We've had Mike Bassett England Manager; now we have Jeremy Corbyn Labour Leader.
Corbyn is Eddie the Eagle.
Hopefully not; the nation took Eddie to their hearts for having a go. They completely overlooked that he was shite at what he was having a go at. Not a precedent for Prime Ministers, I hope....
It's not the winning its the taking part of course.....
Pretty much then what Labour were thinking and saying as they elected Corby as their leader.
Come the next election, it's not the winning, it's the taking apart....
He just has to say "Corbyn represents a severe danger to this country; I have been asked to stay on and will do so to secure the country's future".
It is just totally inconceivable that he could lose to Corbyn.
Osborne should win but it would be a gamble.
I could conceive of Cameron deciding to change his mind - on a personal level perhaps being a majority Tory PM, albeit not one with a hefty majority, will prove enjoyable enough that he does think it would be worth staying on - particularly if Labour appear to be doing badly and Cameron is still polling better than potential rivals, but I cannot see those rivals permitting him to stay on, particularly after the coming bloodletting over Europe, when a new leader would offer an opportunity to move on.
The Osborne-for-PM train has left the station, and as loyal as it has felt Osborne has willingly been, would he want to emulate Brown further and try to have a handover after Cameron wins 3 elections? Wouldn't the other rivals go for broke as their last chance to take the top job, particularly if it looks like anyone could win against Corbyn?
As a well paid commuter, I'm pleased Labour support keeping my expenses down funded by the taxpayer. Although if I was an inner city low income Labour supporter I'd be a bit miffed.
As a well paid commuter, I'm pleased Labour support keeping my expenses down funded by the taxpayer. Although if I was an inner city low income Labour supporter I'd be a bit miffed.
Personally I'd let the franchises expire then charge market rates on commuters with the nationalised service
Is he blowing kisses? I don't recall seeing that but then I did FF a lot after watching for what felt like 6 or 7 hours.
I have to say it reminds me of a character from Spongebob Squarepants - Squidward Tentacles. ''ill-tempered with a snobby attitude and a sarcastic sense of humor. He has no talent, although he believes he is extremely talented.'' Watson reminds me of Patrick Star, ''who lives under a rock, and whose most prominent character trait is his low intelligence.''
I might have some sympathy for Corbyn over this but for the way Labour lampooned Douglas-Home's skull-like visage. It goes with the territory.
Interesting comment about Cameron making a joke about the pig story. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if he slips in a reference to the story in his conference speech.
As a well paid commuter, I'm pleased Labour support keeping my expenses down funded by the taxpayer. Although if I was an inner city low income Labour supporter I'd be a bit miffed.
Personally I'd let the franchises expire then charge market rates on commuters with the nationalised service
The shadow minister for transport made clear today they would reduce fares.
But your method wouldn't even work. Public ownership means politicians are responsible for fares and they'd respond to incentives to keep them low. Especially as people like me are a much more powerful constituency than the people losing out.
Interesting comment about Cameron making a joke about the pig story. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if he slips in a reference to the story in his conference speech.
I seem to recall him already referencing it but then it is late
In the previous thread TheScreamingEagles argued that globalisation benefits everyone "...so does everyone else, like trickle down economics." 2015/9/29 2:08pm.
Can anyone name an economist who advocates a "trickle-down" theory of economics?
In the previous thread TheScreamingEagles argued that globalisation benefits everyone "...so does everyone else, like trickle down economics." 2015/9/29 2:08pm.
Can anyone name an economist who advocates a "trickle-down" theory of economics?
Interesting comment about Cameron making a joke about the pig story. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if he slips in a reference to the story in his conference speech.
I wouldn't if I were him. Top priority would be labour living on the past.
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Later that evening, I spot Margaret Beckett in a restaurant. Beckett has had a tough few months. She was one of the 35 MPs who nominated Corbyn for the leadership battle to widen the debate, but didn’t want him to win. She recently said she was a “moron” for having done so. When she introduced shadow chancellor John McDonnell on stage, a friend said she had the air of Catherine of Aragon waiting to be banished.
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Interesting comment about Cameron making a joke about the pig story. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if he slips in a reference to the story in his conference speech.
I wouldn't if I were him. Top priority would be labour living on the past.
Perhaps in lieu of a speech he will just play a video of past Corbyn statements, perhaps interjecting with sarcastic quips, if they truly think he is as bad they say.
