tories. It will be interesting to see whether the SNP maintains its support for PR now that it has delivered them over 90% of Scottish seats on a 50% vote. I guess they can in the knowledge that the big two will not change. If one of them does, though, it will give the SNP some serious thinking to do. One of the great - and delicious - ironies of Labour's wipe-out in Scotland was that so many of the MPs up there opposed PR on the basis that they believed they had jobs for life.
It's given then no serious thinking to do. They support PR and were on the steps of Downing Street on Friday with the Greens, Kippers and the Liberals (who have suddenly rediscovered their desire for PR).
It is bizarre that after recent events, especially the last 12 months, that so many people who are interested in Politics fail to grasp the one fundamental truth about the SNP. They have no interest in power.
A better version would be two-fold. They have a great interest in power at Holyrood. They have no interest in what power at Westminster can offer them, except domestic hegemony.
And now, at last, Party and nation joined in the same cause for the same purpose: to set our people free."
It also contains the prophetic line, "Maybe they think I should be indicted for war crimes."
Is you're so clever tell is why bin ladin attacked the USA when its leader was not remotely interested in the middle east? Why was it plotted under the regime of Bill Clinton who did not care less about bin ladin?
If only we'd listened to Doctor Palmer of this parish. He got it right all along.
Time after time he came on here and assured us the polls were barely budging, "as you were", "there's very little movement", "you can calm down, the voters have already made up their minds".
He was bang on. The voters HAD made up their minds, long ago. There WAS very little movement: the 2015 election saw a small increase in Labour votes but also a small increase in Tory votes.
Unfortunately for Doctor Palmer.
Doctor Palmer went to Broxtowe, In a hunger to reign; He stepped in a puddle, Got in a muddle, And never went there again.
On topic (just this once) I wonder if there is not an argument to regulate the polling industry and ban the publication of polls in the weeks running up to an election.
As Mr. Smithson points out, polls have moved from a news item reflecting the mood of the electorate to an industry that makes news and has an effect in the real world. In itself that would be bad enough but we also know that the polling companies do not always play with a straight bat. Consider two matters that were noted on this forum on the run up to the last election.
Firstly, we have the mystery of the two trends. In the weeks before the election one group of polling companies showed a persistent, if small, Conservative lead whilst another showed an equally persistent small Labour lead. The as the election got closer both groups moved towards a neck and neck position. The first group apparently detected a trend away from the Conservatives towards Labour whilst the other group detected a trend from Labout to the Conservatives. If we are to believe that the polling companies are just reflecting public opinion then there were two, mutually exclusive, trends going on at the same time.
Secondly, we have the case of the unpublished poll. Shortly before the election one company ran a poll which resulted in numbers remarkably close to the final outcome. However, they did not publish it because "it didn't feel right" - that is to say it did not fit with the herd.
I make no comment as to the integrity of the pollsters and nor do I question their, under-reported, changes in methodology. However, there is clearly a problem. One poster on this site was most adamant not that long ago that the Conservatives could not possibly win the general election and indeed could not hope to retain the seat count unless they were at least 10.4% ahead in the polls. In the immediate aftermath that same person said, somewhat plaintively, "but I believed the polls".
If the polls are to be treated as of more worth that the racing tipsters in the newspapers then some form a regulation is needed.
On topic (just this once) I wonder if there is not an argument to regulate the polling industry and ban the publication of polls in the weeks running up to an election.
As Mr. Smithson points out, polls have moved from a news item reflecting the mood of the electorate to an industry that makes news and has an effect in the real world. In itself that would be bad enough but we also know that the polling companies do not always play with a straight bat. Consider two matters that were noted on this forum on the run up to the last election.
Firstly, we have the mystery of the two trends. In the weeks before the election one group of polling companies showed a persistent, if small, Conservative lead whilst another showed an equally persistent small Labour lead. The as the election got closer both groups moved towards a neck and neck position. The first group apparently detected a trend away from the Conservatives towards Labour whilst the other group detected a trend from Labout to the Conservatives. If we are to believe that the polling companies are just reflecting public opinion then there were two, mutually exclusive, trends going on at the same time.
