Candidates announced so far for Dunfermline by election
Shirley-Anne Somerville SNP a former MSP Cara Hilton Labour a Fife councillor Susan Leslie Lib Dem a Fife councillor
you missed the tory. see my earlier posts
I have because my info is that they have not yet selected anyone . They have though selected David Ross for the council by election in Dunfermline South
With the Lib Dem selection officially announced today, we now know the 4 main candidates for the Dunfermline by-election on 24 October 2013:
Cara Hilton (Lab) Susan Leslie (LD) James Reekie (Con) Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP)
As a former MSP (Lothians, 2007-11) Shirley-Anne Somerville is probably the best-known. The former Dunfermline Athletic manager Cllr Jim Leishman would have been a universally kent face in the royal burgh if he'd stood as the Labour candidate, but withdrew last week.
EDIT "The Treasury will receive a £35billion windfall from the Bank of England, it was announced today, in an unexpected boon to the Chancellor's budgetary headache.
Governor Mervyn King has agreed that the Bank will hand over interest it has earned on its holding of £375billion in Government debt purchased under the quantitative easing programme.
The extra cash will constitute a bonus reduction to the budget deficit, while also acting as a 'small loosening of monetary conditions' equivalent to more QE, according to the Bank."
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
Just seen Clegg's speech - I find it hilarious to read a few pieces on how bad it was, because it really wasn't. Was it great? Not really, as one would expect from such things. It was professionally delivered, Clegg has no major concerns there even if he's not outstanding (I did think his bit about preferring he be PM rather than who he was most 'comfortable' with was some good delivery - not so bombastic and obviously designed to lead to a bit of rousing applause as some other headline moments, so seemed much more genuine), and quite clearly made the best of a what has been a tough time for the party by casting themselves as defiant in defence of their record and ready to face what comes.
Is that extremely optimistic, even cheesy? Is it ignoring just how much work they will have to do, being all Ostrich like about the Euros and Local elections? Maybe, but it was a conference speech for christ's sake, what would anyone expect him to say? His speech was not intended to address all the myriad concerns of all those who hate the LDs, it's a narrative exercise! That he struck a confident tone and presented, sincerely or otherwise, the belief all they have been through would be worth it come 2015, is hardly evidence of its badness. That he hasn't worked a miracle and compeltely overturned the narrative against him is merely evidence it was workmanlike, and it clearly wasn't negative because he and the party have not, I think anyone sensible would agree, come out looking appreciably worse than they already did to many people.
I actually managed to get through the whole thing, a few stoppages notwithstanding, which makes it not a terrible speech in my own view - if Cameron and Miliband can manage the same, they'll have done well, and if they can manage some better soundbites, that's all they could hope for in terms of maximising their presence.
It is a weird thing that stock pieces about something being awful because of who is behind it that would clearly be regurgitated regardless of what is said seem to be taken as more genuine and objective than stock pieces about something being awesome a lot of the time (unless you overdo it of course eg Dan Hodges or that Telegraph blogger who always whines about Obama so much that even if he is right the pieces lose all meaning through sheer repetition)
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
They're printing money Avery. There's no need to dress it up.
I'm not sure what the problem is, but I managed to catch it. The Peter Oborne article is called "Ed Miliband is proving himself to be a brave and adroit leader", and I think it's rather well written.
Just to report that I had an argument with a car in Glasgow yesterday. Nothing too serious except lots of cuts and brusies. It could have been a whole lot worse.
Oh, and I really hope it's not serious OGH. (When I'm anywhere near cars, especially on the cycle, I tend to assume they're out to get me. And a few have had a decent go at it. When I'm inside one I feel like a caged tomcat.)
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
They're printing money Avery. There's no need to dress it up.
What's worse is that they are about to print it on plastic!
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
They're printing money Avery. There's no need to dress it up.
Oh, is that what Avery was talking about?! I couldn't make head nor tails of it. It's weird, put flowery language in an article on 18th century cotton production or something and I can get through it no problem, interest very much alerted, but start talking about 'aggregation' and 'remittances' or 'arbitrage' and my brain just shuts down.
