I really cannot see Labour coming worse than second in Scotland. They have fallen a very long way but their pinnacle was incredibly high.
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
As the oh so charming Tommy showed us yesterday there are going to be a lot of competitors for SNP supporters second votes. I would not be surprised if there is another hard left option than Tommy's crew and the sharing around of the votes will reduce the tactical effect.
I think it is so unlikely that there will be an SNP clean sweep that I am tempted to bet on that despite the rather mean odds. It seems unlikely to me that all the mistakes that Unionist supporters made in the GE will be repeated.
1 down 189,999 to go. In case you're wondering a macaroni pie looks like a Scotch pie but is filled with macaroni. I'll acknowledge that we Scots eat some very odd things:
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
Dan Hodges, Jack W and very few others said with conviction the Tories would win the GE, others called most seats a "coin toss"
Secondly, that a degree of interest from the male is necessary for full sex to occur with a female, for obvious reasons.
While I'm sure it doesn't apply in this case, this is a myth. The human body can have physical reactions to things even if the person is unwilling. If you read some stories of male victims of rape, you may get more understanding.
Also, children are too young to properly give consent. I once had a friend who admitted that he had sex with an adult babysitter when he was just 13. He was willing at the time, but it really messed up his trust levels in sexual relationships, and he became angrier and angrier about how he was abused as time went on. He also said one of the worst parts of it was how he can't ever admit it to most people, because male victims of rape are ridiculed and "must have enjoyed it".
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not sure I disagree with any of that. But there's a difference between statutory rape, which would describe the abuse you outline above even though it was consensual at the time, and actual rape that was non-consensual at the time and might lead to an involuntary erection and ejaculation. Unless it was actual rape, in this case, sexual interest at the time from the male must have been necessary for this sexual liaison to occur, so it can only be statutory rape.
That's still bad, very bad, but it's not quite in the Rolf Harris league. My point is that I think there should be a distinction in the law between the two. And relative age gaps should form a function of that distinction as well.
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
I know that a lot of NGOs hold that IMF involvement in poor third world countries can be disastrous for the population given that one of the standard 'cures' they prescribe is the need to restructure economies so that export production takes priority over domestic production of things like food. The 'Cash Crop' model is held to be one of the great blights on African states post WW2.
Of course, I imagine a lot of NGOs are filled with left-wing people that have a very simplistic understanding of economics, and are aghast at anyone ever cutting government services to balance the budget.
No. Why don't you actually read what I wrote. I said nothing at all about cutting government services. I was talking about the IMF's insistence that countries which can only just feed themselves prioritize export crops instead of basic food stuffs for their people.
The IMF got involved with the Ivory Coast in 1989. As part of their restructuring of the economy they forced the country to massively increase its reliance on the export of cocoa. The result has been not only to cause hardship for the country in terms of its ability to grow its own food but it has also resulted in the destruction of 2/3rds of the country's rain forest since the IMF became involved.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Poll after poll was coming in with raw data that showed the Tory 2015 VI was the same as the 2010 one - yet something was being done to the numbers at the end to lop a few percent off the Tory vote.
Most of the internet pollsters had derisory track records, and that was regularly questioned in the run up to polling day. Some Labour leaners dismissed the criticism, thinking it was borne of political bias, rather than the woeful, observed outcomes at by elections, the Euros etc.
It was the faith in Yougov and the fog of it's daily polling that did the damage more than anything.
Internet polling should be dead. All it's flaws were regularly debated - too much self selection, multiple accounts, false identifiers, susceptibility to activists.
I think 2010 was at the back of the pollsters' minds, when they generally underestimated Labour.
I dunno, isn't the question of another independence referendum the elephant in the room? If the SNP do put it in their next manifesto, they're surely risking alienating some of their "softer" support who like Sturgeon and like the idea of a party which "stands up for Scotland", but who don't want the hassle of another referendum.
1 down 189,999 to go. In case you're wondering a macaroni pie looks like a Scotch pie but is filled with macaroni. I'll acknowledge that we Scots eat some very odd things:
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
And it's exactly that which panicked me on the day. Had ICM remained at a 3%-6% Tory lead, rather than drawn level, I would have stuck with it and not thrown money away backing Labour seats and EICIPM on polling day.
I kept calm and backing Tory most seats, that said, a majority surprised me. A PBer tipped a Tory maj at 10 a few days before election day, and I was like nah, can't see it happening.
CCHQ and Lynton Crosby all thought they'd get between 295 and 310 seats.
If they can't get it right, then can we really expect the pollsters to do so?
I really cannot see Labour coming worse than second in Scotland. They have fallen a very long way but their pinnacle was incredibly high.
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
As the oh so charming Tommy showed us yesterday there are going to be a lot of competitors for SNP supporters second votes. I would not be surprised if there is another hard left option than Tommy's crew and the sharing around of the votes will reduce the tactical effect.
I think it is so unlikely that there will be an SNP clean sweep that I am tempted to bet on that despite the rather mean odds. It seems unlikely to me that all the mistakes that Unionist supporters made in the GE will be repeated.