Secondly, we have the case of the unpublished poll. Shortly before the election one company ran a poll which resulted in numbers remarkably close to the final outcome. However, they did not publish it because "it didn't feel right" - that is to say it did not fit with the herd.
I make no comment as to the integrity of the pollsters and nor do I question their, under-reported, changes in methodology. However, there is clearly a problem. One poster on this site was most adamant not that long ago that the Conservatives could not possibly win the general election and indeed could not hope to retain the seat count unless they were at least 10.4% ahead in the polls. In the immediate aftermath that same person said, somewhat plaintively, "but I believed the polls".
If the polls are to be treated as of more worth that the racing tipsters in the newspapers then some form a regulation is needed.
In Turkey there is a ban on polls for ten days before an election. They're in that period at the moment.
A lot of people said in the AV debate that they were voting against because it wasn't proportional. .
Yeah, I know a lot of people who voted against AV because they thought once it was decisively defeated that would clearly show that people wanted a truly proportional system and PR would be introduce within mere moments of AV being defeated.
Well I don't know about that, but those saying that people voted in favour of FPTP are wrong. It was more against AV. It should have been a 'preferendum'.
AV is - or can be - worse than FPTP. At least under the latter farrago of a system, you can get the occasional MP for unpopular minority views that would be properly represented under PR, like Douglas Carswell. Under AV, you can get tactical exclusion of those people on the second round (e.g. anti-Farage tactical voting writ large).
Andrew Rawnsley has written an article in the Observer complaining about the Tories winning with 37%, but did he say the same thing when Blair won in 2005 with 36%?
I did :-)
It's given then no serious thinking to do. They support PR and were on the steps of Downing Street on Friday with the Greens, Kippers and the Liberals (who have suddenly rediscovered their desire for PR).
It is bizarre that after recent events, especially the last 12 months, that so many people who are interested in Politics fail to grasp the one fundamental truth about the SNP. They have no interest in power.
Given all their talk before the election about being able to act as a force for progressive good across all the UK even though they of course are focused on Scotland, and of ensuring Ed M would not be able to do certain things as they would prevent it, their own messaging contrasts with your statement. On the contrary, they seemed very interested in wielding power in order to further a political agenda that was wider than mere independence
Given retaining Westminster seats long term is not really a concern for them, and should be safe for a while in any case, I don't doubt they can keep their committment to a more proportional voting system, but pretending they have no interest in power is vacuous nonsense which peddles the idea that the SNP are someone immune frtom being a political party and the attendant behaviours that come with it. They can make the argument that they are different and better, but the idea they have 'no interest' in power is preposterous. What might be more plausible is to argue that their interest in power is not so great they would compromise on their values, do not seek power at any cost (though they have shifted position in order to better achieve it like anyone else), which one can argue sets them apart. But naturally when talking of the SNP its cheerleaders cannot help but crank up the hyperbole machine - I praise their drive, planning, leadership, passion and so much else, they depress me because I acknowledge how good they have been and how popular it has proven, but still the praise is not enough for the SNP, they must be something so beyond any other political force, a new breed of politician entirely, paragons of virtue, integrity and ability.
Forgive me, but I do not buy it. No matter how great they are, they are still human beings engaged in political activity. But no doubt to deny their sheer transcendent awesomeness in every possible way is just the blinkered view of a unionist.
I was just wondering what would have happened if Blair had not called the 2001 and 2005 elections at four year terms, instead of five years. We would have had an election in 2002 (Labour win), 2007 (just before the crash, Labour win) and 2012.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.
I wouldn't describe Hove as an outlier; I'd describe Labour's failure to win Brighton Kemptown more in those terms.
I agree. Bristol West and Brighton&Hove are becoming highly left-wing exclaves, very similar in metropolitan culture to London.
The Isle of Wight has pockets of it too (I think the Greens clocked around 10,000 votes, but not enough to win the seat) because there's a sizeable hippy / alternative lifestyle community there.
It's given then no serious thinking to do. They support PR and were on the steps of Downing Street on Friday with the Greens, Kippers and the Liberals (who have suddenly rediscovered their desire for PR).