For my people, the economically illiterate, I do worry how we will decide who is best to handle the economy in 2015 when we can't really grasp the language needed to understand the issues.
"Just seen Clegg's speech - I find it hilarious to read a few pieces on how bad it was, because it really wasn't. Was it great? Not really, as one would expect from such things. It was professionally delivered"
It wasn't the delivery it was the parallel universe he's living in that made it a contender for the 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' award for losing track of reality.
Everything good was done by him (not even his party but HIM) Everything the evil Tories cooked up was stopped by HIM.
Infact anyone listening would have thought HE was the government. He and He alone. Sorry but the speech was ridiculous!
Content aside, Clegg doesn't 'do with feeling' very convincingly. Too self-conscious. Miliband ditto. Cameron can at times, but gets blustery. I can't see any of them mustering the weary or the wary tbh.
The NRA and gun-toting advocates in the US are bonkers. I'm all for freedom and liberty but guns? GUNS? Why on earth would any normal person want to carry a gun?
Those 1870s mormons defending polygamy and marrying 130 wives look a little anachronistic nowadays. But at least fanatical polygamists didn't kill anybody.
Guns should be banned. All of them. Even the ones used for hunting. Ban the lot.
It wasn't the delivery it was the parallel universe he's living in that made it a contender for the 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' award for losing track of reality. Everything good was done by him (not even his party but HIM) Everything outrageous that the evil Tories had planned was stopped by HIM. Infact anyone listening would have thought HE was the government. He and He alone. Sorry but the speech was ridiculous!
And I disagree entirely with that idea (that merely because it was so divorced from reality it was ridiculous), because conference speechs are all about presenting a narrative that puffs up the leader and the party - I have no quibble with people declaring the reality presented by Clegg as ridiculous, but that is notquite what people are suggesting when they say that (it is part of it, but not the whole); they are pretending that other parties do not do the exact same thing and that is just hypocrisy. But more than that, it's just lazy.
Was it an egregious case of narrative building? An argument could be made to that effect I have no doubt, but the lazy argument is 'Hurr hurr, Clegg is so wrong about the state of politics and is so egotistical, ain't that effing absurd and ridiculous'
One thing that did strike a chord with me in his speech (though not in the manner he would have hoped, because I do not regard his party as a beacon of all that is right in politics) was the disappointment and almost disgust with the main two parties and their pattern of behaviour (not recognising that the LDs are far from blameless in that regard, naturally), dismissiveness of anyone not in their tribe (not that he used the word), the arrogance they display in trying to paint people such as the LDs and others as somehow inherently worse when they do the same things they themselves do. The LDs are not as different as Clegg claimed, no-one should be taken in by that, but in the short time I've been interested in politics (it's sub 10 years for me), the condescension of the bigger parties to try and paint standard political behavious as partisan faults of their opponents (eg, painting an unrealistic and - political jargon word of the moment - aspirational speech as out and out terrible when it is standard procedure) really vexes me.
Now, if only I lived in a seat where it mattered who I voted for in a fit or self righteous rage...
It wasn't the delivery it was the parallel universe he's living in that made it a contender for the 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' award for losing track of reality.
Everything good was done by him (not even his party but HIM) Everything the evil Tories cooked up was stopped by HIM.
Infact anyone listening would have thought HE was the government. He and He alone. Sorry but the speech was ridiculous!
Did he depart much from the published text, then? I didn't watch it (I'm not THAT much of a politics nerd..), so I can't comment on the delivery, but the text of the speech is rather good:
This is what he should have been saying at the last two conferences.
The LibDems, or at least the LibDem leadership, have grown up.
Huhne out, Cable's star fading: is that perhaps the explanation for why they are finally getting the tone right and arguing for another go next time, rather than looking as though this coalition malarkey gives them heartburn?
