Andrea, this kind of continued media exposure in the run up to the Indy Ref will do Anas Sarwar's future political career no harm at all. In fact, the Indy debate is giving the Opposition politicians far more exposure than they would otherwise expect during a normal Holyrood Parliament. And that could have some interesting implications for the current SNP Government and their opponents come the next Scottish elections.
The STV debate about Welfare and Pensions will see Nicola Sturgeon vs Anas Sarwar.
Nicola: “And I’m relishing the opportunity to spell out to people how an independent Scotland, in which we always get the governments we vote for, will have a fairer welfare system that protects the most vulnerable in our society.”
So the assumption is that an independent Scotland will always have a fairer welfare system regardless of who will win elections there. Or that SNP will always win elections there.
Richard, there is only one little problem. The majority in this country does not think like you. If they did, we would always have a Tory government and we have not had a Tory majority government for 21 years. See the connection ?
yes, there is a substantial anti-Tory prejudice, which I'm well aware of. It explains why the last government - one of the worst since WWII - was able to get away with being so bad for so long; they just needed to frighten the voters with the bogeyman and get re-elected despite being so appalling. And, yes, Labour have the advantages of the electoral system being skewed towards them (not being democrats, they don't care about that of course).
So, remarkably, according to the latest YouGov, an astonishing 38% of people who say they'll vote say they'll vote Labour. If we take it at face value, that is a staggering figure, the triumph of hope over experience.
And yet, despite all that, fewer than half of those who claim they'll vote for Ed (and only one in 5 of all voters) think he's up to the job.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they're spoofing, and, when push comes to shove, they won't vote for him; or they will vote for him despite their assessment of him, in which case he'll start his premiership in the weakest position of any PM in my lifetime, having done absolutely nothing whatsoever to prepare his party or the public for the difficult decisions which he will be forced into.
That's is why you should be terrified of winning.
I am not at all terrified of winning. I am positively looking forward to have a Parliamentary government. WE don't elect dictators in this country, we elect Parties who then form a government and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
Actually, the PM receives only about 20k - 30k votes.
Not quite as embarrassing as predicting a scottish tory surge right up to the GE though is it?
I know, I know. I realize what she actually implied with that line. It was a nice soundbite for her case. I wasn't criticizing it. My point wasn't "political". It was more about the theoretical assumption behind it if taken literally (which isn't the case for any normal reader). So yes, it was a waste of time. But as I mysteriously thought about it when reading it, I decided to share.
We don't "connect" very much :-). It's like with the President Officer and Galloway in previous time. We were speaking about two different things without coming in together :-) I blame the late hours.
It was Alex Salmond who predicted a big surge for the SNP before the last GE, that failure at least saved us the embarrassment of Salmond trying to land his helicopter on the lawns of Westminster. The SNP still only need a taxi. lol
Richard, there is only one little problem. The majority in this country does not think like you. If they did, we would always have a Tory government and we have not had a Tory majority government for 21 years. See the connection ?
yes, there is a substantial anti-Tory prejudice, which I'm well aware of. It explains why the last government - one of the worst since WWII - was able to get away with being so bad for so long; they just needed to frighten the voters with the bogeyman and get re-elected despite being so appalling. And, yes, Labour have the advantages of the electoral system being skewed towards them (not being democrats, they don't care about that of course).
So, remarkably, according to the latest YouGov, an astonishing 38% of people who say they'll vote say they'll vote Labour. If we take it at face value, that is a staggering figure, the triumph of hope over experience.
And yet, despite all that, fewer than half of those who claim they'll vote for Ed (and only one in 5 of all voters) think he's up to the job.
Now, there are two possibilities. Either they're spoofing, and, when push comes to shove, they won't vote for him; or they will vote for him despite their assessment of him, in which case he'll start his premiership in the weakest position of any PM in my lifetime, having done absolutely nothing whatsoever to prepare his party or the public for the difficult decisions which he will be forced into.
That's is why you should be terrified of winning.
I am not at all terrified of winning. I am positively looking forward to have a Parliamentary government. WE don't elect dictators in this country, we elect Parties who then form a government and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
Actually, the PM receives only about 20k - 30k votes.
Not quite as embarrassing as predicting a scottish tory surge right up to the GE though is it?
Thatcher had a 48 point net lead over Foot, and the left was split. The biggest lead Cameron has had in the three months out of the last eighteen where he's managed a lead has been ten.And the right is split.
Now perhaps Cameron will unite the right and suddenly become A league, but I wouldn't want to bet on it after the last election. He just isn't that good.
I thought you understood the model. It has nothing to do with the approval lead.
It is the absolute approval divided by those who say they'll vote for one of the big two parties, adjusted by sign for either a Labour or Tory PM.
I know, I know. I realize what she actually implied with that line. My point was about the theoretical assumption behind it if taken literally (which isn't the case for any normal reader).
We don't "connect" very much :-). It's like with the President Officer and Galloway in previous time. We were speaking about two different things without coming in together :-)
Okay, let's bring to down to brass tack then. For there to be a scottish government that enacts unpopular welfare refoms akin to the current ones then it's fair to assume that would almost certainly involve a scottish tory government or a coalition scottish tory lib dem administration. (That's giving SLAB the benefit of the doubt you'll notice)
The plain fact of the matter is that the scottish public won't consider a scottish tory government being elected all that realistic a proposition and rightly so. Might that change untold years down the line? Of course. It's not impossible just very, very unlikely.
So we're dealing with what the scottish public will assume to be the likely outcomes after independence which is quite obviously scottish politics being dominated by SLAB and the SNP for the foreseeable future. That's why assumptions about the future direction of policy in an independent scotland would be a great deal more left of centre than westminster. The tories just won't be able to be in power over scotland with one MP like they are in westminster currently.
SLAB or Anwar arguing against that might be a bit of a tactical error considering the current reality of tory lib dem westminster rule and the somewhat urgent need for SLAB not to be seen as cheerleaders for that coalition given it's somewhat less than popular status in scotland,
On the Labour party travails over recent weeks, its interesting that Tom Watson singled out Andy Burnham for praise in the Shadow Cabinet while criticising the rest of them collectively. Mudie who came out and launched the first salvo against the Ed Miliband Leadership team is also a Brownite like Watson. Bryant was intending to make a big splash on the issue of immigration before he performed a painful political belly flop. Watson and Bryant have previous form as key members of the team of junior Labour ministers who moved against Blair. And there is now some very negative briefing against Jim Murphy in particular, a politician who has certainly also invoked the ire of the UNITE leader in recent months. Interestingly, Murphy and Alexander have been as quiet as Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper since the summer recess.
The same local knowledge that led fitalass to also predict that the forests sell off would be popular. That insight was special due to her....proximity to a forest!
Her 'special insight' also doesn't stretch as far as realising the SNP won a landslide majority in 2011 under a system specifically designed to prevent that. While her beloved incompetent fop Cammie had to go running to Clegg to save him under FPTP.
Cammie is only PM because Clegg and the lib dems are there propping him up. That's the brutal truth that the PB Burleys always fail to understand.
I know, I know. I realize what she actually implied with that line. My point was about the theoretical assumption behind it if taken literally (which isn't the case for any normal reader).
We don't "connect" very much :-). It's like with the President Officer and Galloway in previous time. We were speaking about two different things without coming in together :-)
Okay, let's bring to down to brass tack then. For there to be a scottish government that enacts unpopular welfare refoms akin to the current ones then it's fair to assume that would almost certainly involve a scottish tory government or a coalition scottish tory lib dem administration. (That's giving SLAB the benefit of the doubt you'll notice)
The plain fact of the matter is that the scottish public won't consider a scottish tory government being elected all that realistic a proposition and rightly so. Might that change untold years down the line? Of course. It's not impossible just very, very unlikely.
So we're dealing with what the scottish public will assume to be the likely outcomes after independence which is quite obviously scottish politics being dominated by SLAB and the SNP for the foreseeable future. That's why assumptions about the future direction of policy in an independent scotland would be a great deal more left of centre than westminster. The tories just won't be able to be in power over scotland with one MP like they are in westminster currently.
