Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election History and Candidates : December 10th 20

2»

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    Dair said:

    What a hoot. 8% swing Labour to SNP. UKIP face the embarrassment of finishing behind the Liberals. Both UKIP and Liberals face the humiliation of finishing behind the SSP.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/675097969591472128

    As usual with the Nats, missing the bigger story. Look at that monumental Scottish Tory surge!!!!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    isam said:

    Jess Phillips is good tv, the scottish MP is a pain in the arse

    I love Jess's accent!
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    isam

    The Scots MP Ahmed Sheik is actually talikng a lot of sense not least of which because she actually answers questions - a refreshing change.
  • User512User512 Posts: 3
    Wind power in November, according to Gridwatch:

    Peak - 9.5 GW
    Trough - 0.5 GW

    Nuclear power in November, also from Gridwatch:

    Peak - 8.3 GW
    Trough - 6.9 GW

    The UK regularly experiences low wind events that drop wind generation to almost zero across the whole country. Wind is not only expensive in its own right, it requires 100% backup because it cannot be relied on to produce power at periods of high demand.

    Wind systems frequently affect the whole of northern/western Europe at the same time. When the wind is blowing strongly, wind turbines will be providing surplus electricity across Europe. Wind energy companies in Scotland would be selling their surplus in a saturated market. When wind speeds are low, Scotland would need to import electricity from countries that are suffering a shortage themselves.

    Denmark is already in this position. It exports surplus wind electricity to Germany, Sweden and Norway at low prices, and buys in much more expensive electricity when wind speeds drop. Denmark has the highest proportion of wind energy in the EU and the highest electricity prices in the EU.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    scotslass said:

    isam

    The Scots MP Ahmed Sheik is actually talikng a lot of sense not least of which because she actually answers questions - a refreshing change.

    Annoying
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Danny565 said:

    isam said:

    Jess Phillips is good tv, the scottish MP is a pain in the arse

    I love Jess's accent!
    Yes she's a good performer... Could be a stand up
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    I have to say, I think Tasmina made a poor case. She wants to ban Trump, but wants his money in Scotland (investment in the golf courses)? I agree with Jess Philips and Michael Portillo. Let Trump come here, and let him make a fool out of himself. BTW, Jess Philips has been great on This Week so far.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    isam/The_Apocalypse

    Isam - It is a feature of annoying people and posters on this site that they find others annoying.

    Apocalypse You must have been snoozing- Tasmina said exactly the opposite which is why Neil was so pleased to get an answer to a question from a politico.

    Her most powerful point is that Trump wants to ban her and all others of her faith from the USA and I thought she made it well. Sauce for the goose and all that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    Jess likes trains :lol:
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Some of the SLABbers on twitter are hilarious. In fairness, it is possible some of them don't really understand parts of Lanarkshire. It may not be the heart of marching territory but it is certainly heavily biased in the orange flutes direction.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited 2015 11
    scotslass said:

    isam/The_Apocalypse

    Isam - It is a feature of annoying people and posters on this site that they find others annoying.

    Apocalypse You must have been snoozing- Tasmina said exactly the opposite which is why Neil was so pleased to get an answer to a question from a politico.

    Her most powerful point is that Trump wants to ban her and all others of her faith from the USA and I thought she made it well. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    Isn't the whole stupidity of Trump's argument (which Tasmina pointed out, as you say) is that Trump wants to ban a whole religion from the US? Therefore by doing the same but in reverse isn't the answer. Not only that, but as we've seen online many of the Right have a persecution complex on this issue. That there is a big, PC monster hiding in the wardrobe, waiting to come out and take freedom of speech away from them as soon as they say anything. By banning Trump, it feeds into that persecution complex and helps validate what is essentially an 'enemy' which Trump has created. As has been said in an earlier discussion, in a world of FOX news and the Tea Party Trump is hardly some kind of under-dog whose right to come out with inflammatory opinions has been repressed.



  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited 2015 11
    scotslass said:

    isam/The_Apocalypse

    Isam - It is a feature of annoying people and posters on this site that they find others annoying.

    Apocalypse You must have been snoozing- Tasmina said exactly the opposite which is why Neil was so pleased to get an answer to a question from a politico.

    Her most powerful point is that Trump wants to ban her and all others of her faith from the USA and I thought she made it well. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    Oooh that sounds like something you'd get out of a fortune cookie!

