Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Carlotta, Have to tell you that having all our money in Scotland rather than it being spent in England will be same as creating wealth. We pay it now and get nothing ,
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
The Tory leadership is struggling to keep a grip on the Parliamentary party, and making right-wing noises is designed to deal with that as well as appeal to Kipper drifters. Nearer the election they'll obviously go for the "Don't let Labour ruin our glorious progress" line, having, they hope, secured their right flank - at that point, the Parliamentary party will quieten down anyway.
Will it work? Don't think so. Their progress on attracting either LD->Lab switchers or Gordon Brown voters is basically zilch, after 3 and a half years of intermittently trying. There is an implacable plurality of voters who want them out.
Even for the incompetent fops Hammond's out of touch tory twit routine was hilarious as we can clearly see from his interview with Krishnan Guru Murthy.
Even if we leave aside the incredible stupidity of having out of touch tories being the ones trying to threaten the scottish voters into voting no, it would still have to be a remotely credible threat to begin with. Certainly not one that is destroyed by the simple question "So you would have to reverse your decision and reopen Portsmouth?" As well as all the data that shows this was a commercial decision that was considered long before now.
The only thing that the out of touch tory twits could do to top all that is for them along with their lib dem and scottish labour chums to try and posture on over 800 jobs being lost in Govan before christmas as proof of "better together". Which some of them they duly did because they really are that dumb.
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
The Tory leadership is struggling to keep a grip on the Parliamentary party, and making right-wing noises is designed to deal with that as well as appeal to Kipper drifters. Nearer the election they'll obviously go for the "Don't let Labour ruin our glorious progress" line, having, they hope, secured their right flank - at that point, the Parliamentary party will quieten down anyway.
Will it work? Don't think so. Their progress on attracting either LD->Lab switchers or Gordon Brown voters is basically zilch, after 3 and a half years of intermittently trying. There is an implacable plurality of voters who want them out.
I think there will be some swingback ,whether its enough to keep Cameron in power I don't know as the electoral hurdles are high . Nobody is choosing a government at this stage they are merely being asked an opinion. At the actual vote people will use their head more than their heart . The heart being more used for by-elections and mid term opinion polls
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
More tinkering! Surely the coalition policy of lifting people out of tax altogether is helping reduce inequality, as John Rentoul pointed out yesterday...,.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
All that tells us is that most people's incomes are either falling or stagnating. But income is not the same as wealth - as any London homeowner can tell you.
Disposable income Inequality lower under this government than under Labour - suck it up...
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
*It may be recalled that I've long criticised all parties for cutting Defence spending (recently) and for not increasing it (Labour) when money was thrown at every other department and Blair was running around invading countries without considering the resources required. We should have higher military spending, and the early 2000s should've been spent building up our hardware. Not to mention we should spend more on medical/psychological care for the wounded and for the families of the wounded and slain. But I'm getting a bit ranty now, so I'll stop.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Carlotta, Have to tell you that having all our money in Scotland rather than it being spent in England will be same as creating wealth. We pay it now and get nothing ,
Jolly good - how many ships will the Scottish Defence Force order from the Clyde?
Mr. Dickson, given independence only became possible (realistically) a few years ago it's disingenuous to claim the British should've spent the last 50 years planning on a Faslane closure.
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
50 years or 5 years, you've still had time to get started shortlisting and selecting an English port to replace Faslane. To have done absolutely diddly squat is either incompetent or stupid. Or both.
But fairy nuff, I agree with your "bargaining chip" point. The English government has succeeded in throwing away some of their best chips.
And if they had been constructing an English port away from Faslane, no doubt you would have been the first to attack them for taking jobs away from Scotland.
It's always Heads I win, Tails you lose with the Nats isn't it.
The reason England has got itself in such a mess is because it does not currently have a government working in its interest.
Northern Ireland has a government working in the interests of NI people and business.
Wales has a government working in the interests of Welsh people and business.
Scotland has a government working in the interests of Scottish people and business.
But England has a government working in the interests of London, Brussels and Scottish Unionists.