It is bizarre that after recent events, especially the last 12 months, that so many people who are interested in Politics fail to grasp the one fundamental truth about the SNP. They have no interest in power.
A better version would be two-fold. They have a great interest in power at Holyrood. They have no interest in what power at Westminster can offer them, except domestic hegemony.
It depends how you view power in the political sense. I do not view holding governance as power, I take the view that power is the maintenance of government to the benefit of your core group either in the strict sense of your parliamentary party or the wider definition of your voting interest group. Labour are a perfect example of the first, the Tories a perfect example of the second.
The SNP do not desire power in either of those senses. They seek to govern because that is the vehicle through which they can deliver a consensus for Independence. Power would corrupt that, in fact, as is demonstrated time and again historically, the desire for power gets in the way of good governance. This lack of desire for power is what makes the SNP a good and popular government.
I believe there is a fundamental intellectual problem with understanding this amongst the Westminster Bubble (both the politicians and the media). While they continue to have this intellectual blindspot, they will continue to both under-estimate the SNP and be beaten into the ground by them.
This will change when the SNP get serious tax raising powers, as will happen soon. I suspect that only then will their facade of awesomeness start to crack.
The current education fiasco has taken some of the shine off already
On topic (just this once) I wonder if there is not an argument to regulate the polling industry and ban the publication of polls in the weeks running up to an election.
As Mr. Smithson points out, polls have moved from a news item reflecting the mood of the electorate to an industry that makes news and has an effect in the real world. In itself that would be bad enough but we also know that the polling companies do not always play with a straight bat. Consider two matters that were noted on this forum on the run up to the last election.
Firstly, we have the mystery of the two trends. In the weeks before the election one group of polling companies showed a persistent, if small, Conservative lead whilst another showed an equally persistent small Labour lead. The as the election got closer both groups moved towards a neck and neck position. The first group apparently detected a trend away from the Conservatives towards Labour whilst the other group detected a trend from Labout to the Conservatives. If we are to believe that the polling companies are just reflecting public opinion then there were two, mutually exclusive, trends going on at the same time.
Secondly, we have the case of the unpublished poll. Shortly before the election one company ran a poll which resulted in numbers remarkably close to the final outcome. However, they did not publish it because "it didn't feel right" - that is to say it did not fit with the herd.
I make no comment as to the integrity of the pollsters and nor do I question their, under-reported, changes in methodology. However, there is clearly a problem. One poster on this site was most adamant not that long ago that the Conservatives could not possibly win the general election and indeed could not hope to retain the seat count unless they were at least 10.4% ahead in the polls. In the immediate aftermath that same person said, somewhat plaintively, "but I believed the polls".
If the polls are to be treated as of more worth that the racing tipsters in the newspapers then some form a regulation is needed.
In Turkey there is a ban on polls for ten days before an election. They're in that period at the moment.
Thanks for that, Mr. J.. From memory I think the Frogs have a similar ban, orr at least used to have.
P.S. How is the rug rat? Have you started to teach him coding yet?
@toadmeister: Not surprised to learn Lucy Powell had a hand in the disastrous ‘Milibrand’ stunt. But Eddie Izard as well? Ha! http://t.co/D16v6AqGu9 …
Labour seem to suffer from star-struck awe when it comes to celebrity endorsements from the performing arts. An industry where they will always have an overwhelming advantage.
Of course, they hope some of the glamour and popularity will rub off on them but you do have to wonder just how many times they will deploy Eddie Izzard before they realise he's not the secret weapon he seems to think he is.
Comments
'When he was consulted on how Spartans might best forestall invasion of their homeland, Lycurgus advised, "By remaining poor, and each man not desiring to possess more than his fellow."[11]'
and links to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_soup
'The ancient Spartan melas zomos (μέλας ζωμός), or black soup / black broth, was a staple soup made of boiled pigs' legs, blood, salt and vinegar.[1] It is thought that the vinegar was used as an emulsifier to keep the blood from clotting during the cooking process. The armies of Sparta mainly ate this. It was not a delicacy, but used for sustenance.