SLAB or Anwar arguing against that might be a bit of a tactical error considering the current reality of tory lib dem westminster rule and the somewhat urgent need for SLAB not to be seen as cheerleaders for that coalition given it's somewhat less than popular status in scotland,
Pork, a quiet word of friendly advice.
Picking a fight with a poster whose second name is Parma is not wise for one whose second name is Pork.
@fitalass, the problem is that in some cases it can also showcase...how bad some of them are!
You have to realise the anti-tipster didn't just put here 'special touch' on the likes of Annabel Goldie but also Danny Alexander and "no-brainer" McTernan, to name just two more hilarious examples.
Even a Labour stalwart like Henry G. Manson says there are doubts about Murphy and his loyalty to little Ed after the Falkirk disaster. Which is only to be expected after the anti-tipster bestowed him her 'magical approval'.
Ok, I apologize. I confess it: I just wanted to make a pedant point about a line not including the unlikely possibility a right wing government being elected in Scotland in 20 years time or "not so left" SLAB imposing unfair cuts if they get in in a future independent Scotland!
Do you really think I didn't realize the real practical assumption behind the sentence and needed it to be explained (but you were effective in presenting the case if it can make your effort less worthless. Or if you want to double for Nicola against Boy Sarwar)? I am offended now! :-) I mean, I know Italian education system is not particularly good, but they don't give PhD away totally at random. Well, almost so though.
"Do you really think I didn't realize the real practical assumption behind the sentence and needed it to be explained?"
You did seem to have a problem with Sturgeon setting out her stall to be fair Andrea. The whole point of these debates should be to acknowledge the possibilities as well as any downsides of an independent scotland. So yes there should be some emphasis that what the scottish public votes for the scoitish public will get, even if it is a scottish tory administration.
Indeed, very odd, giving Cameron credit for legislation that Blair gave us!
It reminds me of a Sunday afternoon in the mid 1990s when I was disturbed by a telephone call from a Russian business contact whose new boss had been stopped at Heathrow and prevented from entering the country. I was asked to recommend/find some "good lawyers" to get him pass customs and immigration.
The problem. The Russian boss had a wallet with $100,000 in cash in it.
As 'Sergei' said: "This is pocket money for a Russian businessman!".
To reply belatedly to Grandiose - I expect Ed's figures among supporters to pick up if the lead holds (as I think it largely will): a lot of Labour chin-stroking is about whether Ed is leading by enough rather than whether they actually think he'd be a good PM. That said, at present expectations are not especially high because the Labour perception is that the Government is going to leave a mess behind it, so there won't be much money for good stuff. There isn't any expectation of a spending splurge, even though some wish there was.
Not a golf fan myself but apparently Europe have retained the Solheim Cup for the first time.
I'm watching it now. They haven't won it on US soil before which will be the 'first time' record when that happens in a few minutes, not the retention.
Not the result I was hoping for, but congratulations etc etc.
To reply belatedly to Grandiose - I expect Ed's figures among supporters to pick up if the lead holds (as I think it largely will): a lot of Labour chin-stroking is about whether Ed is leading by enough rather than whether they actually think he'd be a good PM. That said, at present expectations are not especially high because the Labour perception is that the Government is going to leave a mess behind it, so there won't be much money for good stuff. There isn't any expectation of a spending splurge, even though some wish there was.
Labour are really going nowhere with the line "the Coalition Government is going to leave a mess behind it" and any claim that this the reason "there won't be much money for good stuff".
In 2010-12, the OECD set out the levels of fiscal consolidation that all its members would need to implement if their individual current budget deficits were to be reduced to less than 3% of GDP and if their debt levels were to be paid down to a level of less than 60% of GDP by 2030. The 3% deficit and 60% debt levels were both international 'norms' and EU Maastricht treaty requirements.
I haven't the figures open in front of me but the UK, which was amongst the worst of the major economies in terms of starting point, needed to consolidate by somewhere around 7.5% on pre-crisis levels.
To date, the Coalition government has only implemented sufficient fiscal consolidation to meet 40% of the needed reduction and even an optimistic forecast of where we will be in 2015 is around 50%. That means that a combination of further cuts, tax rises and economic growth is still needed to complete the remaining 50% of required fiscal consolidation.
As time passes GDP growth should do most of the heavy lifting, but further cuts in spending cannot be avoided, and, if any further borrowing is to be contemplated even for infrastructure capex, then tax rises will also be required.
So to even suggest there will be "money for good stuff" is alarming. And to claim that 50% of the target fiscal consolidation already achieved leaves the next government a "mess" is quite simply deception on an almost criminal scale.
Yes, there will be room to shunt money around in accordance with the priorities of whatever government is in power, but any such redistribution would have to be fiscally neutral if the UK is to maintain the confidence of the markets and economic agencies.
Europe retain the Solheim Cup on US soil, the first time they have done so. Much kudos to 17 years 4 months old Charley Hull who demolished Paula Creamer 5 and 4, then rushing to her golf bag and producing a golf ball and asking for Paula's autogtaph.
Caroline Hedwall becomes the first player to go 5-0 in Solheim Cup history.
The next Solheim Cup is in Germany.
The bad news is that 11 of the 12 players on the European team play full time on the LPGA Tour in the US. Couple that with names like McIlroy, Westwood, McDowell, Donald etc playing on the PGA Tour and it makes the huge talent and money gap between the European and US tours even more stark.
how is it called in English the part of a long sentence in between commas?
It is called a clause.
Many years ago Mensa tried to recruit me, and I went to the local branch's Xmas party. It was fancy dress. The winner was a woman in a French maid's outfit with her husband dressed as Father Christmas, restrained by a dog's collar and leash.
Much kudos to 17 years 4 months old Charley Hull who demolished Paula Creamer 5 and 4, then rushing to her golf bag and producing a golf ball and asking for Paula's autograph.
...and then in the lovely way that autograph-hunters do, claiming it was really for her "friend" Jason
Edit: That was on her SkySports1 interview - TimB might not have seen that!
Much kudos to 17 years 4 months old Charley Hull who demolished Paula Creamer 5 and 4, then rushing to her golf bag and producing a golf ball and asking for Paula's autograph.
...and then in the lovely way that autograph-hunters do, claiming it was really for her "friend" Jason
Edit: That was on her SkySports1 interview - TimB might not have seen that!
Nope - I am watching Golf Channel coverage. I gather Laura Davies is on the Sky commentary team.
At least I am honest - when I asked Tom Watson to sign my copy of Jim Huber's book on the 2009 Open Championship, I even asked him to write 'To Tim'.
When I had one of my copies of Lady Thatcher's autobiography signed, the minder at the head of the queue warned us not to ask the Baroness for personal dedications. So of course I complied.
The person behind me in the queue ignored instructions and was rewarded with a personal dedication - to the general fury of others. I have learned to let go of most of the resentments in my life but that one is unshakable.
Oh NickP, seriously?! I will file this prediction along with your slap down to me where you claimed that no backbench rebellion to oust Gordon Brown imminent as you were a Labour MP living in the Westminster bubble, and thus in the know where as I was not........24 before a backbench rebellion was launched against Gordon Brown! But lucky for you, I don't feel the need to remind you of this fact almost daily on the site, any more anyone else does with regard OGH's expectations for Nigel Farage in John Bercow's seat at the last GE. But then I am not a repetitive troll like Mick Pork or Tim when presented with a comment they don't like by a Scottish Tory poster!
To reply belatedly to Grandiose - I expect Ed's figures among supporters to pick up if the lead holds (as I think it largely will): a lot of Labour chin-stroking is about whether Ed is leading by enough rather than whether they actually think he'd be a good PM. That said, at present expectations are not especially high because the Labour perception is that the Government is going to leave a mess behind it, so there won't be much money for good stuff. There isn't any expectation of a spending splurge, even though some wish there was.
When I had one of my copies of Lady Thatcher's autobiography signed, the minder at the head of the queue warned us not to ask the Baroness for personal dedications. So of course I complied.
The person behind me in the queue ignored instructions and was rewarded with a personal dedication - to the general fury of others. I have learned to let go of most of the resentments in my life but that one is unshakable.
I've always been a 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' guy.