There are very clear signals that the English electorate (outwith London) are waking up to the facts. But it looks like the principal political parties in England are going to wake up too late.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Carlotta, Have to tell you that having all our money in Scotland rather than it being spent in England will be same as creating wealth. We pay it now and get nothing ,
Are you saying that all Scotland's GDP is paid to England? That is a remarkable claim. What is the evidence for it?
Cutting defence spending should be a good thing . It should mean the world is safer. Never really understood the drooling or sentimentality over a vast killing machine like a aircraft carrier or air force bomber. In Nottingham we even hosted 'armed forces day' last summer FGS as though it was a Moscow May day parade. Great to see loads of kids admiring tanks and machine guns !!
I think in a nutshell the structural disadvantage that the Tories have is that a marked shift has occurred - largely cultural and demographic in nature - that now means the default majority in this country is now a Labour one, whereas 20 years ago and for most of the 20th century it was Tory. The really rather striking factor when it comes to discussing the effect of the economy is that though everyone acknoweldges that the London economy is growing fast while other parts of the country continue to stagnate, London still has a clear inclination towards Labour. Boris is a unique politician who was able to overcome that, but even then he was helped greatly by having to face Livingstone; it would have been a very different story had he been up against Ooona King.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Carlotta, Have to tell you that having all our money in Scotland rather than it being spent in England will be same as creating wealth. We pay it now and get nothing ,
Are you saying that all Scotland's GDP is paid to England? That is a remarkable claim. What is the evidence for it?
What country do you live in , London get all the cash and hand out pocket money.
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
Mr. Dickson, I'd agree with that. We need an English Parliament. Labour's efforts to break up England with its pathetic regional assemblies idea was despicable and I'm glad it failed utterly.
Mr. Away, as long as there are threats we must have the means to face them, and to protect our interests (the Falklands, deterring Somalian pirates etc).
Mr. Dickson, because if British ships are built by Britons, and the part of Britain that made them decides to leave Britain then it's only rational to move the building to elsewhere (ie within Britain).
On this very thread SNPers have stated that it would be a good thing for Scotland to be independent as it would mean government jobs moving to Scotland from Wales and England. You can't claim that and then complain at the prospect of UK government jobs moving from Scotland to the UK (less Scotland).
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
Mr. Dickson, I'd agree with that. We need an English Parliament. Labour's efforts to break up England with its pathetic regional assemblies idea was despicable and I'm glad it failed utterly.
At the risk of agreement breaking out all round, I'd like to endorse your sentence: "Labour's efforts to break up England with its pathetic regional assemblies idea was despicable and I'm glad it failed utterly."
The day the North East referendum result was declared I was literally skipping round the house like a happy easter bunny on acid. The look on Prescott's fizzog was worth a week's gin & tonics by a Med poolside.
Indeed. IMHO the failure of the Tories to ensure they got the boundary changes is the most baffling of all their strategic errors. These changes were fundamental to their chances of winning a majority - nothing could be more important, but they threw it all away purely in order to stick two fingers up at the Lib Dem HoL reform proposals! Unbelievable!
I would and did agree with you but on further analysis I actually think that the Conservatives, or rather a small minority of Conservatives (the actual rebels led by Jesse Norman were far from a majority of the Parliamentary party) were right to make this seemingly foolish trade.
The fact is that electing the house of lords, by whatever mechanism, would have given that house aspirations of democratic legitimacy ( and therefore of its right to rule and thwart the will of the commons) that it has never had before. Currently its relationship with the Commons is governed by two things- the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention. In practice the Parliament Act is very rarely used by the Commons to get its way and were it needed on a more regular basis it would essentially mean that the ability of the Commons to legislate effectively would be severly compromised. Instead it is the Salisbury Convention, rather more than the Parliament Acts, which allows the party with a majority in the Commons to govern effectively; however it is only a convention NOT a statute. It would not be at all surprising if an elected house of lords, armed with the shroud of democratic legitimacy, dispensed with the convention very rapidly.
The result would be constant legislative logjam and an awful lot of power being given. to the party which holds the balance of power in the house of lords ( which, of course it was envisaged to elect by PR). That party was (surprise surprise) likely to be the Liberal Democrats- hence their enthusiasm for the project. In any case, apart, from the dis-proportionate amount of power the proposals effectively gave to the Lib-Dems.