According to legend, a man from Sybaris, a city in southern Italy infamous for its luxury and gluttony (which gave rise to the word sybarite), after tasting the Spartans' black soup remarked with disgust, "Now I know why the Spartans do not fear death".'
Can you provide a link to it please.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807
Katie Ghose ex Labour SPAD and failed candidate in Stoke and Grimsby heads this pressure group.
"You should vote Lib Dem because..."
Having lost the None Of The Above vote and the Not Tory vote in seats where Labour can't win, and having lost the Local Party For Local People vote, what are they left with?
EIC.
Even her dismissal/inside knowledge of why 4m voted Kipper seemed sensible: "a protest vote".
(Edit:* for clarification, the other main party being Lab, not SNP)
Gloopy/slimey spaghetti/all pasta is revolting.
I can't eat any shell fish from the shell - like oysters or whelks etc - just no way. And that applies to those rubber bands that masquerade as squid. Just no.
That's the last time I spend New Year's Day burning down a hall of mirrors.
The Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies method of PR means that the link with the area is maintained and that an elector is more likely to be represented by someone from their party and representing their area. It also gives the elector a chance to choose between candidates within a party, useful when you'd prefer a Eurosceptic tory to a Europhile or vice versa.
Is useful to know whom to lay
Paddy Power paid out on Lewis Hamilton winning the Monaco Grand Prix.
Top eggs.
As ever with PR, the fundamental problem, as Rawnsley pointed out, was the party in power never wants to introduce it. I can see circumstances where Labour might now sign up to it (although which 'it' will be an interesting one), but whether they will be a position to do anything within the next decade is anyone's guess.
Large chunks of both Scotland and the south of England are currently awaiting their opposition.
Andy, Liz and Yvette will never be PM?
ALYWNBPM?
I don't like crab or prawns and only once had lobster - meh and very rich. The only thing I do like is bbq'd fresh shrimps. Had them on holiday in Morocco and they were delicious.
Veggies are yummy - my fridge heaves with them too. I'm very partial to courgettes, french beans, mangetout, onions and peppers. No meal is complete without them - and mushrooms.
A few 50/50s have gone against me in F1, though there's been misjudgement there [on my part] as well.
It should have been a 'preferendum'.
People bet on "certainties" like us who bet on Witney being a Tory hold at 1/25.
Add in the patriotic betting aspect and you can see a lot of money being staked on Lewis
There was a time I got fearsome abuse from Neil and Scrapheap when I announced I was backing Ireland or Spurs.
I just can't see the value in these for sports betting, there's much more chance of something going wrong, although Monaco is the most likely race to be won by the pole sitter.
And as I write this England go out to 9/1 to win the cricket, with nearly two days still to go - *reaches into pocket for a fiver*
http://bit.ly/1FODVZQ
In all honesty Cameron probably has 2-3 years left. 2 if he loses the referendum, 3 if he wins, as he goes out on a high but not straight away so he can steer the party to his choice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/460009.stm
"To every nation a purpose.
To every Party a cause.
And now, at last, Party and nation joined in the same cause for the same purpose: to set our people free."
It also contains the prophetic line, "Maybe they think I should be indicted for war crimes."
You got 1/25 on Witney? It was 1/500 when I looked! I did have a few of the 1/10 and 1/25 Tory constituencies with 2-3 weeks to go as it was better than keeping it in the bank. If the polls had been 6% wrong in the other direction I would have been Donald Ducked though, and with some explaining to do to the missus about the holiday fund!
Did you have a couple of enjoyable days at Headingley?
As a cricket fan, it was entertaining, the weather, on Friday and Saturday was a bit chilly on one's Achilles
std::random_device con_value;
std::mt19937 rn_generator(con_value());
std::uniform_int_distribution<> distribution(25, 45);
std::cout << distribution(rn_generator) << std::endl;
(Code not tested. Run nightly for best results).
;-)
I mean really? We're all doomed without it? How DID we cope before this?!
But her prowess was no match for the Curse of Morris Dancer.
Edit: Damn you, TSE - beat me to it!