In the mid 1960s we moved to Tenerife. BBC Deejay and former band leader Jack Jackson, who also lived there, and my dad became friends. At his house one day I asked what he did with all the demo discs once he'd used them. He excused himself and returned with a box full of 7 inch demo discs, one of the sleeves of which he autographed for me. I still have them, with the big A on one side.
It was pretty obvious when Labour passed laws letting the authorities suspend people's rights by saying "terrorism" without even needing reasonable cause for suspicion that it was going to be abused like this. I don't suppose they'll support fixing it.
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
@Plato I enjoyed that - had to go over there and hit Recommend
There are more sensible Toryish comments over at CiF now than in the Telegraph which is now totally overrun by Kippers and EDL supporters. Almost every article Tim Stanley pens has a bunch of comments with lots of recommends for Tommy Robinson.
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
Do you think they suspected he was involved in terrorism?
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
Do you think they suspected he was involved in terrorism?
You don't need to be involved in ^terrorism^ to be detained. Check out the relevant bit of the Act its very broad.
Stuart Wheeler, the UKIP Treasurer, was accused of sexism when he made the comment during a debate about whether companies should be forced to appoint more women to senior posts.
In an attempt to debunk his theory, Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former under-14s UK girls chess champion, has challenged him to a game. She offered to hold the match in Parliament. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3846424.ece
There are more sensible Toryish comments over at CiF now than in the Telegraph which is now totally overrun by Kippers and EDL supporters. Almost every article Tim Stanley pens has a bunch of comments with lots of recommends for Tommy Robinson.
I tend to troll on the Telegraph news articles themselves rather than the blogs. So I see a slightly superior class of nutter.
My efforts might not have SeanT worried yet but I'm learning how to press their buttons
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
Do you think they suspected he was involved in terrorism?
You don't need to be involved in ^terrorism^ to be detained. Check out the relevant bit of the Act its very broad.
It's supposed to be an anti-terrorist power, the fact that the definition is ludicrously vague and could be abused to apply it to all kinds of activities unrelated to terrorism is exactly what we're bitching about.
There are more sensible Toryish comments over at CiF now than in the Telegraph which is now totally overrun by Kippers and EDL supporters. Almost every article Tim Stanley pens has a bunch of comments with lots of recommends for Tommy Robinson.
I tend to troll on the Telegraph news articles themselves rather than the blogs. So I see a slightly superior class of nutter.
My efforts might not have SeanT worried yet but I'm learning how to press their buttons
The total sense of humour failure re Tweet Like A Righty was epic. I think I was one of a handful who admitted to laughing at it. Hundreds of others all po-faced and changing the subject. A year ago there was a blog taking the mick out of Kippers and EUSSR type comments and the reaction was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and very grumpy.
Having the confidence to laugh at yourself is essential and there are a lot of thin skins there. Given the leg pulling is very gentle = I found the reaction a bit sad.
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
Do you think they suspected he was involved in terrorism?
You don't need to be involved in ^terrorism^ to be detained. Check out the relevant bit of the Act its very broad.
It's supposed to be an anti-terrorist power, the fact that the definition is ludicrously vague and could be abused to apply it to all kinds of activities unrelated to terrorism is exactly what we're bitching about.
That's another issue entirely. He was detained using the Act and that seems legal. That the def is so broad as to be fishing net sized is ...
As I said, I really have no outrage here - he was detained using a lawful power because he is on watchlist re Snowden. A traitor who defected to Russia as far as the US is concerned. The World's Smallest Violin is playing here. Like Assange.
Oz election ads going all negative, in fact quite scary, as Labor try to claw back some votes. Now same sex marriage is supposed to be an issue. It is not. It is the economy and jobs for most people.
On same sex issue, pushed into the election by the ABC, they are pushing agenda strongly. Lead story is NZ marrying Oz couples and ABC implying they are now legally married. Even when they return to Oz.
But that to me is a conundrum.
My question is, should we accept the laws of other countries on marriage, after all many people of Muslim extraction have bona fide and legal polygamous marriages, should they be legal too? Or is it OK for same sex but not multi partner marriages? Who decides what is legally right, the lefty thought police or the law of the land? What about Mormons, should they also have their polygamous quasi-marriages legally binding when in Oz. Claim a spouse tax benefit on 3 or 4 partners perhaps?
People should be able to be with who they want. Without any problems. Pay tax as couples or multi partnered people by all means too. I have lesbian friends and even offered to provide sperm for their child, (rejected I add!) so please do not call me homophobic as the issues are mutually exclusive.
But marriage to me is only between a single man and a single woman, not 1 man and 4 women, or 2 men or any other combination. The ABC views on their comedy shows that people will come around and this thinking is old fashioned does not match my thinking on this matter.
Oz election ads going all negative, in fact quite scary, as Labor try to claw back some votes. Now same sex marriage is supposed to be an issue. It is not. It is the economy and jobs for most people.
On same sex issue, pushed into the election by the ABC, they are pushing agenda strongly. Lead story is NZ marrying Oz couples and ABC implying they are now legally married. Even when they return to Oz.
But that to me is a conundrum...
Well if we take the US for example, gay marriages are only recognised by those states which have legalised it. So using that logic, a gay marriage in NZ would not be recognised by AU, but would be recognised in the UK (when the relevant laws are enacted). i.e. marriages are only recognised if you could have got married the same way in that country.
But marriage to me is only between a single man and a single woman, not 1 man and 4 women, or 2 men or any other combination.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. We got to the word first. Get your own if you are teh ghey. Civil Partnerships was just fine as a phrase and you got to enjoy all of the same things that marriage brings straight people. Misery, nagging, no sex and an argument whenever you even look sideways at someone else.
Do whatever you like and call it what you like as long as it doesn't affect me, cause civil disorder or cost me anything in taxes to pay you benefits. Keep the State out of organised relationships, and that includes handing out maternity leave "rights" etc.
The other week a woman married a bridge and the world didn't end. And I didn't pay for it. So its a Meh-Win-Win situation there.
The less the government does in any situation apart from defence of the realm the better.
Well if we take the US for example, gay marriages are only recognised by those states which have legalised it.
That's no longer completely the case. Benefits are being paid and visas are being issued at federal level and recognition across state lines is being enforced that way now. Salami tactics. States' rights are being pushed aside in this case very quickly.
the evidence from recent weeks is not only that an economic recovery is here, but that it is gathering pace. If this proves to be sustained into 2014, it could have profound and far-reaching consequences for us all.
Almost every number you can imagine is suddenly pointing in the right direction. House prices are rising in all regions of the country,
Whether inflation is good news might depend on whether you are a would-be first time buyer or not.
Hear hear.
Actually the only people who benefit from house price inflation are those who are trading down. Everyone else* loses.
* ref: principle private residences, not investors
The kind of complete ignorant bullshit that could only be posted by an ancestral property-owner, inheriting his ever-greater wealth, even as his achievements and IQ revert to the mean (as mathematics provides).
If you are a first-time or second generation property owner, the idea that your HOUSE is increasing in value by thousands of pounds a year, without you having to do anything, is enormously satisfying, indeed stimulating, and gives you the confidence to go out and make further purchases/investments/loans, thus fuelling the national economy as a whole.
Thatcher entirely and completely understood this, dismal posh mediocre low-watt IQ Tories do not.
Spot on Sean.
I have no doubt the economy has now turned and with house prices starting to increase it is going to look very very good for the Conservatives. They will go with the mantra that won them the elections from 1979 onwards: 'look it was tough, but see we pulled you through'.
What I find interesting about the Mori chart is that it shows that the legend that the tories lost their economic credibility on Black Wednesday never to regain it is no more than an urban myth. Ken Clarke was a popular and successful Chancellor and it did the tories no good whatsoever.
The other connected factor is that the collapse in belief in the tories' economic competence did not happen before the election but after it. By May 2008 the April 2007 figures are almost exactly reversed. No doubt a good part of that is the incumbancy bonus which makes me very suspicious of best PM figures.
Nevertheless, I wonder if we might see something similar this time. No longer clothed with the authority of office and the support of the Civil Service Labour's economic policies look increasingly ridiculous, if only in hindsight. It took a very long time and some truly epic incompetence by Brown for the tories to recover on this measure. Given we are now likely to have 2 years of growth I think it is likely that the gap on this measure will be much greater at the next election than it was at the last one.