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Well I said he was Labour's IDS, even his conference speeches are similar, reliant on the faithful to get them through. I think it is fair to say no-one will be buying the collective oratory of IDS and Jeremy Corbyn in 50 years time
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Well I said he was Labour's IDS, even his conference speeches are similar, reliant on the faithful to get them through. I think it is fair to say no-one will be buying the collective oratory of IDS and Jeremy Corbyn in 50 years time
Given the plagiarism in putting together the speech, no publisher would risk printing anything by Corbyn for fear of being sued!
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Well I said he was Labour's IDS, even his conference speeches are similar, reliant on the faithful to get them through. I think it is fair to say no-one will be buying the collective oratory of IDS and Jeremy Corbyn in 50 years time
I wonder how well this bilge and poor presentation will go down in two conference's time?
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Well I said he was Labour's IDS, even his conference speeches are similar, reliant on the faithful to get them through. I think it is fair to say no-one will be buying the collective oratory of IDS and Jeremy Corbyn in 50 years time
I wonder how well this bilge and poor presentation will go down in two conference's time?
Well IDS had 'don't underestimate a quiet man' in 2002 and then the thousand and one standing ovations in 2003 and 'the quiet man is turning up the volume' just weeks before he was ousted so plenty more fun and games to come https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmQdi9pwDA
Yes indeed. A Marmite politician but I like Marmite. Like him, I'm indifferent to rhetoric and sartorial stuff, but I liked the content.
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Given you bigged up the last two useless losers , your mark of endorsement is verging on the "Roger".
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
I missed most of the speech. Started watching on play-back. It's got to one of the worst pieces of political speech-making in my lifetime. Rambling, fluffed lines, missed words, timing cock-ups, incoherent anecdotes, vague references to people who have suffered terrible injustices who nobody has ever heard of etc etc. I doubt anyone who has not been a obsessive labour activist for 20 years had any idea what most of it was about.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
Well I said he was Labour's IDS, even his conference speeches are similar, reliant on the faithful to get them through. I think it is fair to say no-one will be buying the collective oratory of IDS and Jeremy Corbyn in 50 years time
Given the plagiarism in putting together the speech, no publisher would risk printing anything by Corbyn for fear of being sued!
@holyroodmandy: Who is speaking for @theSNP on Michelle Thomson story? Phones ring out, no one knows anything, is it WM, Holyrood, HQ - times have changed.
Oh the shame, instead of rushing out a response they later need to clarify and/or retract, the SNP actually take their time to deal appropriately with the situation concerning the Independent MP for Edinburgh West.
@holyroodmandy: Who is speaking for @theSNP on Michelle Thomson story? Phones ring out, no one knows anything, is it WM, Holyrood, HQ - times have changed.
Oh the shame, instead of rushing out a response they later need to clarify and/or retract, the SNP actually take their time to deal appropriately with the situation concerning the Independent MP for Edinburgh West.
You rushed out a response last night saying this Nat woman wasn't going anywhere.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
@holyroodmandy: Who is speaking for @theSNP on Michelle Thomson story? Phones ring out, no one knows anything, is it WM, Holyrood, HQ - times have changed.
Oh the shame, instead of rushing out a response they later need to clarify and/or retract, the SNP actually take their time to deal appropriately with the situation concerning the Independent MP for Edinburgh West.
You rushed out a response last night saying this Nat woman wasn't going anywhere.
I recall saying she could be in an untenable position as her business practices may not bee compatible with a social democratic party. That's still my view.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Such complacency. The real danger is that they fall into the trap of all one-party states - they become blinded by the notion that There Is No Alternative and think they can get away with the law not applying to them, as they descend into corruption and nepotism. This ultimately pisses off the voters to the point where some of them return to the Can't Be Arsed Party - to which the SNP is peculiarly exposed - whilst some return back to the parties they came from.
Oh the shame, instead of rushing out a response they later need to clarify and/or retract, the SNP actually take their time to deal appropriately with the situation concerning the Independent MP for Edinburgh West.
No.