If you don't think Holyrood 2016 debate will be about Cybernats and Second Referendum, then you haven't been reading your Loyalist press.
Also, I'm slightly confused by how the last thread was presenting that Labour poll as a boost for Kendall. Her whole pitch to Labour members is "you may hate my policies, but I'm the only one the public will vote for"; if the public are saying that she doesn't even have the electability argument on her side, then there's not much incentive for Labour members who much prefer Andy on a personal level to go for her.
Bottom line, Liz NEEDS to establish a solid lead in the public polls, and quick, if she's to have any chance. Not impossible since her trajectory seems to be going upwards, but not looking particularly likely either.
The Telegraph don't seem to be too impressed with the IMF demands either.
"The IMF's demands for more austerity - after five years in which Greece has undergone the worst depression in the modern age (beating 1930s America) - is also contrary to what most economists think is needed for the beleaguered country. It is likely to guarantee nothing but a perma-recession in Greece for the forthcoming years."
1 down 189,999 to go. In case you're wondering a macaroni pie looks like a Scotch pie but is filled with macaroni. I'll acknowledge that we Scots eat some very odd things:
There are plenty of cases of just over 16s being punished for sleeping with their just-under-16 girl/boyfriends.
Really? That would surprise me, if true.
Quite a challenge, since it was some time since I was on that issue. I recall theads on eg teh Swarb forums. But here's ACPO laying out the policy a few years ago, so they expected them:
"Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.
This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.
But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
And there's a tranche in the "shocking !!!" revelations on 7057 cautions for sexual offences unco9vered by Phillip Davies MP:
"Normally, officials explain the use of cautions for sex crimes as applying in cases such as a 17-year-old having sex with a 14 or 15-year-old.
Prosecutors may decide not to take the case to court because the act was consensual. Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes, who released the figures to Mr Davies, said: ‘All sexual offences are abhorrent
Actually it's worse than that. Here's the Notts police on sending a topless pic to your boyfriend as a young adult being a "distribution of indecent images" offence.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
And it's exactly that which panicked me on the day. Had ICM remained at a 3%-6% Tory lead, rather than drawn level, I would have stuck with it and not thrown money away backing Labour seats and EICIPM on polling day.
I kept calm and backing Tory most seats, that said, a majority surprised me. A PBer tipped a Tory maj at 10 a few days before election day, and I was like nah, can't see it happening.
CCHQ and Lynton Crosby all thought they'd get between 295 and 310 seats.
If they can't get it right, then can we really expect the pollsters to do so?
It's so annoying. Back in October I was writing blogposts about how the Tories might win an overall majority, and pointing out the questions in the Ashcroft polls regularly showing Dave way ahead of Ed in best PM and most economically competent government as key reasons why the polls would eventually swing the Tories way.
They didn't. But had I stuck to my guns the last 4 months I'd look a real sage now.
I really cannot see Labour coming worse than second in Scotland. They have fallen a very long way but their pinnacle was incredibly high.
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
As the oh so charming Tommy showed us yesterday there are going to be a lot of competitors for SNP supporters second votes. I would not be surprised if there is another hard left option than Tommy's crew and the sharing around of the votes will reduce the tactical effect.
I think it is so unlikely that there will be an SNP clean sweep that I am tempted to bet on that despite the rather mean odds. It seems unlikely to me that all the mistakes that Unionist supporters made in the GE will be repeated.
Tommy joining the Glasgow list is going to give Ruth D and Patrick H something to think about, as they both got list seats at the 6%/12,000 mark. I'd agree that an SNP clean sweep is unlikely, no doubt a few candidates will be found to have some Cyber skeletons in their cupboards and present Edinburgh South like opportunities.
There are plenty of cases of just over 16s being punished for sleeping with their just-under-16 girl/boyfriends.
Really? That would surprise me, if true.
Quite a challenge, since it was some time since I was on that issue. I recall theads on eg teh Swarb forums. But here's ACPO laying out the policy a few years ago, so they expected them:
"Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.
This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.
But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
And there's a tranche in the "shocking !!!" revelations on 7057 cautions for sexual offences unco9vered by Phillip Davies MP:
"Normally, officials explain the use of cautions for sex crimes as applying in cases such as a 17-year-old having sex with a 14 or 15-year-old.
Prosecutors may decide not to take the case to court because the act was consensual. Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes, who released the figures to Mr Davies, said: ‘All sexual offences are abhorrent
Actually it's worse than that. Here's the Notts police on sending a topless pic to your boyfriend as a young adult being a "distribution of indecent images" offence.
I know 2-3 male peers of mine who were (or had just turned) 18 years old who had fully consensual sexual relationships with 15 year old girls as they went to university. They ended soon after but there was nothing nasty or unusual about them. They were less mature and the girls were much more so.
The law tries to be black and white on this, when in reality it's very grey.
I really cannot see Labour coming worse than second in Scotland. They have fallen a very long way but their pinnacle was incredibly high.