Stuart Wheeler, the UKIP Treasurer, was accused of sexism when he made the comment during a debate about whether companies should be forced to appoint more women to senior posts.
In an attempt to debunk his theory, Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former under-14s UK girls chess champion, has challenged him to a game. She offered to hold the match in Parliament. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3846424.ece
In relation to chess, Stuart Wheeler is unarguably right. In over 100 years of grandmaster chess, Judit Polgár is the only woman who has ever broken the top 10.
His point is not quite as strong when he's talking about bridge and poker, though in both he has an argument to make. And whether any of the three are reasons that more women shouldn't be appointed to senior roles is a different matter entirely.
"A survey of executive directors at more than 200 mid-cap listed companies by Edison Investment Research found that 56pc expect to increase capital expenditure over the next year – nearly double the level of the last survey just six months ago."
Investment is so far the dog that has not barked. UK companies have been sitting on substantial cash piles (in aggregate) for years now but have not had the confidence to invest. If that starts to change then we will have much healthier and balanced growth going forward. Less "feel good" from an electoral point of view perhaps but far more important economically.
What I find interesting about the Mori chart is that it shows that the legend that the tories lost their economic credibility on Black Wednesday never to regain it is no more than an urban myth. Ken Clarke was a popular and successful Chancellor and it did the tories no good whatsoever.
.
Garbage.
Go and look at Anthony Wells's charts and watch how the Cons share of the vote plunges as 1992 wears on, into 1993. As the meme took over Labour leads soared.
"A survey of executive directors at more than 200 mid-cap listed companies by Edison Investment Research found that 56pc expect to increase capital expenditure over the next year – nearly double the level of the last survey just six months ago."
Investment is so far the dog that has not barked. UK companies have been sitting on substantial cash piles (in aggregate) for years now but have not had the confidence to invest. If that starts to change then we will have much healthier and balanced growth going forward. Less "feel good" from an electoral point of view perhaps but far more important economically.
If true ( and lets hope it is ) then the corporate glacier is starting to move
Actually the only people who benefit from house price inflation are those who are trading down. Everyone else* loses.
* ref: principle private residences, not investors
The kind of complete ignorant bullshit that could only be posted by an ancestral property-owner, inheriting his ever-greater wealth, even as his achievements and IQ revert to the mean (as mathematics provides).
Or someone who actually knows something about macroeconomics.
If you are a first-time or second generation property owner, the idea that your HOUSE is increasing in value by thousands of pounds a year, without you having to do anything, is enormously satisfying, indeed stimulating, and gives you the confidence to go out and make further purchases/investments/loans, thus fuelling the national economy as a whole.
Thatcher entirely and completely understood this, dismal posh mediocre low-watt IQ Tories do not.
Sure, house prices increases the confidence of current property owners, and therefore has a beneficial impact on the economy as a whole from consumer spending (providing most of that stays in the UK which it doesn't at the moment). This is significantly (perhaps outweighed) by the sheer amount of productive resources that are tied up in non-wealth creating assets.
However, if you as an individual ever want to improve your housing setup, then it is negative as a whole. In terms of maths, let's say your current home is worth 100 and you aspire to move to a house worth 200 then a 10% increase in prices (assuming uniform, which is unlikely - actually non-uniform prices increases typically make things even worse) makes your home relatively less valuable. (110 vs 220)
So, if you are happy to live in a 2 bedroom flat in a bien pensant area such as, say, Primrose Hill (borders), for the rest of your life you are probably a net winner. If, on the other hand you want to buy a house with a garden because, say, you have kids that live with you then you are a net loser.
In summary: your view is right for retiring wealthy people and alcoholic former heroin addicts. Mine in right for everyone else.
Stuart Wheeler, the UKIP Treasurer, was accused of sexism when he made the comment during a debate about whether companies should be forced to appoint more women to senior posts.
In an attempt to debunk his theory, Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former under-14s UK girls chess champion, has challenged him to a game. She offered to hold the match in Parliament. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3846424.ece
In relation to chess, Stuart Wheeler is unarguably right. In over 100 years of grandmaster chess, Judit Polgár is the only woman who has ever broken the top 10.
His point is not quite as strong when he's talking about bridge and poker, though in both he has an argument to make. And whether any of the three are reasons that more women shouldn't be appointed to senior roles is a different matter entirely.
In my youth I was a reasonable club player at Chess and I beat the Scottish Women's champion quite handily. Polgar is an exception but there does seem to be something about the spacial awareness of chess that men's brains find easier and more conduicive. If I was brave I would suggest the same factor is usually demonstrated in reverse parallel parking.
Doesn't mean Reeves can't beat Wheeler of course and it certainly has nothing to do with ability for the role of a director.
From a quick skim it is, as I expected, a great load of pants. It is a report that takes a position ("we are wildly against HS2") and then tries to justify that position. A common occurrence, but as is often the case, utterly unenlightening.
The £80 billion figure is, as I expected, plucked out of nowhere. For instance, they include the costs of Crossrail 2 within it.
It would be interesting to see other projects (e.g. Heathrow expansion) treated in the same manner - adjacent (and sometimes wildly unconnected) costs chucked in until you get a suitably large and headline-worthy figure.
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways. @fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this story - he was a travelling as a spouse not a journo but was paid for by the Guardian?
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
Do you think they suspected he was involved in terrorism?
You don't need to be involved in ^terrorism^ to be detained. Check out the relevant bit of the Act its very broad.
It's supposed to be an anti-terrorist power, the fact that the definition is ludicrously vague and could be abused to apply it to all kinds of activities unrelated to terrorism is exactly what we're bitching about.
Blatant hypocrisy is another matter entirely so why on earth did you think that would concern the world's least convincing 'libertarian floating voter' ?
Remember their shrieking and outrage over NannyCam's snoopers charter and his boneheaded internet filter? Precisely.
Blair and Brown's authoritarian stupidity is an outrage but NannyCam's authoritarian stupidity is none of our concern and nothing to see here. Simple! ;^ )
I do not think that economic growth will solve the Tories problems. While it is fairly easy to sloganise along the "things are getting better, dont let Labour ruin it" theme; but rather as in 1997 Labour may benefit from the "things are finally getting better, time to soften the austerity" meme.
I think the Tories are most likely to benefit if the recovery is looking a bit fragile still; which is probably the most likely situation.
Unlike 2010, which was rather a poisoned chalice, 2015 may be the one to win. It is not yet clear though what a Miliband govt would do with its inheritance, squandering it via Balls is a definite possibility.
What I find interesting about the Mori chart is that it shows that the legend that the tories lost their economic credibility on Black Wednesday never to regain it is no more than an urban myth. Ken Clarke was a popular and successful Chancellor and it did the tories no good whatsoever.
The other connected factor is that the collapse in belief in the tories' economic competence did not happen before the election but after it. By May 2008 the April 2007 figures are almost exactly reversed. No doubt a good part of that is the incumbancy bonus which makes me very suspicious of best PM figures.
Nevertheless, I wonder if we might see something similar this time. No longer clothed with the authority of office and the support of the Civil Service Labour's economic policies look increasingly ridiculous, if only in hindsight. It took a very long time and some truly epic incompetence by Brown for the tories to recover on this measure. Given we are now likely to have 2 years of growth I think it is likely that the gap on this measure will be much greater at the next election than it was at the last one.
And, yet again, the biggest, most obvious issue in the whole of UK politics gets completely ignored, most notably by those who would be affected by it: what on earth happens to Labour if Ed wins, or even worse, half-wins? The idea of going into government, in what will still be very difficult circumstances, starting with the kind of negative ratings he already has, should be terrifying Labour witless. After all, things can only get worse.
Richard, there is only one little problem. The majority in this country does not think like you. If they did, we would always have a Tory government and we have not had a Tory majority government for 21 years. See the connection ?
TBF to Richard, we are all politics nerds. No one thinks like any of us.
But his point was more about Miliband/Labour's ratings 1 years after being elected PM. Hollande territory.
What I find interesting about the Mori chart is that it shows that the legend that the tories lost their economic credibility on Black Wednesday never to regain it is no more than an urban myth. Ken Clarke was a popular and successful Chancellor and it did the tories no good whatsoever.
