Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited October 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

By the way, if you’re a lurker, this is The Call from me urging to delurk, hopefully some of you lurkers will Get Down to posting, I’m expecting more The One lurker delurks.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    first.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I'm disappointed you didnt Let Loose some classic 90s boy bands, TSE.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    edited October 2013
    Neil said:

    I'm disappointed you didnt Let Loose some classic 90s boy bands, TSE.

    I'm saving that for a future nighthawks.

    Though I'm worried that I may fail the hetero test in story 17
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    FPT

    @Tim

    'Here's the laughable Tobe forecasting great success for the head teacher with no qualifications'

    No qualifications,just a graduate from London University whose completing her postgraduate PGCE,after yesterday's OECD report on Labour's car crash education and Tristram Twit's response,does anyone take Labour seriously?.


    'Before joining Future Annaliese worked on education reform and the curriculum at CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Annaliese studied English at Queen Mary, University of London, and has experience of working in primary schools through the Wandsworth SCITT. Annaliese advised the current government on the review of the primary National Curriculum'
  • AlbionTilIDieAlbionTilIDie Posts: 119
    Chris A was possibly cut from his cushy public sector job and is possibly now trawling the net for another taxpayer funded non-job. Shame is most of them have now been cut. He possibly spends his time in his lonely bedsit waiting for the latest smear from his beloved to lighten his depressing days. Possibly.

    Or perhaps he is a normal guy who has things happen in his life which beat posting on pb.com. Probably.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    SeanT said:

    I'm worried that my blog was indeed too timid, too fence-sitting and judicious. Hmm.

    OTOH it was referenced earlier, by Al "pub landlord" Murray, on Twitter, so I have achieved a kind of fame.

    I was very disappointed in it.

    There was no major rants against Brown.

    It was so toned down.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SeanT said:

    I'm worried that my blog was indeed too timid, too fence-sitting and judicious. Hmm.

    OTOH it was referenced earlier, by Al "pub landlord" Murray, on Twitter, so I have achieved a kind of fame.

    I was very disappointed in it.

    There was no major rants against Brown.

    It was so toned down.
    You should have seen the first draft. *sigh* That's where I really "went for it".
    Why don't you do a second one with all the things you missed out today.

    The migrant slaveworkers exposed in last week's Sunday Times magazine is worth an inclusion.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    Coming soon the Alex Salmond guiser's mask.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10367759/Alex-Salmond-spent-20000-keeping-secret-non-existent-EU-legal-advice.html

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SeanT said:

    I'm worried that my blog was indeed too timid, too fence-sitting and judicious. Hmm.

    OTOH it was referenced earlier, by Al "pub landlord" Murray, on Twitter, so I have achieved a kind of fame.

    I was very disappointed in it.

    There was no major rants against Brown.

    It was so toned down.
    You should have seen the first draft. *sigh* That's where I really "went for it".
    I've just read your excellent diagnostic piece on the Labour disease :

    Old Labour was primary syphilis.
    New Labour was seconary syphilis.
    Now Ed M promises the tertiary and terminal phase of the pathology .

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    The iphone upgrade is a pile of suck. It looks like the kid zone in Ikea.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    As pop stars are always referenced in Nighthawks, I feel I need to tell you that at the weekend, I saw Rick Astley, playing drums and singing "Highway to Hell". Whilst I was dressed as Sonny Crockett. In Skegness. With Mr T, Indiana Jones, Madonna, Bananaman, Axl Rose, Iceman from Top Gun and Jimmy Saville. Surreal.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    As pop stars are always referenced in Nighthawks, I feel I need to tell you that at the weekend, I saw Rick Astley, playing drums and singing "Highway to Hell". Whilst I was dressed as Sonny Crockett. In Skegness. With Mr T, Indiana Jones, Madonna, Bananaman, Axl Rose, Iceman from Top Gun and Jimmy Saville. Surreal.

    Ah you notice my subtle pop music references in Nighthawks?