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
As the oh so charming Tommy showed us yesterday there are going to be a lot of competitors for SNP supporters second votes. I would not be surprised if there is another hard left option than Tommy's crew and the sharing around of the votes will reduce the tactical effect.
I think it is so unlikely that there will be an SNP clean sweep that I am tempted to bet on that despite the rather mean odds. It seems unlikely to me that all the mistakes that Unionist supporters made in the GE will be repeated.
If you don't think Holyrood 2016 debate will be about Cybernats and Second Referendum, then you haven't been reading your Loyalist press.
I think it will. It now seems almost inconceivable that Scotland's politicians would take time off debating constitutional matters to address the parlous state of the country. They certainly haven't in the last 10 years.
But I think that the effect of that will be that Unionists will be more focussed on which Unionist has a chance of winning. I don't think we will see as many repeats of Berwickshire and Kincardine, to name 2, with the Unionists split and the SNP coming through the middle.
There are plenty of cases of just over 16s being punished for sleeping with their just-under-16 girl/boyfriends.
Really? That would surprise me, if true.
Quite a challenge, since it was some time since I was on that issue. I recall theads on eg teh Swarb forums. But here's ACPO laying out the policy a few years ago, so they expected them:
"Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.
This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.
But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
And there's a tranche in the "shocking !!!" revelations on 7057 cautions for sexual offences unco9vered by Phillip Davies MP:
"Normally, officials explain the use of cautions for sex crimes as applying in cases such as a 17-year-old having sex with a 14 or 15-year-old.
Prosecutors may decide not to take the case to court because the act was consensual. Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes, who released the figures to Mr Davies, said: ‘All sexual offences are abhorrent
Actually it's worse than that. Here's the Notts police on sending a topless pic to your boyfriend as a young adult being a "distribution of indecent images" offence.
I know 2-3 male peers of mine who were (or had just turned) 18 years old who had fully consensual sexual relationships with 15 year old girls as they went to university. They ended soon after but there was nothing nasty or unusual about them. They were less mature and the girls were much more so.
The law tries to be black and white on this, when in reality it's very grey.
The cuts to child tax credits being mooted may end up taking us back to a level of generosity that was INTRODUCED by the last labour government - i.e. before that the situation was even less generous than what we will soon have. The whole system seems have become creepingly more generous over the years without any debate.
I remember receiving tax credits when both my wife and I had decent jobs. To my mind this is absurd, and not how I would design a "welfare state" from scratch. We absolutely did not need the money. Much of the extra money in the pockets of people like us ultimately just drove up house prices, or was spent on (often imported) goods far beyond the scope of everyday necessities which to my mind benefits should help people with the cost of.
Of course, saying "I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help to reform the current situation, but we ended up here without the vast majority of the public being aware of - and therefore without being able to express support or otherwise for - the degree of the state's largesse.
Yes, why not come at it from that angle as well! The tapering of tax credits, which IIRC was a cack handed attempt at ironing out some of those pesky cliffs, still is pretty much #1 in my ranking of how Labour wasted money in their last term and my experience personally is very similar to yours. But having said that (1) it provided the coalition with a very, very easy set of cuts early on and (2) the experience of welfare lower down the scale is undeniably rather different from the largesse we experienced.
Labour left should recognise Blair as a political 'great' like CHURCHILL, warns former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn
Former health secretary has torn into Labour's general election campaign Mr Milburn said the party's left-wing pitch drove voters to the Tories He said the party needed to accept Mr Blair as one of the UK's 'greats' Labour heavyweight compared the ex-PM to Churchill and Thatcher
There are plenty of cases of just over 16s being punished for sleeping with their just-under-16 girl/boyfriends.
Really? That would surprise me, if true.
Quite a challenge, since it was some time since I was on that issue. I recall theads on eg teh Swarb forums. But here's ACPO laying out the policy a few years ago, so they expected them:
"Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.
This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.
But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
And there's a tranche in the "shocking !!!" revelations on 7057 cautions for sexual offences unco9vered by Phillip Davies MP:
Actually it's worse than that. Here's the Notts police on sending a topless pic to your boyfriend as a young adult being a "distribution of indecent images" offence.
I know 2-3 male peers of mine who were (or had just turned) 18 years old who had fully consensual sexual relationships with 15 year old girls as they went to university. They ended soon after but there was nothing nasty or unusual about them. They were less mature and the girls were much more so.
The law tries to be black and white on this, when in reality it's very grey.
The law has to set very clear boundaries. An 18 year old could bully a 15 year old into having sex. That said, one should use sensible discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
On the GE polls - I just could not see how they were right. It seemed utterly ridiculous to me that given what was happening in Scotland and given how crap EdM was that anyone could believe that Labour would get close to winning even most seats. I expected them to go backwards. But not by as much as they did. And the Tory overall majority caught ne by surprise, even though I never ruled it out completely beforehand. I said from the outset that the only issue was whether they would get a de facto majority or not. A de jure one did not seem possible.