.
Garbage.
Go and look at Anthony Wells's charts and watch how the Cons share of the vote plunges as 1992 wears on, into 1993. As the meme took over Labour leads soared.
With respect, I think you are confusing 2 different things. What the mori figures show is that in terms of economic competence the tories recovered from the shock of Black Wednesday. The figures in February 1997 show the April figure is no fluke.
What is undoubtedly true is that the voting intention figures showed a very different picture. Clarke may have been able to repair the damage on the economics but the overall perception of competence took a massive hit. The tories also fell into a civil war as blame for Black Wednesday was thrown backwards and forwards between the euro sceptics and the euro phobes. It was this division and the lack of coherence about the direction of the government that gave Blair his opportunities which of course he seized with both hands.
Cameron & May are boneheaded enough to be unwilling to use existing laws, so they add more to the list to show that they are doing something.
Guardian journalist's boyfriend arrested - shocked headlines. Egyptians shot in large numbers, footnote on inside page.
The lack of interest in Egypt compared to last time is stark. I'm in the oh-not-again camp and whilst its all horrible - I can't get engaged in it. When things work out like this - it just makes me wonder if its better to just stay out of things unless its really really bad. I'm not sure we ended up helping in the end.
James Carville's message on the campaign headquarters wall was
Change vs. more of the same The economy, stupid Don't forget health care.
People forget the first and third
And Bush senior had been in office since 1980 - so change was a very powerful message.
Change always is unless an administration has been viewed as wholly satisfactory and entirely to the voters liking. Cameron will run on change and make an appeal for a change to a full blown conservative government to differentiate between himself and the lib dems and appeal to his core voters. Even if he is more than willing to contemplate another coalition should the electoral arithmetic arise.
Good morning. Today's splash: David Cameron plans for second coalition with Liberal Democrats http://fw.to/qlwhv9X by @jameskirkup
You can call that pragmatism if you like but I guarantee you that the election campaign won't be 'vote lib dem to get cameron' from CCHQ. Labour are more likely to run with that.
I do not think that economic growth will solve the Tories problems. While it is fairly easy to sloganise along the "things are getting better, dont let Labour ruin it" theme; but rather as in 1997 Labour may benefit from the "things are finally getting better, time to soften the austerity" meme.
I think the Tories are most likely to benefit if the recovery is looking a bit fragile still; which is probably the most likely situation.
Unlike 2010, which was rather a poisoned chalice, 2015 may be the one to win. It is not yet clear though what a Miliband govt would do with its inheritance, squandering it via Balls is a definite possibility.
What I find interesting about the Mori chart is that it shows that the legend that the tories lost their economic credibility on Black Wednesday never to regain it is no more than an urban myth. Ken Clarke was a popular and successful Chancellor and it did the tories no good whatsoever.
The other connected factor is that the collapse in belief in the tories' economic competence did not happen before the election but after it. By May 2008 the April 2007 figures are almost exactly reversed. No doubt a good part of that is the incumbancy bonus which makes me very suspicious of best PM figures.
Nevertheless, I wonder if we might see something similar this time. No longer clothed with the authority of office and the support of the Civil Service Labour's economic policies look increasingly ridiculous, if only in hindsight. It took a very long time and some truly epic incompetence by Brown for the tories to recover on this measure. Given we are now likely to have 2 years of growth I think it is likely that the gap on this measure will be much greater at the next election than it was at the last one.
I completely agree Mr sox. In fact I have posted on here several times about the risks of a voteless recovery for the tories. What the growth will do is give them some credibility to be heard and a basis for a comparison but their best bet is that they can argue "this is not over yet, the damage is not yet undone". Somewhat unfortunately, at least economically, the size of the deficit will make that point for many people.
Of course in a world where the majority of Labour supporters don't even know who the Shadow Chancellor is who knows how much difference that will make.
James Carville's message on the campaign headquarters wall was
Change vs. more of the same The economy, stupid Don't forget health care.
People forget the first and third
And Bush senior had been in office since 1980 - so change was a very powerful message.
Change always is unless an administration has been viewed as wholly satisfactory and entirely to the voters liking. Cameron will run on change and make an appeal for a change to a full blown conservative government to differentiate between himself and the lib dems and appeal to his core voters. Even if he is more than willing to contemplate another coalition should the electoral arithmetic arise.
Good morning. Today's splash: David Cameron plans for second coalition with Liberal Democrats http://fw.to/qlwhv9X by @jameskirkup
You can call that pragmatism if you like but I guarantee you that the election campaign won't be 'vote lib dem to get cameron' from CCHQ. Labour are more likely to run with that.
Yes, but I don't think 'change' is particularly powerful unless people are actively sick/bored of the last administration. If the response is 'meh they're ok' then you need to make a positive case for *what* you will change rather than just argue that you need new faces in office.
Doesn't look particularly clever now though, does it? Good luck getting the voter to believe that one again. Though the one with the biggest headache is Clegg as he tries to convince tactical voters to come back and vote lib dem to keep the tories out as the lib dems usually did. Not any more.
There are a lot of difficult questions about pensions to answer - I'm glad Nicola is looking forward to it!
She will wipe the floor with him , coalition were scared to put anybody up and are represented by a Labour poodle. He inherited his seat from his Labour millionaire father who is now governor of Punjab. Lamb to the slaughter.
The STV debate about Welfare and Pensions will see Nicola Sturgeon vs Anas Sarwar.
Nicola: “And I’m relishing the opportunity to spell out to people how an independent Scotland, in which we always get the governments we vote for, will have a fairer welfare system that protects the most vulnerable in our society.”
So the assumption is that an independent Scotland will always have a fairer welfare system regardless of who will win elections there. Or that SNP will always win elections there.
"Labour is not experiencing some summer aberration. Once he secured the leadership, collapsing poll numbers, crumbling authority and growing internal discontent were always destined to be Ed Miliband’s inheritance. Now his party is commencing its long slide to defeat in 2015."
Always the same message but endlessly entertaining.
Yes, but I don't think 'change' is particularly powerful unless people are actively sick/bored of the last administration. If the response is 'meh they're ok' then you need to make a positive case for *what* you will change rather than just argue that you need new faces in office.
True up to a point. The need for new new faces at the top only really sets in after repeat administrations but no party goes into an election with a campaign message of 'another five years of more of the same' unless they are supremely confident that is what the voter wants.
Maybe they will come 2015 but given that it's a certainty labour and the tories are going to run on a barrage of economic sloganeering ('labour would wreck the economy again' 'the tories haven't fixed the economy after 5 years' etc.) the economic arguments will very quickly boil down to trust amid a flurry of competing statistics and claims that the voter tends to view with suspicion and/or boredom.
Who will benefit more from trust remains to be seen but neither party are blessed with an overabundance of it from the voter and neither have a chancellor/shadow chancellor that the public have much time for.
They are at least better positioned than Clegg and the lib dems. Lib dems running on a message of change with a toxic Clegg still leader would prove most amusing.
Cameron & May are boneheaded enough to be unwilling to use existing laws, so they add more to the list to show that they are doing something.
Guardian journalist's boyfriend arrested - shocked headlines. Egyptians shot in large numbers, footnote on inside page.
The lack of interest in Egypt compared to last time is stark. I'm in the oh-not-again camp and whilst its all horrible - I can't get engaged in it. When things work out like this - it just makes me wonder if its better to just stay out of things unless its really really bad. I'm not sure we ended up helping in the end.
In one way I agree, but there is a danger that eventually Turkey could go the same way.
Of course what is happening is a disaster for the Egyptian economy and presumably bookings for the tourist season are almost non-existent.
In 2012, Morsi won the presidential election (and the president appoints the government) by a minute majority and there are rumours that this election was fixed by the army in order that should Morsi lose (as apparently he did) that the Muslim Brotherhood would riot in such volumes that the army would not be able to keep the peace.
Apparently, Morsi and his ministers have been a disappointment to the army and has tried to impose Islamic home and foreign policy to an extent that was not expected. Hence the take-over by the army.
Egypt, being both Muslim and minority Christian, has always been a difficult place to govern and like Iraq has usually required the strong hand of a dictator to keep the peace. It would appear that the success (or otherwise) of the Arab Spring has served to embolden Islamic militants to try to impose their beliefs and practices on all the populations.