    I do wonder that they are too subtle for most people.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,935
    @TSE

    Depeche Mode were once a boy band - they were still in their teens when they released Just Can't Get Enough in 1981.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Carola said:

    The iphone upgrade is a pile of suck. It looks like the kid zone in Ikea.

    You'll get used to it after a few days. There are some great new features.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    When I go to PB.com I am still seeing old entries at the top as opposed to this post. Hopefully the powers that be know about this issue.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Q I got asked by a parent today: 'Is there anything you can do about my son's BO?'
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    TFS - have you had any toaster related call outs?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    edited October 2013
    RobD said:

    When I go to PB.com I am still seeing old entries at the top as opposed to this post. Hopefully the powers that be know about this issue.

    Can you say which browser/device you are accessing PB on?

    It maybe something to do with the recent server upgrade.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Carola said:

    Q I got asked by a parent today: 'Is there anything you can do about my son's BO?'

    A. Sit him at the back of the class.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    TheWatcher said:

    Carola said:

    The iphone upgrade is a pile of suck. It looks like the kid zone in Ikea.

    You'll get used to it after a few days. There are some great new features.
    Like what? I'm not really a features gal. It looks bloody awful.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    dr_spyn said:

    TFS - have you had any toaster related call outs?

    Often!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    Carola said:

    Q I got asked by a parent today: 'Is there anything you can do about my son's BO?'

    Carola, just tweeted something, you as a teacher may appreciate

    TSEofPB ‏@TSEofPB 4s

    For all you teachers out there.

    pic.twitter.com/bnXhBSdRtS
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    kle4 said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
    The Cleggasm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited October 2013
    TheWatcher said:

    kle4 said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
    The Cleggasm.
    Yes indeed. So much effort and energy obsession over such a brief event, but hey, they did at least increase their vote (not where it counts) when the other leftist party was getting punished, depriving the Tories of their prize. As much fun as it can be to mock Tories for Cameron's failure to secure a majority, and indeed mock the brevity of the Cleggasm, the Tories not getting a majority was not wholly down to them.

    The again, I was hoping for a Lib-Con Coalition with around 80 LD MPs or so, so my perspectives on things may be a little skewed.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Carola said:

    Q I got asked by a parent today: 'Is there anything you can do about my son's BO?'

    Carola, just tweeted something, you as a teacher may appreciate

    TSEofPB ‏@TSEofPB 4s

    For all you teachers out there.

    pic.twitter.com/bnXhBSdRtS
    Lol. A friend of mine, a primary teacher, had a drunken one night stand with a bloke and found herself sitting opposite him and his wife at a parents' evening a couple of weeks later.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    TFS - you did see the story in The Mirror and The Evening Standard.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/oeep9dl
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    It's unsurprising that the Tories appear to be winning the Welfare argument I think - I mean, many of the stated aims and even stated policies are definitely popular, even if there is still significant resistance to bits of it - but given they appear to be losing on many other issues like Education and Health (or so it seems at any rate - people may end up liking the changes if they are not disasters, but it feels like the dislike of change in of itself will still be in place by 2015, before positive effects are really bedded in or accepted as the case may be), so will losing on that issue impact Labour all that much?

    Particularly if since the economy is picking up a bit, and despite the need for lots more austerity (a lot more than we are currently 'getting' perhaps), the public may feel we can afford to not be so immediately harsh in cutting things in Welfare?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    tim said:

    kle4 said:

    TheWatcher said:

    kle4 said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
    The Cleggasm.
    Yes indeed. So much effort and energy obsession over such a brief event, but hey, they did at least increase their vote (not where it counts) when the other leftist party was getting punished, depriving the Tories of their prize. As much fun as it can be to mock Tories for Cameron's failure to secure a majority, and indeed mock the brevity of the Cleggasm, the Tories not getting a majority was not wholly down to them.