Something went wrong with the polls in the last week or so.
With a fortnight or so to go, we had ICM, Ashcroft, ComRes and Ipsos Mori all with Tory leads of 4% to 6%.
Dan Hodges is talking nonsense, granted I'm slightly biased in having to got to know quite a few pollsters, as I know, they all worked hard trying to get the right result.
Remember the ICM poll that even ICM said was too Tory in sampling.. WTF was that all about. It was because it was OUT OF LINE with other pollsters. Seems fairly likely that as voting day neared, herding took place.
ICM's point was it contained too many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 than actually did.
ICM (like other pollsters) do not herd, there have been other times, where they could have herded, but didn't do.
And it's exactly that which panicked me on the day. Had ICM remained at a 3%-6% Tory lead, rather than drawn level, I would have stuck with it and not thrown money away backing Labour seats and EICIPM on polling day.
I kept calm and backing Tory most seats, that said, a majority surprised me. A PBer tipped a Tory maj at 10 a few days before election day, and I was like nah, can't see it happening.
CCHQ and Lynton Crosby all thought they'd get between 295 and 310 seats.
If they can't get it right, then can we really expect the pollsters to do so?
The evidence is on the predictions thread - the blind poll followers are easy to spot.
The Telegraph don't seem to be too impressed with the IMF demands either.
"The IMF's demands for more austerity - after five years in which Greece has undergone the worst depression in the modern age (beating 1930s America) - is also contrary to what most economists think is needed for the beleaguered country. It is likely to guarantee nothing but a perma-recession in Greece for the forthcoming years."
Even if Greece and the IMF manage to agree something, aren't we just going to end up in this mess again later in the year?
Raising taxes and cutting back spending are going to choke of the one thing Greece needs more than anything, Growth.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
The law has to set very clear boundaries. An 18 year old could bully a 15 year old into having sex. That said, one should use sensible discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
We could amend the law to incorporate the g => 0.5b + 7 formula, subject to an overall minimum of 14.
Labour left should recognise Blair as a political 'great' like CHURCHILL, warns former Cabinet minister Alan Milburn
Former health secretary has torn into Labour's general election campaign Mr Milburn said the party's left-wing pitch drove voters to the Tories He said the party needed to accept Mr Blair as one of the UK's 'greats' Labour heavyweight compared the ex-PM to Churchill and Thatcher
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
The law has to set very clear boundaries. An 18 year old could bully a 15 year old into having sex. That said, one should use sensible discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
We could amend the law to incorporate the g => 0.5b + 7 formula, subject to an overall minimum of 14.
Would you have a maximum in there ? - Could get tricky for billionaire moguls otherwise
I really cannot see Labour coming worse than second in Scotland. They have fallen a very long way but their pinnacle was incredibly high.
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
Lib Dems are on 5 seats. I do not seem them growing that figure - they could even lose one of Orkney & Shetland (although I presume they might win back on the list).
If Green do hit 10% on the List vote nationally then they should be able to beat that figure.
The law has to set very clear boundaries. An 18 year old could bully a 15 year old into having sex. That said, one should use sensible discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
We could amend the law to incorporate the g => 0.5b + 7 formula, subject to an overall minimum of 14.
Would you have a maximum in there ? - Could get tricky for billionaire moguls otherwise
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Most US States have variants of "Megan's law", barring registered sex offenders from living within fixed distances of schools, having contact with children, allowing locals to check up on them, and so forth. This woman was paying a pretty awful price for doing something that millions of US teenagers must have done.
But I think that the effect of that will be that Unionists will be more focussed on which Unionist has a chance of winning. I don't think we will see as many repeats of Berwickshire and Kincardine, to name 2, with the Unionists split and the SNP coming through the middle.
I agree, I don't see the SNP winning either of the two Berwickshire seats at Holyrood.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
The cuts to child tax credits being mooted may end up taking us back to a level of generosity that was INTRODUCED by the last labour government - i.e. before that the situation was even less generous than what we will soon have. The whole system seems have become creepingly more generous over the years without any debate.
I remember receiving tax credits when both my wife and I had decent jobs. To my mind this is absurd, and not how I would design a "welfare state" from scratch. We absolutely did not need the money. Much of the extra money in the pockets of people like us ultimately just drove up house prices, or was spent on (often imported) goods far beyond the scope of everyday necessities which to my mind benefits should help people with the cost of.
Of course, saying "I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help to reform the current situation, but we ended up here without the vast majority of the public being aware of - and therefore without being able to express support or otherwise for - the degree of the state's largesse.
When tax credits came in the first year I filled out the forms but said in an accompanying letter that I did not want the money as I felt my wife and I did not need it. I was earning a reasonable wage and didn't want to take the money.
They gave us the money anyway. We gave it to charity.
The next year I got the same forms to fill out. I refused saying we didn't want the handout. I was then threatened with court for not filling out the forms even though we had said clearly we did not want the money. It took the intervention of my MP at the time to get the threats stopped.