Even if they eliminated Israel, it would not satisfy the internal warring Islamic religious factions, and so a solution to the Middle East and North African religious and cultural problems (including Nigeria) is almost impossible to envisage.
Seems sensible, doesn't it? Everybody knows a continued coalition is a possibility, it makes sense to make sure they're ready for one. And Tory MPs should be happy to be consulted - it potentially gives them some leverage if they don't like some parts of the deal, and gives Cameron a bit more scope to say to the LibDems, "We have no option but to do X, Y and Z or my party will veto the agreement."
Seems sensible, doesn't it? Everybody knows a continued coalition is a possibility, it makes sense to make sure they're ready for one. And Tory MPs should be happy to be consulted - it potentially gives them some leverage if they don't like some parts of the deal, and gives Cameron a bit more scope to say to the LibDems, "We have no option but to do X, Y and Z or my party will veto the agreement."
It's entirely rational. I'd be more worried if Cameron wasn't doing some planning.
That said, I am shocked how leaky politics continues to be. You'd have thought the party as a whole would be better off if this was kept behind closed doors.
In one way I agree, but there is a danger that eventually Turkey could go the same way.
Of course what is happening is a disaster for the Egyptian economy and presumably bookings for the tourist season are almost non-existent.
In 2012, Morsi won the presidential election (and the president appoints the government) by a minute majority and there are rumours that this election was fixed by the army in order that should Morsi lose (as apparently he did) that the Muslim Brotherhood would riot in such volumes that the army would not be able to keep the peace.
Apparently, Morsi and his ministers have been a disappointment to the army and has tried to impose Islamic home and foreign policy to an extent that was not expected. Hence the take-over by the army.
Egypt, being both Muslim and minority Christian, has always been a difficult place to govern and like Iraq has usually required the strong hand of a dictator to keep the peace. It would appear that the success (or otherwise) of the Arab Spring has served to embolden Islamic militants to try to impose their beliefs and practices on all the populations.
Even if they eliminated Israel, it would not satisfy the internal warring Islamic religious factions, and so a solution to the Middle East and North African religious and cultural problems (including Nigeria) is almost impossible to envisage.
AIUI, there are other factors: 1) The MB wanted early elections; early elections favoured them as other parties were much less organised. 2) As much as I dislike Morsi and the MB, the decks were somewhat stacked against them. As well as being utterly incompetent, they were disliked by many surrounding countries, which reduced funding. AIUI, only Qatar were in favour of the MB government, lending them $8 billion. 3) Since Morsi's removal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E. have pledged $12 billion in aid to Egypt.
Egypt has been a tragedy, is a tragedy, and will continue to be a tragedy for many years to come. It is not just a secular-versus-religious fight; it is a secular-versus-religious-faction-versus-religious-faction fight.
It will not end well. Religion f'ing things up, yet again.
Seems sensible, doesn't it? Everybody knows a continued coalition is a possibility, it makes sense to make sure they're ready for one. And Tory MPs should be happy to be consulted - it potentially gives them some leverage if they don't like some parts of the deal, and gives Cameron a bit more scope to say to the LibDems, "We have no option but to do X, Y and Z or my party will veto the agreement."
It's entirely rational. I'd be more worried if Cameron wasn't doing some planning.
That said, I am shocked how leaky politics continues to be. You'd have thought the party as a whole would be better off if this was kept behind closed doors.
I strongly doubt it's just a few lowly backbenchers who have doubts about the lib dems and another coalition with them after the fun and games over boundary changes lords reform etc. Hence the leaks.
Seems sensible, doesn't it? Everybody knows a continued coalition is a possibility, it makes sense to make sure they're ready for one. And Tory MPs should be happy to be consulted - it potentially gives them some leverage if they don't like some parts of the deal, and gives Cameron a bit more scope to say to the LibDems, "We have no option but to do X, Y and Z or my party will veto the agreement."
It's entirely rational. I'd be more worried if Cameron wasn't doing some planning.
That said, I am shocked how leaky politics continues to be. You'd have thought the party as a whole would be better off if this was kept behind closed doors.
If I'm reading it right it seems to be a proposal to change some kind of party rule, which I'd have thought could only be done in public in any case.
Seems sensible, doesn't it? Everybody knows a continued coalition is a possibility, it makes sense to make sure they're ready for one. And Tory MPs should be happy to be consulted - it potentially gives them some leverage if they don't like some parts of the deal, and gives Cameron a bit more scope to say to the LibDems, "We have no option but to do X, Y and Z or my party will veto the agreement."
It's entirely rational. I'd be more worried if Cameron wasn't doing some planning.
That said, I am shocked how leaky politics continues to be. You'd have thought the party as a whole would be better off if this was kept behind closed doors.
If I'm reading it right it seems to be a proposal to change some kind of party rule, which I'd have thought could only be done in public in any case.
Yes, but my reading is it just looks like exploratory chats at the moment rather than anything firm. It's just a Cabinet Minister (presuably on the right) trying to destabilise Cameron a little bit. The disloyalty of politicians never ceases to amaze me.
"The good news just keeps on coming. The public finances are improving. Inflation dropped slightly last month, helped by a decline in the price of commodities such as copper and iron ore. There are some who believe that the oil price, which has been over $100 a barrel for nearly a decade, could at last crack, due to new supplies coming on stream from Iraq and America. Plentiful shale gas exports from the US will soon start to flow, which should help drive down unit energy costs, even in Britain. Assuming that our own efforts at harnessing shale gas are not permanently stymied by protesters, we too should benefit from this amazing technical revolution in coming years. Cheap gas would not only bring down gas prices, but would displace other, more expensive sources in the energy mix, such as oil and even wind. "
Comments
Not quite as embarrassing as predicting a scottish tory surge right up to the GE though is it?
LOL
I know, I know. I realize what she actually implied with that line. It was a nice soundbite for her case. I wasn't criticizing it. My point wasn't "political". It was more about the theoretical assumption behind it if taken literally (which isn't the case for any normal reader). So yes, it was a waste of time. But as I mysteriously thought about it when reading it, I decided to share.
We don't "connect" very much :-). It's like with the President Officer and Galloway in previous time. We were speaking about two different things without coming in together :-)
I blame the late hours.
It is the absolute approval divided by those who say they'll vote for one of the big two parties, adjusted by sign for either a Labour or Tory PM.
Cameron planning for second coalition in 2015.
The guy has every right to be confident...
Okay, let's bring to down to brass tack then. For there to be a scottish government that enacts unpopular welfare refoms akin to the current ones then it's fair to assume that would almost certainly involve a scottish tory government or a coalition scottish tory lib dem administration. (That's giving SLAB the benefit of the doubt you'll notice)
The plain fact of the matter is that the scottish public won't consider a scottish tory government being elected all that realistic a proposition and rightly so. Might that change untold years down the line? Of course. It's not impossible just very, very unlikely.
So we're dealing with what the scottish public will assume to be the likely outcomes after independence which is quite obviously scottish politics being dominated by SLAB and the SNP for the foreseeable future. That's why assumptions about the future direction of policy in an independent scotland would be a great deal more left of centre than westminster. The tories just won't be able to be in power over scotland with one MP like they are in westminster currently.
SLAB or Anwar arguing against that might be a bit of a tactical error considering the current reality of tory lib dem westminster rule and the somewhat urgent need for SLAB not to be seen as cheerleaders for that coalition given it's somewhat less than popular status in scotland,
On the Labour party travails over recent weeks, its interesting that Tom Watson singled out Andy Burnham for praise in the Shadow Cabinet while criticising the rest of them collectively. Mudie who came out and launched the first salvo against the Ed Miliband Leadership team is also a Brownite like Watson. Bryant was intending to make a big splash on the issue of immigration before he performed a painful political belly flop. Watson and Bryant have previous form as key members of the team of junior Labour ministers who moved against Blair. And there is now some very negative briefing against Jim Murphy in particular, a politician who has certainly also invoked the ire of the UNITE leader in recent months. Interestingly, Murphy and Alexander have been as quiet as Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper since the summer recess.
Cammie is only PM because Clegg and the lib dems are there propping him up.