    The again, I was hoping for a Lib-Con Coalition with around 80 LD MPs or so, so my perspectives on things may be a little skewed.
    The Tories had blown it before the debates

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010


    I'm sure that's correct - I meant more that, irresepctive of the impact of the debates, the LDs actually held up pretty well (well, increased technically, just in the wrong places where it did them no good) when the Tories may have been banking on them declining a little bit more (tight margins for the LDs, a few percentage points one way or another could cost or gain them a fair few seats, or as they will hope in 2015, not nearly as much as it seems it should) given the LDs are, despite their occasional protests, firmly centre left and so the Tories would hope suffer more of a decline in the face of a centre right victory, and that some credit should go to the LDs for that, and not just all the criticism on Cameron and co for not getting over the line themselves.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    edited October 2013
    @Carola Pure class one of the posts of the day.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Carola said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Carola said:

    Q I got asked by a parent today: 'Is there anything you can do about my son's BO?'

    Carola, just tweeted something, you as a teacher may appreciate

    TSEofPB ‏@TSEofPB 4s

    For all you teachers out there.

    pic.twitter.com/bnXhBSdRtS
    Lol. A friend of mine, a primary teacher, had a drunken one night stand with a bloke and found herself sitting opposite him and his wife at a parents' evening a couple of weeks later.
    Ouch
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Well, that took awhile to decide:

    The US is suspending a large part of the $1.3bn (£810m) in aid it gives to Egypt's military.

    The delivery of large-scale military systems as well as cash assistance to the Egyptian government would be withheld, said the state department.

    Any coincidence in the timing?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24470121
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Miserable, cold and pouring with rain?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    We all wanted a lot of things when Cameron said that. He may not have seen anything wrong with the Blair years then, but it is possible he does genuinely see the problem with them now (also possible he, and others,are just spinning his position, granted). That he said what he did does not discount that he, and others who agreed with him at the time, may have been illuminated as to an alternate position since then and discovered a new view on the negative impact of Labour in power.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.

    That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    SeanT is clearly suffering from PMT tonight. (pre Miliband tension).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.

    That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    When I go to PB.com I am still seeing old entries at the top as opposed to this post. Hopefully the powers that be know about this issue.

    Can you say which browser/device you are accessing PB on?

    It maybe something to do with the recent server upgrade.
    Sorry for the delay. Accessing it from a Mac using Chrome.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,935
    kle4 said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
    If Dave couldn't even win a majority against Gordon, he'll hardly have a chance of winning a majority against Super Ed!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    kle4 said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe it's not that they were so useless, but because Clegg and the LDs were so awesome and held on to so many votes it hurt Cameron and Osborne. What? Anything's possible.
    If Dave couldn't even win a majority against Gordon, he'll hardly have a chance of winning a majority against Super Ed!
    He'll have to hope the collapse/severe decline at least of the LD vote will be larger than the enhancement Super Ed will bring to the Labour vote. I don't think his chances are high. But then I was predicting a Labour majority in 2015 before it was cool.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.

    That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
    But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Bobajob

    'It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.'

    Or the daily whine about marginal tax rates?
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    john_zims said:

    @Bobajob

    'It's possible to read something AND be bored by it, Sean. Witness the infernal tedium visited on PBers every morning by Plato, for example.'

    Or the daily whine about marginal tax rates?

    It's you lot that keep bringing them up - as Carlotta did today. I am simply begrudgingly supplying a public service for those that don't grasp how the tax system works, which is most people on here. Apologies if you find it dull --- I sympathise. It is.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    It solaces me that you and other pb lefties are now dutifully reading my Telegraph rants. To think I used to give this stuff away for free, on pb.com.