If Labour comes to power in coalition with the Lib-Dems after the next election I would not be at all surprised if the same mis-givings did not surface on the labour benches and that a minority of Labour mps might be prepared to vote down the legislation in conjunction with a Conservative opposition by then wholly opposed to reform.
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
Which is why compared to the posturing from the No parties there was a very stark contrast from those in the scottish administration who were repeating their focus on the jobs themselves and possible diversification. Just like before and during the Grangemouth crisis. Obviously they were forced to slap down the ridiculous threats as well but Grangemouth is very fresh in the voters memory so the 'wisdom' of the unionist parties posturing on this was extremely questionable from the start.
If military spend concerns you the you might also be interested to know that not only has Blair stated in his own biography that he thought Trident was "ridiculous" but that he also bizarrely made it a red line for his stepping down. Blair handed the PM job to Brown on understanding Brown would never give up Trident.
One thing I think people really forget is that the Conservative share of the vote in 2010 was 37%, and the Labour share of the vote was 29.7%. [GB excl NI]
That gap is bigger than Thatcher's victory lead in 1979.
The truth is for the conservatives a (5%) lead is almost irrelevant to the chances of a majority - Yet for Labour a 5% lead pretty much guarantees a majority no matter what. The thresholds are 32% and 43%. Indeed a CON majority doesn't look remotely possible (Even with an unbelievably low 25% for Labour) till CON hits 37% !
The dice are completely stacked, the deck rigged and the roulette table biased in Labour's favour for the next GE.
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
Mr Pork posted a link - watch it yourself - despite heroic efforts by KGM he refused to say 'vote Indie & we take our ships back'.......
Even for the incompetent fops Hammond's out of touch tory twit routine was hilarious as we can clearly see from his interview with Krishnan Guru Murthy.
Even if we leave aside the incredible stupidity of having out of touch tories being the ones trying to threaten the scottish voters into voting no, it would still have to be a remotely credible threat to begin with. Certainly not one that is destroyed by the simple question "So you would have to reverse your decision and reopen Portsmouth?" As well as all the data that shows this was a commercial decision that was considered long before now.
The only thing that the out of touch tory twits could do to top all that is for them along with their lib dem and scottish labour chums to try and posture on over 800 jobs being lost in Govan before christmas as proof of "better together". Which some of them they duly did because they really are that dumb.
Exactly , Ian Davidson trying to promote how good a day it was for Govan was unbelievable
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
See FT report:
But, instead of depicting Wednesday’s announcement as an unavoidable decision by BAE, ministers chose to use it to make political capital against those campaigning for Scottish independence.
Announcing the decision, Philip Hammond, defence secretary, pointedly told the Commons: “If Scotland were not a part of the United Kingdom I would certainly not be able to make the statement I have.” That followed David Cameron’s assertion that: “If there was an independent Scotland, we would not have any warships at all.”
A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.”
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
See FT report:
But, instead of depicting Wednesday’s announcement as an unavoidable decision by BAE, ministers chose to use it to make political capital against those campaigning for Scottish independence.
Announcing the decision, Philip Hammond, defence secretary, pointedly told the Commons: “If Scotland were not a part of the United Kingdom I would certainly not be able to make the statement I have.” That followed David Cameron’s assertion that: “If there was an independent Scotland, we would not have any warships at all.”
A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.”
One thing I think people really forget is that the Conservative share of the vote in 2010 was 37%, and the Labour share of the vote was 29.7%. [GB excl NI]
That gap is bigger than Thatcher's victory lead in 1979.
The truth is for the conservatives a (5%) lead is almost irrelevant to the chances of a majority - Yet for Labour a 5% lead pretty much guarantees a majority no matter what. The thresholds are 32% and 43%. Indeed a CON majority doesn't look remotely possible (Even with an unbelievably low 25% for Labour) till CON hits 37% !
The dice are completely stacked, the deck rigged and the roulette table biased in Labour's favour for the next GE.
And the Tories threw away their opportunity to do anything about it when they scuppered the boundary changes. Unbelievable.
Mr. Pork, if there's insufficient work* for all the workers at Portsmouth and on the Clyde then job losses are inevitable.