That's the brutal truth that the PB Burleys always fail to understand.
After the first 40 results on election night 1997, the Labour vote was DOWN despite the fact that they were about to win a landslide:
1997 (first 40 seats to declare): 996,890
1992 (in the same 40 seats): 999,095
Picking a fight with a poster whose second name is Parma is not wise for one whose second name is Pork.
You have to realise the anti-tipster didn't just put here 'special touch' on the likes of Annabel Goldie but also Danny Alexander and "no-brainer" McTernan, to name just two more hilarious examples.
Even a Labour stalwart like Henry G. Manson says there are doubts about Murphy and his loyalty to little Ed after the Falkirk disaster. Which is only to be expected after the anti-tipster bestowed him her 'magical approval'.
lol
Ok, I apologize. I confess it: I just wanted to make a pedant point about a line not including the unlikely possibility a right wing government being elected in Scotland in 20 years time or "not so left" SLAB imposing unfair cuts if they get in in a future independent Scotland!
Do you really think I didn't realize the real practical assumption behind the sentence and needed it to be explained (but you were effective in presenting the case if it can make your effort less worthless. Or if you want to double for Nicola against Boy Sarwar)? I am offended now! :-) I mean, I know Italian education system is not particularly good, but they don't give PhD away totally at random. Well, almost so though.
@fitalass
Murphy was singled out along with Flint as his Shadow Cabinet "enemies".
yes, Gemma Doyle's husband being the clue
You did seem to have a problem with Sturgeon setting out her stall to be fair Andrea.
The whole point of these debates should be to acknowledge the possibilities as well as any downsides of an independent scotland. So yes there should be some emphasis that what the scottish public votes for the scoitish public will get, even if it is a scottish tory administration.
Indeed, very odd, giving Cameron credit for legislation that Blair gave us!
The problem. The Russian boss had a wallet with $100,000 in cash in it.
As 'Sergei' said: "This is pocket money for a Russian businessman!".
You may of course castigate that further attempt at porcine humour in the strongest possible terms.
Sunil is right too. Here is a a youtube video on the difference between 'phrases' and 'clauses'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb-WwicglRM
The winner could be elected in 2015.
Not the result I was hoping for, but congratulations etc etc.
a a a a a a, babababa, c c c c c
is the same as
a a a a a a (babababa) c c c c c
In 2010-12, the OECD set out the levels of fiscal consolidation that all its members would need to implement if their individual current budget deficits were to be reduced to less than 3% of GDP and if their debt levels were to be paid down to a level of less than 60% of GDP by 2030. The 3% deficit and 60% debt levels were both international 'norms' and EU Maastricht treaty requirements.
I haven't the figures open in front of me but the UK, which was amongst the worst of the major economies in terms of starting point, needed to consolidate by somewhere around 7.5% on pre-crisis levels.
To date, the Coalition government has only implemented sufficient fiscal consolidation to meet 40% of the needed reduction and even an optimistic forecast of where we will be in 2015 is around 50%. That means that a combination of further cuts, tax rises and economic growth is still needed to complete the remaining 50% of required fiscal consolidation.
As time passes GDP growth should do most of the heavy lifting, but further cuts in spending cannot be avoided, and, if any further borrowing is to be contemplated even for infrastructure capex, then tax rises will also be required.
So to even suggest there will be "money for good stuff" is alarming. And to claim that 50% of the target fiscal consolidation already achieved leaves the next government a "mess" is quite simply deception on an almost criminal scale.
Yes, there will be room to shunt money around in accordance with the priorities of whatever government is in power, but any such redistribution would have to be fiscally neutral if the UK is to maintain the confidence of the markets and economic agencies.
Caroline Hedwall becomes the first player to go 5-0 in Solheim Cup history.
The next Solheim Cup is in Germany.
The bad news is that 11 of the 12 players on the European team play full time on the LPGA Tour in the US. Couple that with names like McIlroy, Westwood, McDowell, Donald etc playing on the PGA Tour and it makes the huge talent and money gap between the European and US tours even more stark.
Many years ago Mensa tried to recruit me, and I went to the local branch's Xmas party. It was fancy dress. The winner was a woman in a French maid's outfit with her husband dressed as Father Christmas, restrained by a dog's collar and leash.
Yes, he was a subordinate claus ;-)
Edit: That was on her SkySports1 interview - TimB might not have seen that!
At least I am honest - when I asked Tom Watson to sign my copy of Jim Huber's book on the 2009 Open Championship, I even asked him to write 'To Tim'.
The person behind me in the queue ignored instructions and was rewarded with a personal dedication - to the general fury of others. I have learned to let go of most of the resentments in my life but that one is unshakable.
In the mid 1960s we moved to Tenerife. BBC Deejay and former band leader Jack Jackson, who also lived there, and my dad became friends. At his house one day I asked what he did with all the demo discs once he'd used them. He excused himself and returned with a box full of 7 inch demo discs, one of the sleeves of which he autographed for me. I still have them, with the big A on one side.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18
Meanwhile I suppose this stuff could solve the Heathrow congestion problems without needing extra runways.
@fivethirtyeight: "Never connect at Heathrow if you can possibly avoid it" right up there with "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
kingcreosote Recommend 72
I wish these Blairite losers would join the Tories.
>> OpenSeas
So do I. They won three elections.
I assume he was detained because there was suspicion that he had knowledge of the Snowden docs which were pinched and Snowden is considered a traitor in the US. Frankly I'm not really bothered - so he had a crap day, and? He's not down a salt mine or in Siberia. That Mr Snowden hid in Moscow airport and now has temporary asylum really does nothing for his credibility.
https://twitter.com/dap1510/status/369255089266884608/photo/1
Stuart Wheeler, the UKIP Treasurer, was accused of sexism when he made the comment during a debate about whether companies should be forced to appoint more women to senior posts.
In an attempt to debunk his theory, Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former under-14s UK girls chess champion, has challenged him to a game. She offered to hold the match in Parliament. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3846424.ece
My efforts might not have SeanT worried yet but I'm learning how to press their buttons
Having the confidence to laugh at yourself is essential and there are a lot of thin skins there. Given the leg pulling is very gentle = I found the reaction a bit sad.
As I said, I really have no outrage here - he was detained using a lawful power because he is on watchlist re Snowden. A traitor who defected to Russia as far as the US is concerned. The World's Smallest Violin is playing here. Like Assange.
Now same sex marriage is supposed to be an issue. It is not. It is the economy and jobs for most people.
On same sex issue, pushed into the election by the ABC, they are pushing agenda strongly. Lead story is NZ marrying Oz couples and ABC implying they are now legally married. Even when they return to Oz.
But that to me is a conundrum.
My question is, should we accept the laws of other countries on marriage, after all many people of Muslim extraction have bona fide and legal polygamous marriages, should they be legal too? Or is it OK for same sex but not multi partner marriages?
Who decides what is legally right, the lefty thought police or the law of the land?
What about Mormons, should they also have their polygamous quasi-marriages legally binding when in Oz.
Claim a spouse tax benefit on 3 or 4 partners perhaps?
People should be able to be with who they want. Without any problems. Pay tax as couples or multi partnered people by all means too.
I have lesbian friends and even offered to provide sperm for their child, (rejected I add!) so please do not call me homophobic as the issues are mutually exclusive.
But marriage to me is only between a single man and a single woman, not 1 man and 4 women, or 2 men or any other combination.
The ABC views on their comedy shows that people will come around and this thinking is old fashioned does not match my thinking on this matter.
Do whatever you like and call it what you like as long as it doesn't affect me, cause civil disorder or cost me anything in taxes to pay you benefits. Keep the State out of organised relationships, and that includes handing out maternity leave "rights" etc.
The other week a woman married a bridge and the world didn't end. And I didn't pay for it. So its a Meh-Win-Win situation there.
The less the government does in any situation apart from defence of the realm the better.
I have no doubt the economy has now turned and with house prices starting to increase it is going to look very very good for the Conservatives. They will go with the mantra that won them the elections from 1979 onwards: 'look it was tough, but see we pulled you through'.
Get your money on the Cons to win outright.