They rushed out a response saying she was no longer a memebr of the SNP, then stopped answering the phones for 3 hours while they tried to decide if that was the story they wanted to keep.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Such complacency. The real danger is that they fall into the trap of all one-party states - they become blinded by the notion that There Is No Alternative and think they can get away with the law not applying to them, as they descend into corruption and nepotism. This ultimately pisses off the voters to the point where some of them return to the Can't Be Arsed Party - to which the SNP is peculiarly exposed - whilst some return back to the parties they came from.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Such complacency. The real danger is that they fall into the trap of all one-party states - they become blinded by the notion that There Is No Alternative and think they can get away with the law not applying to them, as they descend into corruption and nepotism. This ultimately pisses off the voters to the point where some of them return to the Can't Be Arsed Party - to which the SNP is peculiarly exposed - whilst some return back to the parties they came from.
Or new ones.
I seriously doubt they will become the Tory party.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Such complacency. The real danger is that they fall into the trap of all one-party states - they become blinded by the notion that There Is No Alternative and think they can get away with the law not applying to them, as they descend into corruption and nepotism. This ultimately pisses off the voters to the point where some of them return to the Can't Be Arsed Party - to which the SNP is peculiarly exposed - whilst some return back to the parties they came from.
Or new ones.
I seriously doubt they will become the Tory party.
I was thinking more of brand new (or at least currently very minor) parties.
If the SNP surge does fade then it's unlikely that they will return to the three existing Westminster parties - at least, not for a while and not unless there's some new means of motivating them. A new party, possibly the result of a split, on the other hand might be more attractive.
No idea how he manages to be so consistently effective at getting to the heart of the issues de nos jours, wryly amusing (enough to smile over) every single day and still laugh-out-loud funny a couple of times a week. That sort of talent is gold-dust. I can't think of any other cartoonist - in fact, any kind of media commentator full stop - who reaches that kind of standard. Though I have a soft spot for Craig Brown.
(I get the feeling part of the reason I am so impressed is that his rival cartoonists in other papers are generally pretty poor, or take their personal politics too seriously.)
Many years ago, I read an interview with Matt. One remark of his stuck in my mind: when he was at school, his teachers used to tell him he'd never get anywhere by sitting gazing out of the window .....
I read an interview once where he said he comes in at 9, reads the papers all morning, sketches out 4-5 ideas, has a meeting with the editor at 3 to choose one and then goes home.
No idea how he manages to be so consistently effective at getting to the heart of the issues de nos jours, wryly amusing (enough to smile over) every single day and still laugh-out-loud funny a couple of times a week. That sort of talent is gold-dust. I can't think of any other cartoonist - in fact, any kind of media commentator full stop - who reaches that kind of standard. Though I have a soft spot for Craig Brown.
(I get the feeling part of the reason I am so impressed is that his rival cartoonists in other papers are generally pretty poor, or take their personal politics too seriously.)
Many years ago, I read an interview with Matt. One remark of his stuck in my mind: when he was at school, his teachers used to tell him he'd never get anywhere by sitting gazing out of the window .....
I read an interview once where he said he comes in at 9, reads the papers all morning, sketches out 4-5 ideas, has a meeting with the editor at 3 to choose one and then goes home.
Sounds like a pretty good job!
I'm sure that's true of any person who can make a career of a hobby in which there's public interest and at which you happen to be the greatest of your generation.
Oh the shame, instead of rushing out a response they later need to clarify and/or retract, the SNP actually take their time to deal appropriately with the situation concerning the Independent MP for Edinburgh West.
No.
They rushed out a response saying she was no longer a memebr of the SNP, then stopped answering the phones for 3 hours while they tried to decide if that was the story they wanted to keep.
Then they changed it
It's a triumph
Is it over though ? Why the delay in the police getting involved ? Surely it wasn't because there was a referendum due ?
I seriously doubt they will become the Tory party.
I was thinking more of brand new (or at least currently very minor) parties.
If the SNP surge does fade then it's unlikely that they will return to the three existing Westminster parties - at least, not for a while and not unless there's some new means of motivating them. A new party, possibly the result of a split, on the other hand might be more attractive.
There is no likelihood of a pre-independence split outside the fevered imagination of the likes of ScottP. The SNP remain the credible vehicle to deliver independence and until that is lost their position will not change.
If Bill Walker didn't harm the SNP, then the Independent MP for Edinburgh West will not.
Except for the part where it clearly says "tens of millions of pounds". Which is not a huge hole in Scotland's budget, not going to require any tax rises and indeed was expected and forecast by Swinney as he was well aware there would be a timing effect associated with the change.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
The main SNP image appears to be cronyism and "advisers" at the trough of public money.