But Morris, if it was purely a commercial decision ("insufficient work") then why did Mr Hammond imply yesterday that the decision to close Portsmouth was taken for political reasons?
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
See FT report:
But, instead of depicting Wednesday’s announcement as an unavoidable decision by BAE, ministers chose to use it to make political capital against those campaigning for Scottish independence.
Announcing the decision, Philip Hammond, defence secretary, pointedly told the Commons: “If Scotland were not a part of the United Kingdom I would certainly not be able to make the statement I have.” That followed David Cameron’s assertion that: “If there was an independent Scotland, we would not have any warships at all.”
A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.”
Cheers - so you think that rUK would continue to build their warships in an Independent Scotland? I think its fair for the SNP to say that they would seek to diversify the Clyde shipyards in the event of independence ( although given this hasn't already happened suggests that it is more difficult than people think ) but to try and pretend that separation will have no impact on where rUK builds their ships is silly.
Andrew Neil @afneil 2m Wind turbine costing Welsh gov £48,000 has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month, according to BBC Wales
Andrew Neil @afneil Wind turbine costing Welsh gov £48,000 has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month, according to BBC Wales
I love it when a plan falls into place.
It will take 9,600 months or 800 years to get their money back at this rate. LOL
I think in a nutshell the structural disadvantage that the Tories have is that a marked shift has occurred - largely cultural and demographic in nature - that now means the default majority in this country is now a Labour one, whereas 20 years ago and for most of the 20th century it was Tory. The really rather striking factor when it comes to discussing the effect of the economy is that though everyone acknoweldges that the London economy is growing fast while other parts of the country continue to stagnate, London still has a clear inclination towards Labour. Boris is a unique politician who was able to overcome that, but even then he was helped greatly by having to face Livingstone; it would have been a very different story had he been up against Ooona King.
You are certainly right about London - unique in the fact that high earners vote Labour in huge numbers.
One thing I think people really forget is that the Conservative share of the vote in 2010 was 37%, and the Labour share of the vote was 29.7%. [GB excl NI]
That gap is bigger than Thatcher's victory lead in 1979.
The truth is for the conservatives a (5%) lead is almost irrelevant to the chances of a majority - Yet for Labour a 5% lead pretty much guarantees a majority no matter what. The thresholds are 32% and 43%. Indeed a CON majority doesn't look remotely possible (Even with an unbelievably low 25% for Labour) till CON hits 37% !
The dice are completely stacked, the deck rigged and the roulette table biased in Labour's favour for the next GE.
And the Tories threw away their opportunity to do anything about it when they scuppered the boundary changes. Unbelievable.
At first I was livid with Clegg, but I might vote for him now - as a thanks for reducing the chance of a conservative majority to well certainly less than the Betfair suggested price and thus providing fantastic value in betting terms for the GE.
The next election - as backed up by Jack's Arse will see relatively few seats changing hands in England and Wales IMHO.
Labour % may be up - but I'm struggling to see where the huge splashes of red will appear in the south.
Labour don't need to win huge areas of the south. They will do well in inner city areas of London, Birmingham and Bristol. Plus various seats dotted around the south which they current hold or have held prior to 2010. The Tories under Cameron are not hugely popular in many parts of the country.
After yesterday's poor showing I promised to keep quiet today but was prevailed upon by one of my two loyal followers to persist, and since there is a very good card at Lingfield, I'm giving it another go.
I am backing three at Lingfield to large stakes:
1.50 Captain Swift 11/1 2.50 Derfenna Art 13/2 3.20 Duke Of Destiny 4/1
I also think Thank You Very Much in the 3.50 is way overpriced at 25/1, but obviously at those odds you wouldn't want to be going in too heavy.
Wolverhampton is trickier, but I have had two small speculative punts on:
4.50 Jaeger Connoisseur 16/1 6.50 George Fenton 16/1
I'll be looking at the Towcester card later where all eyes will be on Tony McCoy who stands one winner away from his 4,000th. You don't have to be a racing fan to appreciate what an extraordinary achievement that is. Even the BBC, which has virtually given up on horse-racing coverage, has seen fit to comment.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Carlotta, Have to tell you that having all our money in Scotland rather than it being spent in England will be same as creating wealth. We pay it now and get nothing ,
Are you saying that all Scotland's GDP is paid to England? That is a remarkable claim. What is the evidence for it?