I do not now get Child Benefit - actually because of it being the easiest way to do it we do still get it but it then gets taken back as extra tax. I do not object to losing this benefit. Personally I think all benefits should be means tested. I know there are arguments about it costing more to means test than it would save but the basic principle for me is that the state should only act as a safety net and should not be giving money to those who don't have a great need for it.
This should apply to ALL benefits. I would also apply it to the pension although I realise this is more difficult because of the amounts already taken by the State to pay for the pension. But we need to move towards people taking more responsibility for themselves in old age and not relying on the State.
I do not agree with redistribution of wealth. But I do agree with a basic government safety net which those of us who can afford to pay into should even if we get nothing back out of it beyond being able to live in a society where everyone has at least a (very) basic standard of living.
But I think that the effect of that will be that Unionists will be more focussed on which Unionist has a chance of winning. I don't think we will see as many repeats of Berwickshire and Kincardine, to name 2, with the Unionists split and the SNP coming through the middle.
I agree, I don't see the SNP winning either of the two Berwickshire seats at Holyrood.
The Unionist parties really ought to be able to endorse some more tactical voting in the constituencies, given that the list vote should compensate the party giving up votes. Tactical voting would also help to thwart the SNP:Green gambit as this only really becomes viable where the SNP sweep the constituencies.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
There is a lot of room for much increased turnout. If SNP/Green GOTV better than others then differential turnout could be the sole driving factor in seat count.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
He scores! He shoots! He gets arrested!
Wouldn't be the first bloke to get into trouble for firing his load.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
"Sodomite" - so old testament... The law varies by state - sounds about right for Georgia.
Many years ago, I was sent a link to the bizarre sex laws of America.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
He scores! He shoots! He gets arrested!
I am put in mind of an old episode of Chelmsford 1-2-3, the Roman comedy from the 80s which was entitled
Marketing student, 24, who bit his lover on her bottom and thigh during 'rough sex' to turn her on is convicted of physical assault
Samuel John Price had on-off relationship with Elizabeth Sandin for a year He thought she was 'enjoying it' when he began biting her, court heard But Sandin started crying and was left with marks and bruises, court told Price, from Higher Kinnerton, near Chester, put on 12-month community order
Also, I'm slightly confused by how the last thread was presenting that Labour poll as a boost for Kendall. Her whole pitch to Labour members is "you may hate my policies, but I'm the only one the public will vote for"; if the public are saying that she doesn't even have the electability argument on her side, then there's not much incentive for Labour members who much prefer Andy on a personal level to go for her.
Bottom line, Liz NEEDS to establish a solid lead in the public polls, and quick, if she's to have any chance. Not impossible since her trajectory seems to be going upwards, but not looking particularly likely either.
She started from zero less than two months ago and has already eclipsed Yvette Cooper who's had a high profile for over a decade. It takes some spinning to make that look bad for her.
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
I know that a lot of NGOs hold that IMF involvement in poor third world countries can be disastrous for the population given that one of the standard 'cures' they prescribe is the need to restructure economies so that export production takes priority over domestic production of things like food. The 'Cash Crop' model is held to be one of the great blights on African states post WW2.
Of course, I imagine a lot of NGOs are filled with left-wing people that have a very simplistic understanding of economics, and are aghast at anyone ever cutting government services to balance the budget.
No. Why don't you actually read what I wrote. I said nothing at all about cutting government services. I was talking about the IMF's insistence that countries which can only just feed themselves prioritize export crops instead of basic food stuffs for their people.
The IMF got involved with the Ivory Coast in 1989. As part of their restructuring of the economy they forced the country to massively increase its reliance on the export of cocoa. The result has been not only to cause hardship for the country in terms of its ability to grow its own food but it has also resulted in the destruction of 2/3rds of the country's rain forest since the IMF became involved.
I did read what you wrote. My point was that a lot of people in NGOs are very economically left wing, and therefore might not be a very objective view on the IMF and pro-market reforms. Why does everyone need to be so aggressive on here?
Officials said the IMF was most concerned about the balance of the package, which was too heavily skewed towards tax increases that could further weaken the Greek economy and prove hard to collect, rather than structural reforms.
Also still in dispute were Greek demands for debt relief, which euro zone governments do not want to address at this stage, and IMF-led pressure for more steps to reform Greece's costly pension system.
There's no doubt that the IMF are right on the balance of the package, IMO.
If you are a conservative. If you are a socialist you might take a different view. That has largely been the problem all along, you have a very socialist government trying to negotiate with several groups of fiscal conservatives, and they are not even speaking the same language in financial terms,.
It would be interesting to know of any research as to whether IMF prescriptions are commonly helpful.
I know that a lot of NGOs hold that IMF involvement in poor third world countries can be disastrous for the population given that one of the standard 'cures' they prescribe is the need to restructure economies so that export production takes priority over domestic production of things like food. The 'Cash Crop' model is held to be one of the great blights on African states post WW2.