    I particularly enjoyed the way Roger was "bored" by my blog today. How did that happen? Did he accidentally topple onto his laptop, and by sheer mistake, perhaps with an elbow-nudge, click through onto the Telegraph website, and then by happenstance cough a crouton onto the mouse which opened my blog so he could be bored by it?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
    But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
    Meldrewites and masochists.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    Eric Pickles eats 6 curries in one session on Indian junket
    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/10/eric-pickles-eats-six-curries-in-one-session/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    That BBC survey on services being perceived to be fine or improving despite cuts I'm surprised hasn't been seized on much yet. I do predict an article from the right somewhere talking about how the BBC have presented it as something like craziness though.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    tim said:

    @SeanT

    Voting Tory in seats where they come third helps Labour of course.
    A fine example of how Tories simply don't understand FPTP

    I think they let Sean be the only Tory in his London village so they have someone to argue with over the Prosecco.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    Tim Not necessarily true, look at the Oldham by-election where many Tories clearly voted LD to beat Labour
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    SeanT said:

    Bobajob said:

    tim said:

    @SeanT

    Voting Tory in seats where they come third helps Labour of course.
    A fine example of how Tories simply don't understand FPTP

    I think they let Sean be the only Tory in his London village so they have someone to argue with over the Prosecco.


    Prosecco? Ugh!!!

    Trentodoc, PLEEEEZ.
    Do they let you choose the drinks too?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    SeanT said:

    tim said:

    Reading Sean's piece (as we all have regularly for a few years now) it does beg the question

    Just how useless are Cameron and Osborne if they couldn't get over 37% against Brown?

    Maybe this strange series of events occurred in Patisserie Valerie.
    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.
    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
    But one plenty of those on the right seem willing to make. Gritted teeth support of Cameron is unlikely to be enough to get them over the line as the largest party, let alone a majority, and it was no easy task to begin with!
    Meldrewites and masochists.
    I think they like to think of themselves as the beating heart of the Conservative party. I'm sure Lord Tebbit recently made a distinction between conservatives and Tories, the former being the genuine, proper Conservatives, and the latter being believe nothing wimps who go wherever the wind blows, or words to that effect (there certainly seemed plenty of contempt for those 'Tories' who pretend at being Conservatives, but for some reason I cannot find which recent article it was, and contempt at significant portions of one's own party bodes poorly for the future)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited October 2013
    HYUFD said:

    SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!

    It would be hilarious if the Conservatives were somehow the next party to suggest making a change to AV or some other system. I don't think they will oblige me on that, but it would be so entertaining.

    I confess, I don't really know if my local Tories were really against it, as the NoToAV leaflet I received was essentially just a picture of Nick Clegg, but it'd be fun to see them try to argue in favour after that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    edited October 2013
    tim said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT If only rightwingers had used some common sense and backed AV, as Farage sensibly did, they could have voted UKIP first and Tory second without any fear of letting Miliband in!


    Or if their priority is hating Labour then 1.Con 2.LD
    This presumes they grasp AV better than they do FPTP
    They did think the public was too stupid to figure out AV (supporter of it or not, that was a fun line to try), so even if the party did grasp it better, they would not think their own voters would understand it and how to vote effectively as a result.

    We'd need something like Australia, where IIRC the partys send round instructions to voters on which order to vote for candidates to ensure they don't screw it up?
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited October 2013
    dr_spyn said:

    TFS - you did see the story in The Mirror and The Evening Standard.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/oeep9dl

    Never had a toaster, but as we have a city centre A&E in our patch, we have often been called to assist in "unusual" removals. There's one older gent who I've personally removed a coke bottle, a 17mm nut and a spring from his, ahem, "member" over the years. We get men experimenting with sticking things over their thang. Mind you, nowadays, I don't need to get as hands on with jobs like that!

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    Tim Centrist Tories could vote Tory 1 LD 2, rightwing Thatcherites UKIP 1 Tory 2 (both factions may hate Labour, but ideologically one is closer to the LDs, the other UKIP)
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,487
    HYUFD said:

    Eric Pickles eats 6 curries in one session on Indian junket
    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/10/eric-pickles-eats-six-curries-in-one-session/

    Eric Pickles eats 6 Indian junkets in one curry session
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    A variant of the 'fell in the shower excuse'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    KLE4 Indeed, in my view campaigning against AV so vociferously was the stupidest thing Cameron has done the entire Parliament!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:


    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.