@Roger And I disagree entirely with that idea (that merely because it was so divorced from reality it was ridiculous), because conference speechs are all about presenting a narrative that puffs up the leader and the party - I have no quibble with people declaring the reality presented by Clegg as ridiculous, but that is notquite what people are suggesting when they say that (it is part of it, but not the whole); they are pretending that other parties do not do the exact same thing and that's just hypocrisy. But more than that, it's just lazy.
Was it an egregious case of narrative building? An argument could be made to that effect I have no doubt, but the lazy argument most often presented at such times is 'Hurr hurr, Clegg is so wrong about the state of politics and is so egotistical, ain't that effing absurd and ridiculous' - subtext: don't notice they all act like that, it is Clegg alone who is so bad.
Was his false narrative really so out of sync as to make it absurdly ridiculous? I just don't see how a stock speech can be classified as such.
One thing that did strike a chord with me in his speech (though I do not regard his party as a beacon of all that is right in politics) was the disappointment and almost disgust with the main two parties and their pattern of behaviour (not that the LDs are blameless in that regard, naturally), dismissiveness of anyone not in their tribe (not that he used the word), the arrogance they display in trying to paint people such as the LDs and others as somehow inherently worse when they do the same things.
The LDs are not as different as Clegg claimed, not at all, but in the short time I've been interested in politics (it's sub 10 years for me), the condescension of the bigger parties to try and paint standard political behavious as partisan faults of their opponents (eg, painting an unrealistic and - political jargon word of the moment - aspirational speech as out and out terrible when it is standard procedure) really vexes me. (smaller parties do it as well, but it's a power imbalance thing - the bigger ones do it to prevent others from being seen as realistic alternatives, the smaller do it to try and be seen as realistic alternatives, which is a slightly less selfish motivation, as it is closer to seeking a level playing field. UKIP try it often)
Now, if only I lived in a seat where it mattered who I voted for my fit or self righteous rage...
Content aside, Clegg doesn't 'do with feeling' very convincingly. Too self-conscious. Miliband ditto. Cameron can at times, but gets blustery. I can't see any of them mustering the weary or the wary tbh.
We need Kenny Branagh in No 10 with Danny Boyle directing as Head of Communications.
The NRA and gun-toting advocates in the US are bonkers. I'm all for freedom and liberty but guns? GUNS? Why on earth would any normal person want to carry a gun?
Those 1870s mormons defending polygamy and marrying 130 wives look a little anachronistic nowadays. But at least fanatical polygamists didn't kill anybody.
Guns should be banned. All of them. Even the ones used for hunting. Ban the lot.
Indeed - the US position on guns is a global embarrassment
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
They're printing money Avery. There's no need to dress it up.
What's worse is that they are about to print it on plastic!
Given that you have spent most of the summer posting yellow tractor production statistics, you may be in weak ground deeming others unspoofable Avo.
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
They're printing money Avery. There's no need to dress it up.
What's worse is that they are about to print it on plastic!
Given that you have spent most of the summer posting yellow tractor production statistics, you may be in weak ground deeming others unspoofable Avo.
Here in metal basher land we dreeeaam of tractor statistics, real products real work. All Avery posts is twonky southern finance poncing.
The NRA and gun-toting advocates in the US are bonkers. I'm all for freedom and liberty but guns? GUNS? Why on earth would any normal person want to carry a gun?
Those 1870s mormons defending polygamy and marrying 130 wives look a little anachronistic nowadays. But at least fanatical polygamists didn't kill anybody.
Guns should be banned. All of them. Even the ones used for hunting. Ban the lot.
The freedom to defend oneself against crime and to be protected against the potential tyranny of the State is an important one and I really wish we had it here. I shouldn't have to keep my guns at the range when they'd be more use here in my house in case of burglary.
Concealed carry in public places should be allowed for anyone not convicted of a serious crime. Crime figures would plummet if we could fight back.
Comments
Are they still there Stuart?
Oh good.
2) It included references to phone hacking, which set off the spam trap.