Edit2: So with 19 off the last over, they can't be bothered with their last two wickets and McCullum calls them in. Target 455
"Forgetting Ed Miliband"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q1aKMiwoNM
Last 10 overs were 88/2! Beefy laying into our bowlers for those figures on the Sky commentary.
It is bizarre that after recent events, especially the last 12 months, that so many people who are interested in Politics fail to grasp the one fundamental truth about the SNP. They have no interest in power.
In a hunger to reign;
He stepped in a puddle,
Got in a muddle,
And never went there again.
As Mr. Smithson points out, polls have moved from a news item reflecting the mood of the electorate to an industry that makes news and has an effect in the real world. In itself that would be bad enough but we also know that the polling companies do not always play with a straight bat. Consider two matters that were noted on this forum on the run up to the last election.
Firstly, we have the mystery of the two trends. In the weeks before the election one group of polling companies showed a persistent, if small, Conservative lead whilst another showed an equally persistent small Labour lead. The as the election got closer both groups moved towards a neck and neck position. The first group apparently detected a trend away from the Conservatives towards Labour whilst the other group detected a trend from Labout to the Conservatives. If we are to believe that the polling companies are just reflecting public opinion then there were two, mutually exclusive, trends going on at the same time.
Secondly, we have the case of the unpublished poll. Shortly before the election one company ran a poll which resulted in numbers remarkably close to the final outcome. However, they did not publish it because "it didn't feel right" - that is to say it did not fit with the herd.
I make no comment as to the integrity of the pollsters and nor do I question their, under-reported, changes in methodology. However, there is clearly a problem. One poster on this site was most adamant not that long ago that the Conservatives could not possibly win the general election and indeed could not hope to retain the seat count unless they were at least 10.4% ahead in the polls. In the immediate aftermath that same person said, somewhat plaintively, "but I believed the polls".
If the polls are to be treated as of more worth that the racing tipsters in the newspapers then some form a regulation is needed.
Where is my £100 play-doh money? Are you afraid of my Alastair Cook bets...?
Given retaining Westminster seats long term is not really a concern for them, and should be safe for a while in any case, I don't doubt they can keep their committment to a more proportional voting system, but pretending they have no interest in power is vacuous nonsense which peddles the idea that the SNP are someone immune frtom being a political party and the attendant behaviours that come with it. They can make the argument that they are different and better, but the idea they have 'no interest' in power is preposterous. What might be more plausible is to argue that their interest in power is not so great they would compromise on their values, do not seek power at any cost (though they have shifted position in order to better achieve it like anyone else), which one can argue sets them apart. But naturally when talking of the SNP its cheerleaders cannot help but crank up the hyperbole machine - I praise their drive, planning, leadership, passion and so much else, they depress me because I acknowledge how good they have been and how popular it has proven, but still the praise is not enough for the SNP, they must be something so beyond any other political force, a new breed of politician entirely, paragons of virtue, integrity and ability.
Forgive me, but I do not buy it. No matter how great they are, they are still human beings engaged in political activity. But no doubt to deny their sheer transcendent awesomeness in every possible way is just the blinkered view of a unionist.
It is easy to see that Labour might still be in power.
The Isle of Wight has pockets of it too (I think the Greens clocked around 10,000 votes, but not enough to win the seat) because there's a sizeable hippy / alternative lifestyle community there.
@AgentP22: SNP refuse to release fawning letters to Rupert Murdoch and Brian Souter
No point in having FOI if you can refuse it http://t.co/f14zZCiGEq
The SNP do not desire power in either of those senses. They seek to govern because that is the vehicle through which they can deliver a consensus for Independence. Power would corrupt that, in fact, as is demonstrated time and again historically, the desire for power gets in the way of good governance. This lack of desire for power is what makes the SNP a good and popular government.
I believe there is a fundamental intellectual problem with understanding this amongst the Westminster Bubble (both the politicians and the media). While they continue to have this intellectual blindspot, they will continue to both under-estimate the SNP and be beaten into the ground by them.
P.S. How is the rug rat? Have you started to teach him coding yet?
Of course, they hope some of the glamour and popularity will rub off on them but you do have to wonder just how many times they will deploy Eddie Izzard before they realise he's not the secret weapon he seems to think he is.