    Or Expensive Christmas crackers?

    Anyway Cici is the highlight, what a beauty

    Night night don't let the sturgeon bite x
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    This QT panel has actually been pretty good. I thought Flint, Letts, and Beard were all very good in particular. Interesting answers from the panel on the Tyson Fury incident - will no doubt go down badly on PB as they all seem to not be enamored with Fury as a personality.... :wink:

    I hope Murray gets SPTY.

    Greg Clark looked very Majorish to me, too......likeable, can connect to people on a human level.

    I do wish Flint would not interrupt people. My other half can't stand it when anyone does it, but gets particularly annoyed when female politicians indulge.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    scotslass said:

    isam/The_Apocalypse

    Isam - It is a feature of annoying people and posters on this site that they find others annoying.

    Apocalypse You must have been snoozing- Tasmina said exactly the opposite which is why Neil was so pleased to get an answer to a question from a politico.

    Her most powerful point is that Trump wants to ban her and all others of her faith from the USA and I thought she made it well. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    Isn't the whole stupidity of Trump's argument (which Tasmina pointed out, as you say) is that Trump wants to ban a whole religion from the US? Therefore by doing the same but in reverse isn't the answer. Not only that, but as we've seen online many of the Right have a persecution complex on this issue. That there is a big, PC monster hiding in the wardrobe, waiting to come out and take freedom of speech away from them as soon as they say anything. By banning Trump, it feeds into that persecution complex and helps validate what is essentially an 'enemy' which Trump has created. As has been said in an earlier discussion, in a world of FOX news and the Tea Party Trump is hardly some kind of under-dog whose right to come out with inflammatory opinions has been repressed.
    The thing with Tasmina is that logical coherence is outwith her ken.

    She's a publicity seeker and this is a relatively good issue for her to raise her profile on.

    Personally, I don't like her much. But for the SNP she is a competent box ticker and is unlikely to cause any huge problems in the short to medium term.

    In the Long term I could see her defecting to the Tories at some point but with any luck, by then there would be no need for the SNP and no Scottish MPs at Westminster.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    The_Apocalypse

    Your argument would be fine if Teresa May hadn't already banned the 84 people including French comedians and American shock jocks.

    Soem of them weren't banned because they personally were going to shoot people but because of hate speech. Portillo said that it was "naive" to think that Trumpy could be banned because he could be President and I thought the SNP women, Tasmina, was totally correct to then say the way not to get banned is to stand for President! I also thought that was a very strong point for , I think, a first timer on this programme to make to the old stager.

    So we need consistency for hate speech banned or not banned, whether you are a Presidential candidate or a very bad French comedian.

    I do not think there is an serious dispute that known terrorists / criminals can and should be banned.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    I have to say, I think Tasmina made a poor case. She wants to ban Trump, but wants his money in Scotland (investment in the golf courses)? I agree with Jess Philips and Michael Portillo. Let Trump come here, and let him make a fool out of himself. BTW, Jess Philips has been great on This Week so far.

    Agreed on all counts. Jess is MUCH better than Abbot.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    Dair said:

    What a hoot. 8% swing Labour to SNP. UKIP face the embarrassment of finishing behind the Liberals. Both UKIP and Liberals face the humiliation of finishing behind the SSP.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/675097969591472128

    The SNP did well.

    But not well enough.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Mortimer said:

    This QT panel has actually been pretty good. I thought Flint, Letts, and Beard were all very good in particular. Interesting answers from the panel on the Tyson Fury incident - will no doubt go down badly on PB as they all seem to not be enamored with Fury as a personality.... :wink:

    I hope Murray gets SPTY.

    Greg Clark looked very Majorish to me, too......likeable, can connect to people on a human level.

    I do wish Flint would not interrupt people. My other half can't stand it when anyone does it, but gets particularly annoyed when female politicians indulge.

    I felt very 'neutral' about Greg Clark (which given my feelings towards most Tory MPs that's a good sign). Out of interest, why does your other half get particularly annoyed when female politicians interrupt people?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited 2015 11

    Dair said:

    What a hoot. 8% swing Labour to SNP. UKIP face the embarrassment of finishing behind the Liberals. Both UKIP and Liberals face the humiliation of finishing behind the SSP.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/675097969591472128

    The SNP did well.