    That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
    A better gamble than having five more years of Cameron/Osborne failure followed by Labour in 2020.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,567
    Guardian - Labour admits welfare cap a hard sell after leak of briefing
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    kle4 said:

    another_richard said:


    Tim does have a point though.

    And part of the explanation is that Cameron would disagree with your blog today because he doesn't see anything wrong with the Blair years.

    Cameron wanted to be 'Heir to Blair'.

    While John Major was accused of wanting to recreate 1950s England, Cameron wants to recreate the Britain of summer 2007.

    We all wanted a lot of things when Cameron said that. He may not have seen anything wrong with the Blair years then, but it is possible he does genuinely see the problem with them now (also possible he, and others,are just spinning his position, granted). That he said what he did does not discount that he, and others who agreed with him at the time, may have been illuminated as to an alternate position since then and discovered a new view on the negative impact of Labour in power.
    Judge Cameron on his record:

    Increasing nanny state
    Increasing 'political corectness'
    Increasing surveillance state
    Attempts to boost house prices
    Running a chumocracy
    Fake austerity
    Lying about 'paying down debt'
    Done nothing about immigration
    Done nothing about English democratic deficit
    Obsession with giving money to every foreigner he meets
    Cultural cringe to Obama
    Policy making dependent upon Notting Hill dinner party fashionable thought
    Pointless NHS reorganisation
    Increasing student debt
    Disasterous energy policy
    Complete waste of money of HS2
    Continued waste of lives and money in Afghanistan
    Attempt to support Al Qaeda in Syria
    The under 25 benefit nastiness
    Tolerance of 'the subject we cannot name'

    The list could be added to if I really thought about it.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,285
    Freggles Classic
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    SeanT said:

    another_richard said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:


    Possibly true - but who cares. Unless rightwingers like us Get Over Ourselves, Labour will be re-elected in 2015.

    That's why I wrote that blog. I hate Labour, I genuinely, sincerely, completely HATE them, like you. I hate them because I believe they are actively evil, and they MUST NOT be given command of this country. To that end - much as I despise poshos like Cameron (I agree with you on this) - the Tories are our only hope.

    I sympathise a lot with UKIPers. But voting UKIP in 2015 will bring on a Miliband government, and that could finish us off entirely.

    Vote UKIP in 2014. Good for you. I'll probably do the same. But in 2015 we have to swallow our pride/revulsion and back Cameron. I wish things were otherwise, but they are not.

    Not willing to suffer even five years of Labour in exchange for purging the Tories of Cameroons and ushering in a real Conservative government in 2020, bearing in mind the Miliband Ministry will financially be pretty constrained for those five years?
    5 years of toxic Ed on the off chance of something better in 2020. Poor gamble.
    A better gamble than having five more years of Cameron/Osborne failure followed by Labour in 2020.
    No. It's a terrible gamble with your country's future - and your family's future.

    Wise up. Sober up. Like you, I revile Cameron's metrosexual Labour-lite ridiculousness, but Ed Miliband could do as much damage as Gordon Brown if he gets in. And there is NO guarantee of any rightwing party winning in 2020.

    Imagine if prime minister Red Miliband *fixes* the rightwing press (as he openly and overtly hopes to do), and *boosts* immigration even more: he could easily win a second term.

    Ten more years of Labour? We will be eating dirt.
    Ten more years of Cameron/Osborne and we'll be eating dirt as well.

    They have the same destination as Labour the only differences is how long and in what manner they get there.

    Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    @Another Richard

    I don't particularly fear a Labour government (though I think getting back in so easily after one term, after a stretch of 13 years in power, will do their attitude little good), and I no longer have much faith in this Cameron government which has proven disappointingly incompetent in many ways, but even at a glance I'd still put many of those as either not a problem as far as I'm concerned, something both parties support/are doing nothing about so it's not a Cameron problem but a mainstream party problem (eg surveillance state - and since only the top 2 parties will run a government of some stripe, it makes things no better or worse by not voting for either of them in protest on that sort of issue), minor twaddle (Chumocracy, Notting Hill, cultural cringe, lying about paying down debt - oh my, politician is intentionally misleading? Wouldn't ever see Clegg, Miliband or Farage do that I'm sure!), absurd generalisations (Al Qaeda/Syria - there's issues around that whole affair, but the very fact the situation is so complex makes equating Cameron's view as being so direct as you imply quite insulting), inevitable in one form or another/minor issue (student debt/ foreign aid respectively) or simply not that bad.