EDIT
"The Treasury will receive a £35billion windfall from the Bank of England, it was announced today, in an unexpected boon to the Chancellor's budgetary headache.
Governor Mervyn King has agreed that the Bank will hand over interest it has earned on its holding of £375billion in Government debt purchased under the quantitative easing programme.
The extra cash will constitute a bonus reduction to the budget deficit, while also acting as a 'small loosening of monetary conditions' equivalent to more QE, according to the Bank."
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2230579/Treasury-receives-35bn-money-Bank-England-QE-gilts-interest.html
Half of the BoE's normal trading profits are remitted to the Treasury each year by arrangement dating from the 1940s when the Bank became a de facto agent of the government. Actually the profit share was 25% until Brown upped it during the crisis.
On non-recurring special measures administered by the Bank on behalf of the Treasury remittance arrangements are agreed on an ad hoc basis. Mostly this will involve any surplus remaining at the conclusion of a scheme being remitted in full.
You should note however that amount remittances from Central Banks to government budgets are subject to EU and International aggregration limits in the National Accounts. This means that a government cannot use its Central Bank to pay off its deficit (or at least they can but cannot report it as such).
If I remember correctly this rule was introduced after Hungary wiped out its deficit in a single year by 'nationalisiing' all private sector pension pots. A sort of super Royal Mail pensions wheeze. More Flash Gordon than Austere George I suspect.
LOL
Is that extremely optimistic, even cheesy? Is it ignoring just how much work they will have to do, being all Ostrich like about the Euros and Local elections? Maybe, but it was a conference speech for christ's sake, what would anyone expect him to say? His speech was not intended to address all the myriad concerns of all those who hate the LDs, it's a narrative exercise! That he struck a confident tone and presented, sincerely or otherwise, the belief all they have been through would be worth it come 2015, is hardly evidence of its badness. That he hasn't worked a miracle and compeltely overturned the narrative against him is merely evidence it was workmanlike, and it clearly wasn't negative because he and the party have not, I think anyone sensible would agree, come out looking appreciably worse than they already did to many people.
I actually managed to get through the whole thing, a few stoppages notwithstanding, which makes it not a terrible speech in my own view - if Cameron and Miliband can manage the same, they'll have done well, and if they can manage some better soundbites, that's all they could hope for in terms of maximising their presence.
It is a weird thing that stock pieces about something being awful because of who is behind it that would clearly be regurgitated regardless of what is said seem to be taken as more genuine and objective than stock pieces about something being awesome a lot of the time (unless you overdo it of course eg Dan Hodges or that Telegraph blogger who always whines about Obama so much that even if he is right the pieces lose all meaning through sheer repetition)
"Its comedy gold."
No. 'Comedy gold' is this from the moderator.....
"1) As other posters have been told, you shouldn't copy and paste more than a couple of sentences from any other article"
That's funny! By 11 AM Plato has reprinted almost the whole of the Daily Mail. Not a pleasant experience for those of us who haven't been lobotomized.
(When I'm anywhere near cars, especially on the cycle, I tend to assume they're out to get me. And a few have had a decent go at it. When I'm inside one I feel like a caged tomcat.)
For my people, the economically illiterate, I do worry how we will decide who is best to handle the economy in 2015 when we can't really grasp the language needed to understand the issues.
"Just seen Clegg's speech - I find it hilarious to read a few pieces on how bad it was, because it really wasn't. Was it great? Not really, as one would expect from such things. It was professionally delivered"
It wasn't the delivery it was the parallel universe he's living in that made it a contender for the 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' award for losing track of reality.
Everything good was done by him (not even his party but HIM) Everything the evil Tories cooked up was stopped by HIM.
Infact anyone listening would have thought HE was the government. He and He alone. Sorry but the speech was ridiculous!
Oborne either has a irony drier than a Kiwi Sauvignon Blanc or he had already downed a couple of bottles of Blue Nun before penning the article.