    But not well enough.
    Actually, 40% is "well enough" because it means that the next Local Election in Blantyre will return 2 Labour and 2 SNP councillors instead of 3 SLAB and 1 SNP. In an area with strong anti-SNP Sectarian based demographic, 40% is probably close to their limit in a place like Blantyre but across the wider council area in 2017 (and the 2016 Constituency) it's a huge win.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    Dair said:

    scotslass said:

    isam/The_Apocalypse

    Isam - It is a feature of annoying people and posters on this site that they find others annoying.

    Apocalypse You must have been snoozing- Tasmina said exactly the opposite which is why Neil was so pleased to get an answer to a question from a politico.

    Her most powerful point is that Trump wants to ban her and all others of her faith from the USA and I thought she made it well. Sauce for the goose and all that.

    Isn't the whole stupidity of Trump's argument (which Tasmina pointed out, as you say) is that Trump wants to ban a whole religion from the US? Therefore by doing the same but in reverse isn't the answer. Not only that, but as we've seen online many of the Right have a persecution complex on this issue. That there is a big, PC monster hiding in the wardrobe, waiting to come out and take freedom of speech away from them as soon as they say anything. By banning Trump, it feeds into that persecution complex and helps validate what is essentially an 'enemy' which Trump has created. As has been said in an earlier discussion, in a world of FOX news and the Tea Party Trump is hardly some kind of under-dog whose right to come out with inflammatory opinions has been repressed.
    The thing with Tasmina is that logical coherence is outwith her ken.

    She's a publicity seeker and this is a relatively good issue for her to raise her profile on.

    Personally, I don't like her much. But for the SNP she is a competent box ticker and is unlikely to cause any huge problems in the short to medium term.

    In the Long term I could see her defecting to the Tories at some point but with any luck, by then there would be no need for the SNP and no Scottish MPs at Westminster.
    You mean defecting back to the Tories - she stood in the 1999 election for the Conservatives in Govan against Sturgeon amongst others. I do agree that she is a publicity seeker though
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Dair

    Seldom disagree with you but you are being unfair. I think Tasmina is one of the SNP MPs who is developing best (others Whitford, Shepperd, Gethins and Nicolson). I thought her question to Osborne yesterday was exactly right - short, sharp and to the point.

    Also tonight, under tough questioning from Neil, she stood her ground and argued her case. I think you seriously underrate her potential.

    Finally it is interesting that probably the two most effective Muslim polticians in the UK at the moment - Humza Yousef and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are both SNP!

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    scotslass said:

    Dair

    Seldom disagree with you but you are being unfair. I think Tasmina is one of the SNP MPs who is developing best (others Whitford, Shepperd, Gethins and Nicolson). I thought her question to Osborne yesterday was exactly right - short, sharp and to the point.

    Also tonight, under tough questioning from Neil, she stood her ground and argued her case. I think you seriously underrate her potential.

    Finally it is interesting that probably the two most effective Muslim polticians in the UK at the moment - Humza Yousef and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are both SNP!

    I do not doubt her competence. She is a very good politician.

    What I question is her goal and her interest. I do not believe she has a strong enough commitment to Independence to be an SNP councillor let alone an MSP or MP. I am fairly confident that the only interest Tasmina has is Tasmina.

    Humza is completely different, I have no doubt of his commitment and think he is almost certain to become First Minister whenever Nicola chooses to step aside.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Saltire

    The idea that because someone was once a Tory they are always one is just silly. Once upon a time the Tories had 50 per cent of the Scottish vote - people do change.

    Also it is the job of a politician to seek publicity - not the only job but a key one. Any one that does not publiclty seek should take up another business!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164
    scotslass said:

    The_Apocalypse

    Your argument would be fine if Teresa May hadn't already banned the 84 people including French comedians and American shock jocks.

    Soem of them weren't banned because they personally were going to shoot people but because of hate speech. Portillo said that it was "naive" to think that Trumpy could be banned because he could be President and I thought the SNP women, Tasmina, was totally correct to then say the way not to get banned is to stand for President! I also thought that was a very strong point for , I think, a first timer on this programme to make to the old stager.

    So we need consistency for hate speech banned or not banned, whether you are a Presidential candidate or a very bad French comedian.