The other connected factor is that the collapse in belief in the tories' economic competence did not happen before the election but after it. By May 2008 the April 2007 figures are almost exactly reversed. No doubt a good part of that is the incumbancy bonus which makes me very suspicious of best PM figures.
Nevertheless, I wonder if we might see something similar this time. No longer clothed with the authority of office and the support of the Civil Service Labour's economic policies look increasingly ridiculous, if only in hindsight. It took a very long time and some truly epic incompetence by Brown for the tories to recover on this measure. Given we are now likely to have 2 years of growth I think it is likely that the gap on this measure will be much greater at the next election than it was at the last one.
Coming up: Labour disquiet (0730)
it's a non-story. Nothing to see here. Ed will swiftly and decisively make the best speech of his life at conference and his ratings will soar.
Or something...
His point is not quite as strong when he's talking about bridge and poker, though in both he has an argument to make. And whether any of the three are reasons that more women shouldn't be appointed to senior roles is a different matter entirely.
"A survey of executive directors at more than 200 mid-cap listed companies by Edison Investment Research found that 56pc expect to increase capital expenditure over the next year – nearly double the level of the last survey just six months ago."
Investment is so far the dog that has not barked. UK companies have been sitting on substantial cash piles (in aggregate) for years now but have not had the confidence to invest. If that starts to change then we will have much healthier and balanced growth going forward. Less "feel good" from an electoral point of view perhaps but far more important economically.
Go and look at Anthony Wells's charts and watch how the Cons share of the vote plunges as 1992 wears on, into 1993. As the meme took over Labour leads soared.
However, if you as an individual ever want to improve your housing setup, then it is negative as a whole. In terms of maths, let's say your current home is worth 100 and you aspire to move to a house worth 200 then a 10% increase in prices (assuming uniform, which is unlikely - actually non-uniform prices increases typically make things even worse) makes your home relatively less valuable. (110 vs 220)
So, if you are happy to live in a 2 bedroom flat in a bien pensant area such as, say, Primrose Hill (borders), for the rest of your life you are probably a net winner. If, on the other hand you want to buy a house with a garden because, say, you have kids that live with you then you are a net loser.
In summary: your view is right for retiring wealthy people and alcoholic former heroin addicts. Mine in right for everyone else.
Doesn't mean Reeves can't beat Wheeler of course and it certainly has nothing to do with ability for the role of a director.
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-high-speed-gravy-train-special-interests-transport-policy-and-government-s
From a quick skim it is, as I expected, a great load of pants. It is a report that takes a position ("we are wildly against HS2") and then tries to justify that position. A common occurrence, but as is often the case, utterly unenlightening.
The £80 billion figure is, as I expected, plucked out of nowhere. For instance, they include the costs of Crossrail 2 within it.
It would be interesting to see other projects (e.g. Heathrow expansion) treated in the same manner - adjacent (and sometimes wildly unconnected) costs chucked in until you get a suitably large and headline-worthy figure.
Remember their shrieking and outrage over NannyCam's snoopers charter and his boneheaded internet filter? Precisely.
Blair and Brown's authoritarian stupidity is an outrage but NannyCam's authoritarian stupidity is none of our concern and nothing to see here. Simple! ;^ )
I think the Tories are most likely to benefit if the recovery is looking a bit fragile still; which is probably the most likely situation.
Unlike 2010, which was rather a poisoned chalice, 2015 may be the one to win. It is not yet clear though what a Miliband govt would do with its inheritance, squandering it via Balls is a definite possibility.
But his point was more about Miliband/Labour's ratings 1 years after being elected PM. Hollande territory.
Guardian journalist's boyfriend arrested - shocked headlines. Egyptians shot in large numbers, footnote on inside page.
What is undoubtedly true is that the voting intention figures showed a very different picture. Clarke may have been able to repair the damage on the economics but the overall perception of competence took a massive hit. The tories also fell into a civil war as blame for Black Wednesday was thrown backwards and forwards between the euro sceptics and the euro phobes. It was this division and the lack of coherence about the direction of the government that gave Blair his opportunities which of course he seized with both hands.
Of course in a world where the majority of Labour supporters don't even know who the Shadow Chancellor is who knows how much difference that will make.
LOL
Nope.
Mail for you, new spreadsheet
Yes, but I don't think 'change' is particularly powerful unless people are actively sick/bored of the last administration. If the response is 'meh they're ok' then you need to make a positive case for *what* you will change rather than just argue that you need new faces in office.
Not any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10251255/David-Cameron-plans-for-second-coalition-with-Liberal-Democrats.html
"Labour is not experiencing some summer aberration. Once he secured the leadership, collapsing poll numbers, crumbling authority and growing internal discontent were always destined to be Ed Miliband’s inheritance. Now his party is commencing its long slide to defeat in 2015."
Always the same message but endlessly entertaining.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231544/its-time-for-a-new-labour-guru-coco-chanel/
True up to a point. The need for new new faces at the top only really sets in after repeat administrations but no party goes into an election with a campaign message of 'another five years of more of the same' unless they are supremely confident that is what the voter wants.
Maybe they will come 2015 but given that it's a certainty labour and the tories are going to run on a barrage of economic sloganeering ('labour would wreck the economy again' 'the tories haven't fixed the economy after 5 years' etc.) the economic arguments will very quickly boil down to trust amid a flurry of competing statistics and claims that the voter tends to view with suspicion and/or boredom.
Who will benefit more from trust remains to be seen but neither party are blessed with an overabundance of it from the voter and neither have a chancellor/shadow chancellor that the public have much time for.
They are at least better positioned than Clegg and the lib dems. Lib dems running on a message of change with a toxic Clegg still leader would prove most amusing.
In one way I agree, but there is a danger that eventually Turkey could go the same way.
Of course what is happening is a disaster for the Egyptian economy and presumably bookings for the tourist season are almost non-existent.
In 2012, Morsi won the presidential election (and the president appoints the government) by a minute majority and there are rumours that this election was fixed by the army in order that should Morsi lose (as apparently he did) that the Muslim Brotherhood would riot in such volumes that the army would not be able to keep the peace.
Apparently, Morsi and his ministers have been a disappointment to the army and has tried to impose Islamic home and foreign policy to an extent that was not expected. Hence the take-over by the army.
Egypt, being both Muslim and minority Christian, has always been a difficult place to govern and like Iraq has usually required the strong hand of a dictator to keep the peace. It would appear that the success (or otherwise) of the Arab Spring has served to embolden Islamic militants to try to impose their beliefs and practices on all the populations.
Even if they eliminated Israel, it would not satisfy the internal warring Islamic religious factions, and so a solution to the Middle East and North African religious and cultural problems (including Nigeria) is almost impossible to envisage.
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10251271/Angela-Merkel-the-queen-of-Europe.html
That said, I am shocked how leaky politics continues to be. You'd have thought the party as a whole would be better off if this was kept behind closed doors.
1) The MB wanted early elections; early elections favoured them as other parties were much less organised.
2) As much as I dislike Morsi and the MB, the decks were somewhat stacked against them. As well as being utterly incompetent, they were disliked by many surrounding countries, which reduced funding. AIUI, only Qatar were in favour of the MB government, lending them $8 billion.
3) Since Morsi's removal, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.A.E. have pledged $12 billion in aid to Egypt.
Egypt has been a tragedy, is a tragedy, and will continue to be a tragedy for many years to come. It is not just a secular-versus-religious fight; it is a secular-versus-religious-faction-versus-religious-faction fight.
It will not end well. Religion f'ing things up, yet again.
Hence the leaks.
Also they know that you just love being dominated!
"The good news just keeps on coming. The public finances are improving. Inflation dropped slightly last month, helped by a decline in the price of commodities such as copper and iron ore. There are some who believe that the oil price, which has been over $100 a barrel for nearly a decade, could at last crack, due to new supplies coming on stream from Iraq and America. Plentiful shale gas exports from the US will soon start to flow, which should help drive down unit energy costs, even in Britain. Assuming that our own efforts at harnessing shale gas are not permanently stymied by protesters, we too should benefit from this amazing technical revolution in coming years. Cheap gas would not only bring down gas prices, but would displace other, more expensive sources in the energy mix, such as oil and even wind. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10251112/This-might-not-be-a-recovery-but-a-good-old-fashioned-boom.html