*unspoofable* as our resident even-toed ungulate would say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVCainjkroI
The NRA and gun-toting advocates in the US are bonkers. I'm all for freedom and liberty but guns? GUNS? Why on earth would any normal person want to carry a gun?
Those 1870s mormons defending polygamy and marrying 130 wives look a little anachronistic nowadays. But at least fanatical polygamists didn't kill anybody.
Guns should be banned. All of them. Even the ones used for hunting. Ban the lot.
Was it an egregious case of narrative building? An argument could be made to that effect I have no doubt, but the lazy argument is 'Hurr hurr, Clegg is so wrong about the state of politics and is so egotistical, ain't that effing absurd and ridiculous'
One thing that did strike a chord with me in his speech (though not in the manner he would have hoped, because I do not regard his party as a beacon of all that is right in politics) was the disappointment and almost disgust with the main two parties and their pattern of behaviour (not recognising that the LDs are far from blameless in that regard, naturally), dismissiveness of anyone not in their tribe (not that he used the word), the arrogance they display in trying to paint people such as the LDs and others as somehow inherently worse when they do the same things they themselves do. The LDs are not as different as Clegg claimed, no-one should be taken in by that, but in the short time I've been interested in politics (it's sub 10 years for me), the condescension of the bigger parties to try and paint standard political behavious as partisan faults of their opponents (eg, painting an unrealistic and - political jargon word of the moment - aspirational speech as out and out terrible when it is standard procedure) really vexes me.
Now, if only I lived in a seat where it mattered who I voted for in a fit or self righteous rage...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2013/09/lib-dem-conference-nick-cleggs-speech-full-text/
This is what he should have been saying at the last two conferences.
The LibDems, or at least the LibDem leadership, have grown up.
Huhne out, Cable's star fading: is that perhaps the explanation for why they are finally getting the tone right and arguing for another go next time, rather than looking as though this coalition malarkey gives them heartburn?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10318072/Ed-Miliband-is-proving-himself-to-be-a-brave-and-adroit-leader.html
And I disagree entirely with that idea (that merely because it was so divorced from reality it was ridiculous), because conference speechs are all about presenting a narrative that puffs up the leader and the party - I have no quibble with people declaring the reality presented by Clegg as ridiculous, but that is notquite what people are suggesting when they say that (it is part of it, but not the whole); they are pretending that other parties do not do the exact same thing and that's just hypocrisy. But more than that, it's just lazy.
Was it an egregious case of narrative building? An argument could be made to that effect I have no doubt, but the lazy argument most often presented at such times is 'Hurr hurr, Clegg is so wrong about the state of politics and is so egotistical, ain't that effing absurd and ridiculous' - subtext: don't notice they all act like that, it is Clegg alone who is so bad.
Was his false narrative really so out of sync as to make it absurdly ridiculous? I just don't see how a stock speech can be classified as such.
One thing that did strike a chord with me in his speech (though I do not regard his party as a beacon of all that is right in politics) was the disappointment and almost disgust with the main two parties and their pattern of behaviour (not that the LDs are blameless in that regard, naturally), dismissiveness of anyone not in their tribe (not that he used the word), the arrogance they display in trying to paint people such as the LDs and others as somehow inherently worse when they do the same things.
The LDs are not as different as Clegg claimed, not at all, but in the short time I've been interested in politics (it's sub 10 years for me), the condescension of the bigger parties to try and paint standard political behavious as partisan faults of their opponents (eg, painting an unrealistic and - political jargon word of the moment - aspirational speech as out and out terrible when it is standard procedure) really vexes me. (smaller parties do it as well, but it's a power imbalance thing - the bigger ones do it to prevent others from being seen as realistic alternatives, the smaller do it to try and be seen as realistic alternatives, which is a slightly less selfish motivation, as it is closer to seeking a level playing field. UKIP try it often)
Now, if only I lived in a seat where it mattered who I voted for my fit or self righteous rage...
Concealed carry in public places should be allowed for anyone not convicted of a serious crime. Crime figures would plummet if we could fight back.