    I do not think there is an serious dispute that known terrorists / criminals can and should be banned.

    Naivety, pretend or otherwise, can be a bit of an SNP media strategy can't it? Portillo was bang on to call her on it. Of course it makes a difference what role someone is in when they're taking a position.

    Besides the point, of course, the whole banning hate speech is dubious in general. I wouldn't bother. We have incitement laws that should be used when there is incitement. Otherwise, I don't see why people should have a right not to be offended.....

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    Mortimer said:

    This QT panel has actually been pretty good. I thought Flint, Letts, and Beard were all very good in particular. Interesting answers from the panel on the Tyson Fury incident - will no doubt go down badly on PB as they all seem to not be enamored with Fury as a personality.... :wink:

    I hope Murray gets SPTY.

    Greg Clark looked very Majorish to me, too......likeable, can connect to people on a human level.

    I do wish Flint would not interrupt people. My other half can't stand it when anyone does it, but gets particularly annoyed when female politicians indulge.

    I felt very 'neutral' about Greg Clark (which given my feelings towards most Tory MPs that's a good sign). Out of interest, why does your other half get particularly annoyed when female politicians interrupt people?
    She holds her own gender up to a higher standard. I can sort of see why - I hate it when male politicians get macho. Confirming the worst gender stereotypes that are thrown at us humans is not attractive in politicians.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited 2015 11
    Dair said:

    The thing with Tasmina is that logical coherence is outwith her ken.

    She's a publicity seeker and this is a relatively good issue for her to raise her profile on.

    Personally, I don't like her much. But for the SNP she is a competent box ticker and is unlikely to cause any huge problems in the short to medium term.

    In the Long term I could see her defecting to the Tories at some point but with any luck, by then there would be no need for the SNP and no Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    I've seen her on TV several times now - I think only Salmond and Strugeon have made more TV appearances than her!

    Why do you see her defecting to the Tories? Her opinions on hate speech/freedom of speech are, what many Tories I think would consider 'leftist' and 'PC'.
    scotslass said:

    The_Apocalypse

    Your argument would be fine if Teresa May hadn't already banned the 84 people including French comedians and American shock jocks.

    Soem of them weren't banned because they personally were going to shoot people but because of hate speech. Portillo said that it was "naive" to think that Trumpy could be banned because he could be President and I thought the SNP women, Tasmina, was totally correct to then say the way not to get banned is to stand for President! I also thought that was a very strong point for , I think, a first timer on this programme to make to the old stager.

    So we need consistency for hate speech banned or not banned, whether you are a Presidential candidate or a very bad French comedian.

    I do not think there is an serious dispute that known terrorists / criminals can and should be banned.

    I agree that there is an inconsistency in this issue - it seems odd to ban Wilders (who, given the polls in Holland could well become Dutch PM), but not Trump. It does seem like the main reason some people are cautious not to ban him, is because could be the next POTUS, and the US is a more important ally for us than Holland. I personally think that like Trump, Wilders (and others like him) should not have been banned but instead should have had his beliefs challenged. Obviously terrorists and criminals should be banned, as they are a great danger to public safety.
    Mortimer said:

    Agreed on all counts. Jess is MUCH better than Abbot.

    I think Jess is a lot more personable than Abbott. While I think Abbott and Portillo do have a chemistry of sorts (that Portillo acknowledged tonight) her opinions can very inflammatory to say the least. I couldn't believe her opinions on Mao, for example. That just blew me away!
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Dair

    I am a relatively recent convert to the SNP (2011 election). I converted because I thought that Salmond was (and still is) the outstanding UK politician of his generation and I was persuaded that indy was the way forward. Horrer of horrers I used to support and be a member of another party!

    I have stuck with the NATS because I think it is important that our first women First Minister continues to be a success and I want another shot at the indy ref.

    Since Tasmina has been backing the SNP for a lot longer than me how long do I have to be a supporter before you would trust me with a canidature?



  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    This QT panel has actually been pretty good. I thought Flint, Letts, and Beard were all very good in particular. Interesting answers from the panel on the Tyson Fury incident - will no doubt go down badly on PB as they all seem to not be enamored with Fury as a personality.... :wink:

    I hope Murray gets SPTY.

    Greg Clark looked very Majorish to me, too......likeable, can connect to people on a human level.