    One thing Labour cannot attack is fake austerity, because they have yelled to the hills how damaging austerity has been, so while it is hard to make the 'cut hard in the wrong place, or too fast' argument, making the claim there's been no real austerity, truth or not, goes against their entire strategem to date and so has zero impact (the Tories are probably seeing a similar thing now, having pushed a narrative of 'Weak Miliband' but now trying to say he's 'dangerous Miliband'). The LDs are similarly prevented, and while UKIP or others can make that argument, since the only alternative governing parties support the same position or even less austerity, attacking Cameron for it is pointless as the others would be even worse from that arguing point.

    Also, I don't even know what the 'subject we cannot name' is, so apparently you're right about them not naming it!

    HS2, Energy policy, Afghanistan and Surveillance are all big failures for me too, but of the governing parties I see little positive difference that would give me confidence, so I find it hard to get angry at Cameron about them.

    Night all.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    another_richard said:


    Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You could not be more wrong.

    A failure to elect a Conservative majority government in 2015 will be just like going back to the start of the 1970s, a collective failure to address the three key issues of the day: the public finances, education and welfare. In fact it would be even worse, given that we have actually made huge progress on all three. To actually go backwards would be even worse than the 1970s, when all they were doing was putting off the reckoning, not running away from progress already made.

    There was a very good comment on Sean's article today:

    misterman, Today 09:21 AM

    Mr Thomas

    Good piece.

    It's a measure of the effectiveness of the present Government that barely more than three years after taking over the socialists' mess many people appear simply to have forgotten how disastrous the previous thirteen years were.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,567
    Daily Mail - PM backs spy chief's attack on Guardian: Security expert warned leaks risk 'widespread loss of life' but BBC buries criticism of Left-wing paper


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Freggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Eric Pickles eats 6 curries in one session on Indian junket
    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/10/eric-pickles-eats-six-curries-in-one-session/

    Eric Pickles eats 6 Indian junkets in one curry session
    Troughing on the taxpayer :) ?>
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    RichardNabavi said:

    another_richard said:


    Ted Heath winning in 1974 is the equivalent of Cameron winning in 2015.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You could not be more wrong.

    A failure to elect a Conservative majority government in 2015 will be just like going back to the start of the 1970s, a collective failure to address the three key issues of the day: the public finances, education and welfare. In fact it would be even worse, given that we have actually made huge progress on all three. To actually go backwards would be even worse than the 1970s, when all they were doing was putting off the reckoning, not running away from progress already made.

    There was a very good comment on Sean's article today:

    misterman, Today 09:21 AM

    Mr Thomas

    Good piece.

    It's a measure of the effectiveness of the present Government that barely more than three years after taking over the socialists' mess many people appear simply to have forgotten how disastrous the previous thirteen years were.
    In 1974 you would have been eulogising Heath in a similar manner.

    In fact I suspect you and Avery probably were.

    But that's an interesting quote.

    Why hasn't Cameron been constantly pointing out the failures of Labour ? Why didn't Cameron point out the failures of Labour while he was Opposition leader ?

    BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE FAILURES.

    CAMERON WANTED TO BE 'HEIR TO BLAIR'.

    And I'm sorry RN you can't accuse the past of 'putting off the reckoning' and then defend this government's economic and energy policies.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,263
    kle4 said:

    lying about paying down debt - oh my, politician is intentionally misleading?

    Unfortunately Cameron's lies on the debt issue have been successful.

    Hence most people thinking the debt is being paid off.