What country do you live in , London get all the cash and hand out pocket money.
After yesterday's poor showing I promised to keep quiet today but was prevailed upon by one of my two loyal followers to persist, and since there is a very good card at Lingfield, I'm giving it another go.
I am backing three at Lingfield to large stakes:
1.50 Captain Swift 11/1 2.50 Derfenna Art 13/2 3.20 Duke Of Destiny 4/1
I also think Thank You Very Much in the 3.50 is way overpriced at 25/1, but obviously at those odds you wouldn't want to be going in too heavy.
Wolverhampton is trickier, but I have had two small speculative punts on:
4.50 Jaeger Connoisseur 16/1 6.50 George Fenton 16/1
I'll be looking at the Towcester card later where all eyes will be on Tony McCoy who stands one winner away from his 4,000th. You don't have to be a racing fan to appreciate what an extraordinary achievement that is. Even the BBC, which has virtually given up on horse-racing coverage, has seen fit to comment.
Wonder if they will bother to include him in their ten candidates for SPOTY this year?
PS - I have backed all these ew, but as always, follow the approach that suits you best.
Best of luck with those PtP - But I'll just be going with Raceclear today - He has an idiot proof staking plan and I fear I'll probably lose long term with you (Due to crap staking) even though I am sure you are very profitable
On topic: You need to be a bit careful with selecting a single period for the comparison. A notable example of this is 2010, where Mike's 18-month window happens to hit a month where Gordon Brown got a huge bounce from the financial crisis. In August and September 2008 the Tory lead was often around 20 points, and by early 2009 it had recovered partially: the November 2008 leads of between 1 and 15 points were anomalous.
There's no substitute for using informed judgement on this, and of course events can intervene. Overall, the likelihood is that the Labour lead will fall. Whether it will fall into sufficiently negative territory to avoid a Labour or Labour-led government remains to be seen.
Brogans email,which should worry smart Tories, PB Tories are determined to ignore
Good morning. Universal Credit is the big daddy of government policy, and it's in trouble. It's complex, expensive, unproven and ambitious. It seeks to overturn the facts of the welfare state in a surprisingly short space of time. The policy is arguably the most ambitious thing the Coalition is doing. And it's got everyone, from Dave down, nervous. Really, really nervous. Today, the fear factor increases with the publication of the PAC's report on Universal Credit. The previews in the papers make for grim reading. Margaret Hodge and colleagues have laid in to its "extraordinarily poor" and "alarmingly weak" management, enough to prompt suggestions that Iain Duncan Smith and Francis Maude are contemplating postponement. Although the management systems have been "reset" with new people in charge, it seems likely that the timetable for implementation, which has been the subject of constant criticism since it was first mooted, will be allowed to slip. Number 10 is anxious that it will cause political difficulties by antagonising the 'hard working' people Dave wants to win over just as they are thinking about who to support in 2015. What the Treasury thinks is unprintable (though Matthew d'Ancona helpfully detailed what George Osborne really thinks of IDS's intellectual abilities in his recent expose of the Coalition).
The writing was on the wall for the IDS and his inept reforms years before now. As was pointed out at the time when some of the implementation dates being talked about were slipping to 2017 and even beyond. The fact that there was also a spin war between IDS and Osbrowne was also extremely telling. IDS occasionally made threatening noises about leaving the cabinet over Europe yet he never had the bottle to do so. Of course if IDS wanted to stick the knife in he would quit before being booted and cite Europe as the reason instead of his failure on reforms. It's very unlikely though since the war in the tory party over staying IN or OUT of Europe won't break out fully till after the next election. No doubt there will be shots fired if the EU elections are dire for the tories, but that is a timebomb that can likely wait till after 2015. Unlike some "events dear boy, events".
"Leaving aside your views of the current government, and thinking more generally about the political system and the governments it has produced over the years, which of the following best reflects your view?"
Works: Well: 6 Some Minor Problems: 40 Major Problems: 34 Broken: 12
Party splits show coalition parties happier (well/minor probs) Con: 72, LibD: 56, Lab: 40, UKIP 29, with the opposition parties most unhappy (major probs/broken): Con: 22, Lib 36, Lab: 56, UKIP: 71.