    I do wish Flint would not interrupt people. My other half can't stand it when anyone does it, but gets particularly annoyed when female politicians indulge.

    I felt very 'neutral' about Greg Clark (which given my feelings towards most Tory MPs that's a good sign). Out of interest, why does your other half get particularly annoyed when female politicians interrupt people?
    She holds her own gender up to a higher standard. I can sort of see why - I hate it when male politicians get macho. Confirming the worst gender stereotypes that are thrown at us humans is not attractive in politicians.
    Hmmm, I think I see things a bit different to your wife (or partner) in this case. I really dislike this thing of holding women up to a higher standard than men - I see no reason why more should be expected of women, then of men. I'm also not sure whether the stereotypical 'macho' male is considered a negative gender stereotype. Many seem far more at ease with men being aggressive in debates than women.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    The_Apocalypse

    We are close to agreement and therefore, given current banning circumstances, Tasmina has a perfectly reasonable point about banning Trump.

    If we hadn't/didn't ban others for "hate speech" the point would not have been as strong but we (ie Teresa May does) and so it is.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 672
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-10/trump-takes-nation-storm-more-americans-agree-muslim-ban-reject-it

    Any odds on Hilary discovering a need to ban all muslim emigration to the USA?

    Couldn't happen, surely..

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited 2015 11
    shiney2 said:
    What happens if there is a situation where both petitions get more than 100,000 signatures?

    It seems a bit ridiculous for the Commons to have two separate debates on the same subject from opposite points of view.
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    shiney2

    Yes climbing slowly unlike the ban petiton which is going up fast.

    Just in case you missed it the scores on the board are

    BAN THE TRUMP 497,076
    DON'T BAN 26,001

    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR LOT ARE DOWN BY ALMOST 20-1!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I think you'll find the two petitions were not started at the same time so your comparison is next to useless.
    scotslass said:

    shiney2

    Yes climbing slowly unlike the ban petiton which is going up fast.

    Just in case you missed it the scores on the board are

    BAN THE TRUMP 497,076
    DON'T BAN 26,001

    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR LOT ARE DOWN BY ALMOST 20-1!

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    scotslass said:

    shiney2

    Yes climbing slowly unlike the ban petiton which is going up fast.

    Just in case you missed it the scores on the board are

    BAN THE TRUMP 497,076
    DON'T BAN 26,001

    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR LOT ARE DOWN BY ALMOST 20-1!

    497,076 people DO NOT believe in Freedom of Speech :lol:
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,741
    edited 2015 11
    Per The Times:

    "Vulnerable pensioners were targeted in a £1 million “bank of terror” phone fraud scam linked to the funnelling of funds to Islamic State fighters in Syria.

    Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, came under fire last night for appealing to a judge to bail one of the gang of fraudsters, who impersonated police officers to con at least 18 elderly victims in the south of England out of more than £600,000. There were attempts to steal almost double that amount."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    scotslass said:


    Since Tasmina has been backing the SNP for a lot longer than me how long do I have to be a supporter before you would trust me with a canidature?

    Any party that has grown in popular support as much as the SNP is bound to have many converts in its ranks - your candidate in Orkney & Shetland, for example having both stood for Labour & Liberals and been elected for the latter. While (as with any party) you'll have opportunist chancers, I've no doubt the vast majority are sincerely motivated.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,107

    scotslass said:

    shiney2

    Yes climbing slowly unlike the ban petiton which is going up fast.

    Just in case you missed it the scores on the board are

    BAN THE TRUMP 497,076
    DON'T BAN 26,001

    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR LOT ARE DOWN BY ALMOST 20-1!

    497,076 people DO NOT believe in Freedom of Speech :lol:
    Nobody is stopping Trump from speaking, nor communicating the contents of his speech
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,624
    MikeL said:

    Per The Times:

    "Vulnerable pensioners were targeted in a £1 million “bank of terror” phone fraud scam linked to the funnelling of funds to Islamic State fighters in Syria.

    Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, came under fire last night for appealing to a judge to bail one of the gang of fraudsters, who impersonated police officers to con at least 18 elderly victims in the south of England out of more than £600,000. There were attempts to steal almost double that amount."

    Cameron was right when he said Corbyn was a danger to national security....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    edited 2015 11

    John_M said:

    FPT: (I normally don't bother, but I'd looked up numbers and everything)

    The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always in a crisis.

    NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.

    PS Get well soon Harry!

    From what I see we are spending 134 billion now and 138 billion next year. I think this is about 9% of our spending.
    It's not the employees who have trouble understanding the "crisis", it's the funders. 9% is a bit low for the Westen world, and a bit under half what the US spends
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    MikeL said:

    Per The Times:

    "Vulnerable pensioners were targeted in a £1 million “bank of terror” phone fraud scam linked to the funnelling of funds to Islamic State fighters in Syria.

    Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, came under fire last night for appealing to a judge to bail one of the gang of fraudsters, who impersonated police officers to con at least 18 elderly victims in the south of England out of more than £600,000. There were attempts to steal almost double that amount."

    Utterly insane why he thought he should get involved. LOL.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281

    John_M said:

    FPT: (I normally don't bother, but I'd looked up numbers and everything)

    The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always in a crisis.

    NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.

    PS Get well soon Harry!

    From what I see we are spending 134 billion now and 138 billion next year. I think this is about 9% of our spending.
    It's not the employees who have trouble understanding the "crisis", it's the funders. 9% is a bit low for the Westen world, and a bit under half what the US spends
    And yet we have better outcomes then the US.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    edited 2015 11

    John_M said:

    FPT: (I normally don't bother, but I'd looked up numbers and everything)

    The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always in a crisis.

    NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.

    PS Get well soon Harry!

    From what I see we are spending 134 billion now and 138 billion next year. I think this is about 9% of our spending.
    It's not the employees who have trouble understanding the "crisis", it's the funders. 9% is a bit low for the Westen world, and a bit under half what the US spends
    And yet we have better outcomes then the US.
    I think it would be fair to say that their "best", with huge sums chucked at it, is possibly better than our "best", but that their "worst" compares very badly with anywhere else in the developed world, and probably badly compared with much of the Third! Figures can be manipulated to prove almost anything.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281

    John_M said:

    FPT: (I normally don't bother, but I'd looked up numbers and everything)

    The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always in a crisis.

    NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.

    PS Get well soon Harry!

    From what I see we are spending 134 billion now and 138 billion next year. I think this is about 9% of our spending.
    It's not the employees who have trouble understanding the "crisis", it's the funders. 9% is a bit low for the Westen world, and a bit under half what the US spends
    And yet we have better outcomes then the US.
    I think it would be fair to say that their "best", with huge sums chucked at it, is possibly better than our "best", but that their "worst" compares very badly with anywhere else in the developed world, and probably badly compared with much of the Third! Figures can be manipulated to prove almost anything.
    Yes. But you were comparing total spend.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281

    MikeL said:

    Per The Times:

    "Vulnerable pensioners were targeted in a £1 million “bank of terror” phone fraud scam linked to the funnelling of funds to Islamic State fighters in Syria.

    Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, came under fire last night for appealing to a judge to bail one of the gang of fraudsters, who impersonated police officers to con at least 18 elderly victims in the south of England out of more than £600,000. There were attempts to steal almost double that amount."

    Cameron was right when he said Corbyn was a danger to national security....
    Especially when the fraud was in aid of ISIS:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12044641/Jeremy-Corbyn-writes-letter-pleading-for-fraudster-Mohamed-Dahir-to-be-freed-for-Christmas.html
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016

    John_M said:

    FPT: (I normally don't bother, but I'd looked up numbers and everything)

    The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always in a crisis.

    NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.

    PS Get well soon Harry!

    From what I see we are spending 134 billion now and 138 billion next year. I think this is about 9% of our spending.
    It's not the employees who have trouble understanding the "crisis", it's the funders. 9% is a bit low for the Westen world, and a bit under half what the US spends
    And yet we have better outcomes then the US.
    I think it would be fair to say that their "best", with huge sums chucked at it, is possibly better than our "best", but that their "worst" compares very badly with anywhere else in the developed world, and probably badly compared with much of the Third! Figures can be manipulated to prove almost anything.
    Yes. But you were comparing total spend.
    I was, but beneath such firm figures lies a quicksand of differences, pointing in many different direction.

    It is, after all, said that an economist is one who, with his head in the oven and his feet in the freezer, declaures himself to be at a comfortable temperature, on average!
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.
    ?

    which local govts are supposed to be responsible for the american born san bernadino shooter and his wife? You'd like to blame pakistan?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    edited 2015 11
    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.