    Which will make it so much harder for this country to adjust when we do have to start living within our means.

    That Cameron is willing to lie for party gain at the cost of damage to the country is contemptible.

    Does that make him any different to the other party leaders ? Probably not. But that only means that the others are equally contemptible.


  • isamisam Posts: 42,632
    No18. England footballer says players that play for England should be English. How is this controversial? The world has gone mad
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    isam said:

    No18. England footballer says players that play for England should be English. How is this controversial? The world has gone mad

    Jack Wilshere ‏@JackWilshere 3h

    "My view on football - going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree"

    He's picking more up on the bizarre fact that Manuel Almunia is eligible for England rather than Froome/Farah/Strauss who all have British ancestry or came here as kids.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,632
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    No18. England footballer says players that play for England should be English. How is this controversial? The world has gone mad

    Jack Wilshere ‏@JackWilshere 3h

    "My view on football - going to a new country when ur an adult, & because u can get a passport u play 4 that national team - I disagree"

    He's picking more up on the bizarre fact that Manuel Almunia is eligible for England rather than Froome/Farah/Strauss who all have British ancestry or came here as kids.
    Yes exactly.

    No one is saying Farah etc should not represent Britain or England, but to move to a country as a career move then swap nationalities is ridiculous.

    Imagine if a load of journeymen English League 1 footballers went and lived in India and got picked for the national team ahead of indians, how would that go down?







  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edited October 2013
    Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)
  • isamisam Posts: 42,632
    Pulpstar said:

    Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)

    Personally I think dual nationality means you can get two goes at it, it's the world we live in. but for Almunia to be considered for England when he is a Spaniard who just happens to work here is/was ludicrous. Not to mention, he has never been good enough. imagine being an English goalkeeper and having him play in front of you!

    Wilshere is 100% right in my book.

    the worst example I can think of is the crazy ODI between England and Ireland last month, when England's Boyd Rankin dismissed Ireland's Ed Joyce, having dismissed him years earlier when playing for Ireland against Joyce's England.

    how can that possibly be allowed to happen?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Ah I see who Wilshere was refferring to now - Januzaj.

    Well he can choose to play for either Serbia, Kosovo, Belgium or Albania but he DEFINITELY shouldn't be eligible for England.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    What is truly bonkers is the response on twitter, saying Wilshere is some kind of racist...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Alex ThomasCNN

    Why should it be different if you are an adult @JackWilshere ? Shouldn't naturalized immigrants have the same employment rights? @KP24'

    Seriously - Playing for a country is about EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ??!! No - That is about being eligible to play for a club or w/e.

    Bonkers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edited October 2013
    The world's gone mad - And I'm off for the night o/
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tiffany Porter is an example of what he might be getting at - Ok She has a British parent and dual nationality, but she only switched to Britain after she couldn't make the cut for the USA - That rankles like Almunia's eligibility (Who also wants to play for England as there is no way he'll ever get into the spanish side)

    Personally I think dual nationality means you can get two goes at it, it's the world we live in. but for Almunia to be considered for England when he is a Spaniard who just happens to work here is/was ludicrous. Not to mention, he has never been good enough. imagine being an English goalkeeper and having him play in front of you!

    Wilshere is 100% right in my book.

    the worst example I can think of is the crazy ODI between England and Ireland last month, when England's Boyd Rankin dismissed Ireland's Ed Joyce, having dismissed him years earlier when playing for Ireland against Joyce's England.

    how can that possibly be allowed to happen?
    sounds daft. there should be one and only one chance to choose your nation, with no changing sides. that would seem to be common sense. But then, when have sporting governing bodies ever displayed common sense?



  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    wait, the Sunday Sport still exists?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Ed's solution to pre price freeze price increases?

    "I want to get into government as soon as possible to bring in that price freeze."