Of course, I imagine a lot of NGOs are filled with left-wing people that have a very simplistic understanding of economics, and are aghast at anyone ever cutting government services to balance the budget.
No. Why don't you actually read what I wrote. I said nothing at all about cutting government services. I was talking about the IMF's insistence that countries which can only just feed themselves prioritize export crops instead of basic food stuffs for their people.
snip
I did read what you wrote. My point was that a lot of people in NGOs are very economically left wing, and therefore might not be a very objective view on the IMF and pro-market reforms. Why does everyone need to be so aggressive on here?
Also, I'm slightly confused by how the last thread was presenting that Labour poll as a boost for Kendall. Her whole pitch to Labour members is "you may hate my policies, but I'm the only one the public will vote for"; if the public are saying that she doesn't even have the electability argument on her side, then there's not much incentive for Labour members who much prefer Andy on a personal level to go for her.
Bottom line, Liz NEEDS to establish a solid lead in the public polls, and quick, if she's to have any chance. Not impossible since her trajectory seems to be going upwards, but not looking particularly likely either.
She started from zero less than two months ago and has already eclipsed Yvette Cooper who's had a high profile for over a decade. It takes some spinning to make that look bad for her.
Yvette Cooper still doesn't have a high profile - an ICM poll found only 17% of people recognised a picture of her. (It was 23% for Andy, 10% for Liz and 9% for Corbyn.)
In any case, the point is that Liz needs better than "not bad" results in the public polls -- she needs outstanding results which show she'd be a guaranteed hit with the public, in order to compensate for how much Labour members disagree with her on policy. If the polls show there's nothing guaranteed about her even connecting with the public, and that in fact there's another candidate in the race who is better than her even on that score, her whole USP is blown out of the water.
Re tax credits: I never went near any form filling on them. Never applied for anything, never received anything. I thought they were something you actively had to seek and did not realise there was any compulsion involved. Did I break the law? Judging by the posts from Richard Tyndall and Pro_rata, it sounds like I might have done. Am I still breaking the law by not filling in the forms?
Hopefully the Daily Record will keep commissioning the monthly Survation Scottish attitudes poll. As this poll picked up the SNP surge in early 2014 it's probably the best indicator of the trend in support. if they don't keep this poll going it's going to be very difficult to make much sense of sporadic Scottish polls by various pollsters. Survation also weight their poll by region which would give us some clues as to where tactical voting might come into play.
Re tax credits: I never went near any form filling on them. Never applied for anything, never received anything. I thought they were something you actively had to seek and did not realise there was any compulsion involved. Did I break the law? Judging by the posts from Richard Tyndall and Pro_rata, it sounds like I might have done. Am I still breaking the law by not filling in the forms?
No idea. If you are getting child tax credits then you have to make a declaration of your earnings and circumstances - at least you did have to when they first started. As I said after the fight over the first couple of years I have never heard from them since and of course don't receive the benefit.
@calum I'm unfamiliar with the camps Scottish papers sit in. Is the Record similar to the Mirror in England/Wales?
I gather that the Scotsman is more rightish in comparison. Is that fair?
Hopefully the Daily Record will keep commissioning the monthly Survation Scottish attitudes poll. As this poll picked up the SNP surge in early 2014 it's probably the best indicator of the trend in support. if they don't keep this poll going it's going to be very difficult to make much sense of sporadic Scottish polls by various pollsters. Survation also weight their poll by region which would give us some clues as to where tactical voting might come into play.
I find the notion of modern slavery almost incomprehensible = especially when it's done by those who have no living memory cultural history of it. Shame on them.
Police 'find SLAVES' in travellers' camp dawn raid which also nets £155,000 Ferrari, £90,000 Range Rover and a Bentley GOLF CART
Police officers arrived at three caravan sites across Cardiff at 6am today It was part of sting on drugs trafficking, sex offenders and illegal drivers Police seized 'potential victims of forced labour' and significant cash haul 14 were arrested and some accused of high-value extraction of electricity
@calum I'm unfamiliar with the camps Scottish papers sit in. Is the Record similar to the Mirror in England/Wales?
I gather that the Scotsman is more rightish in comparison. Is that fair?
Hopefully the Daily Record will keep commissioning the monthly Survation Scottish attitudes poll. As this poll picked up the SNP surge in early 2014 it's probably the best indicator of the trend in support. if they don't keep this poll going it's going to be very difficult to make much sense of sporadic Scottish polls by various pollsters. Survation also weight their poll by region which would give us some clues as to where tactical voting might come into play.
The Daily Record is indeed the Mirror rebranded - same web platform etc - I think Kevin Maguire has them pretty much to heel.
Scotsman is right-lite, the Daily Mail and Daily Express are the most right wing, although they both vary content from their English editions which might wind up the natives.
The law has to set very clear boundaries. An 18 year old could bully a 15 year old into having sex. That said, one should use sensible discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
Sounds rather less harsh than what we have here.
In the UK a caution stays on your record until you are 99.
That *may* have been modified so that minors get a reset at 18.