    Under 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East.....over 60% are in South East Asia & South Asia.....

    And I think the Middle East governments are pretty proactive at fighting (who they see as) extremists on their home turf.....

    There are more Muslims in the US than Oman, Qatar, Lebanon.....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.

    Under 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East.....over 60% are in South East Asia & South Asia.....

    And I think the Middle East governments are pretty proactive at fighting (who they see as) extremists on their home turf.....

    There are more Muslims in the US than Oman, Qatar, Lebanon.....
    A fair point, but the troublemakers seem to be concentrated in the middle east!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.
    ?

    which local govts are supposed to be responsible for the american born san bernadino shooter and his wife? You'd like to blame pakistan?
    Perhaps inspired by the current madness in the middle east?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.

    Under 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East.....over 60% are in South East Asia & South Asia.....

    And I think the Middle East governments are pretty proactive at fighting (who they see as) extremists on their home turf.....

    There are more Muslims in the US than Oman, Qatar, Lebanon.....
    A fair point, but the troublemakers seem to be concentrated in the middle east!
    After 9/11 (which was all Middle East, mainly Saudi) the US provided half of the Muslims involved in terrorist attacks - another 40% were in the US naturalised or on Green Cards - and of the two foreigners, one was a Brit, the other Nigerian:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/25/us/us-muslim-extremists-terrorist-attacks.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Nearly six-in-10 Americans oppose Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, but Republicans are evenly divided, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

    Fifty-seven percent of all adults disagree with Trump's proposal, versus 25 percent who agree.

    But views are mixed among Republicans: 42 percent of GOP respondents support Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while 36 percent oppose it.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-57-oppose-trumps-muslim-proposal-n477941

    Seems like Muslims have a bit of a PR problem these days.... If only the local governments in the Middle East were more proactive in fighting extremism.

    Under 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East.....over 60% are in South East Asia & South Asia.....

    And I think the Middle East governments are pretty proactive at fighting (who they see as) extremists on their home turf.....

    There are more Muslims in the US than Oman, Qatar, Lebanon.....
    A fair point, but the troublemakers seem to be concentrated in the middle east!
    After 9/11 (which was all Middle East, mainly Saudi) the US provided half of the Muslims involved in terrorist attacks - another 40% were in the US naturalised or on Green Cards - and of the two foreigners, one was a Brit, the other Nigerian:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/25/us/us-muslim-extremists-terrorist-attacks.html
    Yeah, I'm not denying that (nor am I saying that banning muslims would help), but they don't act in isolation.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    edited 2015 11
    If the two main candidates are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, there will be an age gap of 23 years 7 months between them. That's the biggest age gap between the two main candidates since, er, 2008 when there was a 25-year gap between McCain and Obama. But otherwise, anyway, 1856 or before.

    http://dadaviz.com/s/general-elections
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JohnLoony said:

    If the two main candidates are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, there will be an age gap of 23 years 7 months between them. That's the biggest age gap between the two main candidates since, er, 2008 when there was a 25-year gap between McCain and Obama. But otherwise, anyway, 1856 or before.

    http://dadaviz.com/s/general-elections

    how is rubio going to get past trump?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    Ooops!

    HOLYROOD chiefs have rejected an unprecedented bid by the Scottish Government to block controversial new UK trade union laws being implemented north of the Border.....

    .....Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser said: “The SNP now have egg on their faces after trying to play constitutional games in relation to what clearly is a reserved matter for the UK government.”


    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/holyrood-kick-out-snp-bid-to-block-trade-union-laws-1-3971932
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790

    JohnLoony said:

    If the two main candidates are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, there will be an age gap of 23 years 7 months between them. That's the biggest age gap between the two main candidates since, er, 2008 when there was a 25-year gap between McCain and Obama. But otherwise, anyway, 1856 or before.

    http://dadaviz.com/s/general-elections

    how is rubio going to get past trump?
    Trump is not going to be the Republican Party candidate for POTUS. Therefore somebody else will be. One of the possible Somebody Elses is Marco Rubio.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    If the two main candidates are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, there will be an age gap of 23 years 7 months between them. That's the biggest age gap between the two main candidates since, er, 2008 when there was a 25-year gap between McCain and Obama. But otherwise, anyway, 1856 or before.