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/lights-will-stay-on-says-miliband-29648339.html
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I am outraged that Google doesn't have a Google doodle to celebrate Nicholas Parsons on his 90th birthday. I blame the Labour government.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    people finally gone to bed
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    malcolmg said:

    people finally gone to bed

    No, I've just got up :-) The day shift begins.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YG: 32/38/11/13/-22

    Best PM:

    DC: 37(+2)
    EdM: 23(-3)
    NC:6(+1)
    DK: 35(+1)

    best PM by Labour VI:
    EdM: 66%

    Labour 2010:
    EdM: 55%
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    More union benefits bestowed on us from London:
    Westminster scuppers Scottish police pension deal
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/westminster-scuppers-scottish-police-pension-deal-1-3134246
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    Blue_rog said:

    malcolmg said:

    people finally gone to bed

    No, I've just got up :-) The day shift begins.
    Quiet spell whilst the handover takes place
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    Thought we had no money, always plenty for the troughers. Not happy with being a multi-millionaire Hague has to get his snout further in the trough. How do these people sleep at night.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/william-hague-s-800-christmas-card-bill-revealed-1-3133970
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Financier said:


    best PM by Labour VI: EdM: 66%

    Con VI: Cameron: 96

    Lib Dem (2010 Lib Dem)
    Cameron: 22 (23)
    Miliband: 10 (21)

    Cameron Best PM lead:
    M: +11
    F: +15
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    malcolmg said:

    More union benefits bestowed on us from London:
    Westminster scuppers Scottish police pension deal
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/westminster-scuppers-scottish-police-pension-deal-1-3134246

    "However, HM Treasury told Holyrood that whatever additional money it put into the police pensions pot, a comparative sum would have to go to the Westminster department to cover its liability as lender of last resort."

    Do you want a lender of last resort or not?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    malcolmg said:

    Thought we had no money, always plenty for the troughers. Not happy with being a multi-millionaire Hague has to get his snout further in the trough. How do these people sleep at night.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/william-hague-s-800-christmas-card-bill-revealed-1-3133970

    But not quite the £20,000 Eck spent on trying to keep secret he hadn't got any legal advice on the EU, is it?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    @tim - since a Farage won't be PM, how does excluding him "further distort it"? Clegg shouldn't be in there either.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    CarlottaVance said:

    malcolmg said:

    More union benefits bestowed on us from London:
    Westminster scuppers Scottish police pension deal
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/westminster-scuppers-scottish-police-pension-deal-1-3134246

    "However, HM Treasury told Holyrood that whatever additional money it put into the police pensions pot, a comparative sum would have to go to the Westminster department to cover its liability as lender of last resort."

    Do you want a lender of last resort or not?
    It just means as usual we pay twice, robbery is the name not lender of last resort. Does Westminster put twice the amount of funds from English tax away for policeman in England, pray tell.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    CarlottaVance said:

    malcolmg said:

    Thought we had no money, always plenty for the troughers. Not happy with being a multi-millionaire Hague has to get his snout further in the trough. How do these people sleep at night.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/william-hague-s-800-christmas-card-bill-revealed-1-3133970

    But not quite the £20,000 Eck spent on trying to keep secret he hadn't got any legal advice on the EU, is it?

    You any idea how much Dave and his pals spent investigating Mitchell which took more than a year.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    Labour's chickens coming home to roost.... £300M down the drain
    Dunfermline – Labour's PFI/PPP legacy condemned by SNP
    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8159-dunfermline-labours-pfippp-legacy-condemned-by-snp
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    How much did the 18 months of obfuscating over Alex Salmonds missing Trews cost? Surely more than the trousers cost in the first place.

    Whatever else he believes in, it is not open government!
    CarlottaVance said:

    malcolmg said:

    Thought we had no money, always plenty for the troughers. Not happy with being a multi-millionaire Hague has to get his snout further in the trough. How do these people sleep at night.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/william-hague-s-800-christmas-card-bill-revealed-1-3133970

    But not quite the £20,000 Eck spent on trying to keep secret he hadn't got any legal advice on the EU, is it?

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    SEE to raise energy prices by 8.2%!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24465979
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    @tim - so you think Farage might be PM......okaaay......
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025