If a drunk 19 year old pinches a traffic wardens bottom they are f*cked for any career in the caring professions, potentially ever as that will be deemed a sexual assault.
If the police wish to they can leave unproven allegations on your record at their discretion, which potentially comes up in the check if you are one of the millions in hundreds of professions deemed to touch 'vulnerable' people. This is drawn so widely so as to include, for example, running an interactive website for such a group in a different country.
They can also leave any other information on at the Chief Constable's discretion. That sounds to me very like the damage done by mad 'hick from the sticks' US sheriffs.
Comments
I personally think the Greens will do well to come fourth. They may beat the Lib Dems in terms of votes but probably not in terms of seats. Voting for them to have most seats (Exc SNP) seems crazy to me. I wouldn't bet on that at 70/2.
As the oh so charming Tommy showed us yesterday there are going to be a lot of competitors for SNP supporters second votes. I would not be surprised if there is another hard left option than Tommy's crew and the sharing around of the votes will reduce the tactical effect.
I think it is so unlikely that there will be an SNP clean sweep that I am tempted to bet on that despite the rather mean odds. It seems unlikely to me that all the mistakes that Unionist supporters made in the GE will be repeated.
https://twitter.com/colinmackay89/status/613700171973705728
That's still bad, very bad, but it's not quite in the Rolf Harris league. My point is that I think there should be a distinction in the law between the two. And relative age gaps should form a function of that distinction as well.
The IMF got involved with the Ivory Coast in 1989. As part of their restructuring of the economy they forced the country to massively increase its reliance on the export of cocoa. The result has been not only to cause hardship for the country in terms of its ability to grow its own food but it has also resulted in the destruction of 2/3rds of the country's rain forest since the IMF became involved.
CCHQ and Lynton Crosby all thought they'd get between 295 and 310 seats.
If they can't get it right, then can we really expect the pollsters to do so?
Bottom line, Liz NEEDS to establish a solid lead in the public polls, and quick, if she's to have any chance. Not impossible since her trajectory seems to be going upwards, but not looking particularly likely either.
"The IMF's demands for more austerity - after five years in which Greece has undergone the worst depression in the modern age (beating 1930s America) - is also contrary to what most economists think is needed for the beleaguered country. It is likely to guarantee nothing but a perma-recession in Greece for the forthcoming years."
"Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.
This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.
But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
And there's a tranche in the "shocking !!!" revelations on 7057 cautions for sexual offences unco9vered by Phillip Davies MP:
"Normally, officials explain the use of cautions for sex crimes as applying in cases such as a 17-year-old having sex with a 14 or 15-year-old.
Prosecutors may decide not to take the case to court because the act was consensual. Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes, who released the figures to Mr Davies, said: ‘All sexual offences are abhorrent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929055/Hundreds-let-sex-13s-Police-hand-437-cautions-offenders-past-five-years-despite-crime-carrying-maximum-jail-term-14-years.html#ixzz3dzVSlaph
Actually it's worse than that. Here's the Notts police on sending a topless pic to your boyfriend as a young adult being a "distribution of indecent images" offence.
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Police-blitz-sexting-school-kids/story-21740344-detail/story.html
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/digital_assets/504/Notts-Police-'sexting'-warning-letter.pdf
They didn't. But had I stuck to my guns the last 4 months I'd look a real sage now.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-denies-claim-scotland-will-cut-queens-funding.1435147402?utm_source=www.heraldscotland.com&utm_medium=RSS Feed&utm_campaign=Scottish News
The law tries to be black and white on this, when in reality it's very grey.
But I think that the effect of that will be that Unionists will be more focussed on which Unionist has a chance of winning. I don't think we will see as many repeats of Berwickshire and Kincardine, to name 2, with the Unionists split and the SNP coming through the middle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlZMORFyS7U&feature=youtu.be
Any bloke over 21 - then I squirm, it's creepy.
The cuts to child tax credits being mooted may end up taking us back to a level of generosity that was INTRODUCED by the last labour government - i.e. before that the situation was even less generous than what we will soon have. The whole system seems have become creepingly more generous over the years without any debate.
I remember receiving tax credits when both my wife and I had decent jobs. To my mind this is absurd, and not how I would design a "welfare state" from scratch. We absolutely did not need the money. Much of the extra money in the pockets of people like us ultimately just drove up house prices, or was spent on (often imported) goods far beyond the scope of everyday necessities which to my mind benefits should help people with the cost of.
Of course, saying "I wouldn't start from here" doesn't help to reform the current situation, but we ended up here without the vast majority of the public being aware of - and therefore without being able to express support or otherwise for - the degree of the state's largesse.
Yes, why not come at it from that angle as well! The tapering of tax credits, which IIRC was a cack handed attempt at ironing out some of those pesky cliffs, still is pretty much #1 in my ranking of how Labour wasted money in their last term and my experience personally is very similar to yours. But having said that (1) it provided the coalition with a very, very easy set of cuts early on and (2) the experience of welfare lower down the scale is undeniably rather different from the largesse we experienced.