    http://dadaviz.com/s/general-elections

    how is rubio going to get past trump?
    Trump is not going to be the Republican Party candidate for POTUS. Therefore somebody else will be. One of the possible Somebody Elses is Marco Rubio.
    I hope you are right!
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    Ooops!

    why oops? Looked like a long shot, but worth a try. Didn't come off. so what?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    Ooops!

    why oops? Looked like a long shot, but worth a try. Didn't come off. so what?
    You would have thought they would have read the Scotland Act 1998 to check if it was a reserved matter or not. It's quite clear.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    scotslass said:

    shiney2

    Yes climbing slowly unlike the ban petiton which is going up fast.

    Just in case you missed it the scores on the board are

    BAN THE TRUMP 497,076
    DON'T BAN 26,001

    IN OTHER WORDS YOUR LOT ARE DOWN BY ALMOST 20-1!

    497,076 people DO NOT believe in Freedom of Speech :lol:
    The DON't BAN was allegedly at 50,000 before being doctored. and 497,076 signatures do not mean 497,076 people, it means 497,076 e-mail addresses. Most people have more than one - and if you were determined to influence opinion by voting using an e-mail address it would be dead easy to create 20, 30 or 100.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    Harborough DC, Market Harborough Logan- 10th December 2015

    LD Barbara Johnson 402 [45.2%; +9%]
    Conservative 303 [34%; -1.3%]
    Labour 82 [9.2%; -5.9%]
    Green 56 [6.3%; -7.1%]
    UKIP 47 [5.3%; +5.3%]
    Majority: 99
    LD Hold
    Percentage change since 2015

    Huntingdonshire DC, Huntingdon East- 10th December 2015

    LD Stephen Greenall 844 [45%; +17%]
    Conservative 596 [31.8%; -3.3%]
    UKIP 293 [15.6%; -7.8%]
    Labour 141 [7.5%; -4.9%]
    [TUSC [0.0%; -1.1%]]
    Majority: 248
    LD gain from UKIP
    Percentage change since 2015

    Bournemouth UA, Kinson South (two seats)- 10th December 2015

    Conservative 520 [32.4%; +7.8%]
    Conservative 509
    Labour 471 [29.4%; +7.0%]
    Labour 371
    UKIP 313 [19.5%; -5.8%]
    Bournemouth Independent Alliance 168 [10.5%; +0.4%]
    Bournemouth Independent Alliance 116
    Green 63 [3.9%; -5.8%]
    LD Gill Pardy 61 [3.8%; -4%]
    LD Phil Dunn 60
    Green 54
    Patria 8 [0.5%; +0.5%]
    Two Conservative Holds
    Percentage change since 2015

    North East Derbyshire DC, Holmwood & Heath- 10th December 2015

    Labour 287 [79.3%; +7.7%]
    Conservative 75 [20.7%; -7.7%]
    Turnout: 13.3%
    Majority: 212
    Labour Hold
    Percentage change since 2015

    North East Derbyshire DC, Coal Aston- 10th December 2015

    Conservative 606 [66.6%; +15.1%]
    Labour 304 [33.4%; -1%]
    [UKIP [0.0%; -14.1%]]
    Majority: 302
    Conservative Hold
    Percentage change since 2015

    Fylde BC, Clifton- 10th December 2015

    Conservative 576 [59.8%; +14%]
    UKIP 128 [13.3%; +13.3%]
    Independent 122 [12.7%; +12.7%]
    Labour 84 [8.7%; -9.6%]
    LD Luke Gibbon 53 [5.5%; +5.5%]
    Majority: 448
    Conservative Hold
    Percentage change since 2015

    South Lanarkshire, Blantyre – 10th December 2015

    Listed below are the first preference votes:
    Labour 1,476 [47.2%; -7%]
    SNP 1,236 [39.6%; +8.9%]
    Conservative 140 [4.5%; +0.6%]
    Scottish Socialist 122 [3.9%; +3.9%]
    LD Stephen Reid 92 [2.9%; +2.2%]
    UKIP 59 [1.9%; +1.9%]
    [Previous Independents [0.0%; -6%]]
    [Christian [0.0%; -4.6%]]
    Labour Hold
    Percentage since 2012

This discussion has been closed.