The main SNP image is that they are the only viable vehicle to deliver Scottish Independence.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
Such complacency. The real danger is that they fall into the trap of all one-party states - they become blinded by the notion that There Is No Alternative and think they can get away with the law not applying to them, as they descend into corruption and nepotism. This ultimately pisses off the voters to the point where some of them return to the Can't Be Arsed Party - to which the SNP is peculiarly exposed - whilst some return back to the parties they came from.
Or new ones.
I seriously doubt they will become the Tory party.
I was thinking more of brand new (or at least currently very minor) parties.
If the SNP surge does fade then it's unlikely that they will return to the three existing Westminster parties - at least, not for a while and not unless there's some new means of motivating them. A new party, possibly the result of a split, on the other hand might be more attractive.
Hard to imagine at this stage. Labour are just rubbish , Tories are seen as the plague , LibDems are gone as serial lying toerags. Hard to see anything apart from a few splinter socialist parties that will never get mainstream votes. As you say it can happen but hard to see it in near future.
Isn't it extraordinary the attention the Labour conference is getting. Compare with the Lib's whose conference went unnoticed.
Carlotta mentioned advertising. The 4 principles of advertising and 'The Corbyn effect'
1. Get peoples attention -Check 2. Make your claims believable -check 3. Make your product desirable -check 4. Motivate your target market to do something -check
1. Get peoples attention - Check 2. Make your claims believable - No. 3. Make your product desirable - No way. 4. Motivate your target market to do something - Vote Tory.
The other rule of marketing is don't try to appeal to everyone. If you do you end up bland and uninteresting.
Comments
Strange that save for a brief outburst from the Malcoholic earlier, the Nat contingent have been strangely quiet this evening.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?msg=General Election 2015: Kick Out The Coalition&p0=1327&year=2015&month=5&day=7&hour=7&min=0&sec=0
The Osborne-for-PM train has left the station, and as loyal as it has felt Osborne has willingly been, would he want to emulate Brown further and try to have a handover after Cameron wins 3 elections? Wouldn't the other rivals go for broke as their last chance to take the top job, particularly if it looks like anyone could win against Corbyn?
Watson reminds me of Patrick Star, ''who lives under a rock, and whose most prominent character trait is his low intelligence.''
I might have some sympathy for Corbyn over this but for the way Labour lampooned Douglas-Home's skull-like visage. It goes with the territory.
Bloody arsenal are going to stop spurs ever getting CL by being utter shite and losing the 4th slot!!!!
But your method wouldn't even work. Public ownership means politicians are responsible for fares and they'd respond to incentives to keep them low. Especially as people like me are a much more powerful constituency than the people losing out.
Can anyone name an economist who advocates a "trickle-down" theory of economics?
The BBC coverage was fair enough, I thought - Laura K a bit sceptical and some doubtful voters for balance but it gave a good selection of quotes. The press will no doubt be scathing, and it'll be interesting to see if there's a poll bounce or not.
Take a stand man - call it as it is for once.
Good night.
Maybe this will be seen as brilliant. The new new future of politics after years of spin, focus groups, pollsters, advertising agents, trained actors as politicians, professionals who study press releases, people who can do their tie up etc.
I'm not even against some of the content. But the presentation...oh dear god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXmQdi9pwDA
Of course the chance of him doing the right thing has to be near zero.
But it is good that such a transparent non story as this and the Fiona Hyslop nonsense are distracting from the very real damage that the Thomson matter might do to the SNP's social democratic image.
While they remain seen as that, they will continue to dominate Scottish politics. The only danger to them is if they fail to deliver a referendum in the next parliamentary term (or at a stretch within the next two) and like the Bloc Quebecois following their failure to deliver a third referendum in 1999 lose their credibility as being the way to achieve independence.
I may have recycled that greeting from a few years ago ....
They rushed out a response saying she was no longer a memebr of the SNP, then stopped answering the phones for 3 hours while they tried to decide if that was the story they wanted to keep.
Then they changed it
It's a triumph
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/29/corbyn-magic-money-tree_n_8212370.html
If the SNP surge does fade then it's unlikely that they will return to the three existing Westminster parties - at least, not for a while and not unless there's some new means of motivating them. A new party, possibly the result of a split, on the other hand might be more attractive.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQGT-FkWEAE7gyU.jpg
Sounds like a pretty good job!
If Bill Walker didn't harm the SNP, then the Independent MP for Edinburgh West will not.