The US (as you might imagine) can be far harsher. I was reading about one woman in Georgia (now married) who is a "sodomite" and a registered sex offender for the rest of her life. She was 16 and a half when she had sex with a boy aged 15 and a half.
Raising taxes and cutting back spending are going to choke of the one thing Greece needs more than anything, Growth.
Churchill was a great PM at the critical early years of the war. Not up to much by the end and pretty useless in peacetime.
If Green do hit 10% on the List vote nationally then they should be able to beat that figure.
This stuck in the mind.
Wisconsin, a man may not fire a gun while his partner is having an orgasm.
When tax credits came in the first year I filled out the forms but said in an accompanying letter that I did not want the money as I felt my wife and I did not need it. I was earning a reasonable wage and didn't want to take the money.
They gave us the money anyway. We gave it to charity.
The next year I got the same forms to fill out. I refused saying we didn't want the handout. I was then threatened with court for not filling out the forms even though we had said clearly we did not want the money. It took the intervention of my MP at the time to get the threats stopped.
I do not now get Child Benefit - actually because of it being the easiest way to do it we do still get it but it then gets taken back as extra tax. I do not object to losing this benefit. Personally I think all benefits should be means tested. I know there are arguments about it costing more to means test than it would save but the basic principle for me is that the state should only act as a safety net and should not be giving money to those who don't have a great need for it.
This should apply to ALL benefits. I would also apply it to the pension although I realise this is more difficult because of the amounts already taken by the State to pay for the pension. But we need to move towards people taking more responsibility for themselves in old age and not relying on the State.
I do not agree with redistribution of wealth. But I do agree with a basic government safety net which those of us who can afford to pay into should even if we get nothing back out of it beyond being able to live in a society where everyone has at least a (very) basic standard of living.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3137383/A-four-hour-erection-death-fate-awaiting-man-bitten-deadly-spider-feared-entered-Britain-bunch-Tesco-bananas.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136834/Rare-Amazonian-fish-eats-men-s-testicles-human-like-teeth-caught-New-Jersey-lake-continues-globe.html
http://www.weirdsexlaws.com/
http://weirdsexlaws.com/laws/state/ca/#sthash.JW5bDKkl.dpuf
He scores! He shoots! He gets arrested!
Holyrood turnout has been
'99: 59%
'03: 49%
'07: 51%
'11: 50%
In the same period Westminster Scotland Turnout has been
'97: 71.3%
'01: 58.2%
'05: 60.6%
'10: 63.8%
'15: 71.7%
There is a lot of room for much increased turnout. If SNP/Green GOTV better than others then differential turnout could be the sole driving factor in seat count.
It also eats toes and fingers. Yikes. My brother used to keep piranhas and they're evil buggers.
Fnarr
David Cameron's election guru is set to be an adviser on Zac Goldsmith’s bid to become Mayor of London, the Evening Standard has learned.
Lynton Crosby masterminded both of Boris Johnson’s victories at City Hall and is credited with securing the Prime Minister’s second term in office.
http://bit.ly/1dglsuV
Vidi Vici Veni
I saw, I conquered, I came.
More Bill Gates NGO types are desperately needed.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/watch-tessa-jowells-one-london-campaign-video
Like many #libdems i've found it hard to choose from 2 great Leader candidates. But now decision time. I've told Norman I will vote for him
A futile gesture, or a straw in the wind?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIK8rM_WsAAQzlk.jpg:large
In any case, the point is that Liz needs better than "not bad" results in the public polls -- she needs outstanding results which show she'd be a guaranteed hit with the public, in order to compensate for how much Labour members disagree with her on policy. If the polls show there's nothing guaranteed about her even connecting with the public, and that in fact there's another candidate in the race who is better than her even on that score, her whole USP is blown out of the water.
Michael Farron
Tim Fallon
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3137646/Labour-left-recognise-Blair-political-great-like-CHURCHILL-warns-former-Cabinet-minister-Alan-Milburn.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#Standard_polling_on_EU_membership
I gather that the Scotsman is more rightish in comparison. Is that fair?
New Thread
The Daily Record is indeed the Mirror rebranded - same web platform etc - I think Kevin Maguire has them pretty much to heel.
Scotsman is right-lite, the Daily Mail and Daily Express are the most right wing, although they both vary content from their English editions which might wind up the natives.
In the UK a caution stays on your record until you are 99.
That *may* have been modified so that minors get a reset at 18.
If a drunk 19 year old pinches a traffic wardens bottom they are f*cked for any career in the caring professions, potentially ever as that will be deemed a sexual assault.
If the police wish to they can leave unproven allegations on your record at their discretion, which potentially comes up in the check if you are one of the millions in hundreds of professions deemed to touch 'vulnerable' people. This is drawn so widely so as to include, for example, running an interactive website for such a group in a different country.
They can also leave any other information on at the Chief Constable's discretion. That sounds to me very like the damage done by mad 'hick from the sticks' US sheriffs.