Interestingly the level of 'don't knows' was quite low at 8.
Demographically, not a lot of skew, although the young are more Don't know (17) than the old (3), whose 'don't knows' break for the 'unhappy camp: (54 vs 46 OA).
The south is happier than the North: (well/minor probs) Lon: 51, North: 40, the better off than the worse off (net 'happy'): ABC1: +7, C2DE: -9
The next election - as backed up by Jack's Arse will see relatively few seats changing hands in England and Wales IMHO.
Labour % may be up - but I'm struggling to see where the huge splashes of red will appear in the south.
Please note my ARSE is fully capitalized.
Apart from Labour swingdown, differential turnout will IMO be a very important part of the picture, something I've been banging on about for yonks.
Certainly turnout will be very low in LAB heartlands - but it will be much higher in the battlegrounds.
You have started to sound like Stuart Truth
I would remind my honourable Bedford yellow perilist that whereas "Stuart Truth" enjoyed the accuracy of the average LibDem bar chart my ARSE was sensationally accurate both in results and prediction of differential turnout in the swing states.
The next election - as backed up by Jack's Arse will see relatively few seats changing hands in England and Wales IMHO.
Labour % may be up - but I'm struggling to see where the huge splashes of red will appear in the south.
There won't be - And it doesn't need to - Labour will clean up in the Midlands and the North.
Which 70 gains from the Midlands and Northern marginals will Labour capture for a bare majority ?
52 gains. Not 70 - I think it will be Labour minority. There will be a couple in the south, but not so many - Labour to gain High peak and not Kingswood for instance. Or at least thats what I want to happen, I'm up a fortune on that result
Edit: I expect quite a few people to have a ballot box moment where they realise Ed is crap, but not enough to overcome his huge efficiency and electoral bias advantages.
Another example of why press regulation is needed in regard to how errors are corrected. The apology will be a small column hidden on page 27, when the original article may have been more prominent in the paper. People will remember the article on Brown claiming expenses when hardly attending parliament, but they probably won't see the apology.
If only Brown had been so quick to defend the taxpayer's funds as he is to defend his own shoddy reputation.
Your comment is just partian rubbish. If you have a specific issue, then why not post something which contain some stats, for which you can say Brown was personally responsible.
Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years. So I should imagine there are plenty of examples you could cite.
I thought this was a rather neat summary from Hugo Rifkind on why he isn't a politician
"The thing is, this is my problem. It’s not politics’ problem. There is a system, and if I cared enough — if I had humility enough to do thankless things and pretend to care about them, and send leaflets, and knock on doors, and make endless small talk, and not mind terribly when people stabbed me in the back, and almost certainly do a fair bit of stabbing myself — then, if I was lucky and if I was good enough, I could contribute towards changing that system. Be the change, as I think Mahatma Gandhi said. Drive the moneychangers from the temple, like that other bloke. But I don’t. And so I don’t.
Mea culpa. This is apathy. This is the subtext when people like Russell Brand — and this week even Jeremy Paxman himself — moan on about a political system blind to the needs of ‘ordinary’ people. It’s a worldview that hinges on a concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’, but makes no effort whatsoever to become ‘them’ and do things any differently. I will take a lecture on the distant political class from somebody who has tried to penetrate that class and failed, and I will be told ‘they’re all the same’ by somebody who has not only done that, but then tried to be different, and crashed back to earth as a result. Not, though, from people who simply don’t like what they see, and want somebody else to do all the work. I mean, honestly. Lazy sods." http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/hugo-rifkind/9073251/why-id-never-be-a-tory-princeling/
If only Brown had been so quick to defend the taxpayer's funds as he is to defend his own shoddy reputation.
Your comment is just partian rubbish. If you have a specific issue, then why not post something which contain some stats, for which you can say Brown was personally responsible.
Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years. So I should imagine there are plenty of examples you could cite.
No problem, Pulpy. Everybody should find and use the approach that suits them best.
As I've said before, I only post racing tips here for a bit of fun and because one or two others are interested in the nags. I do make a long-term profit, but the percentage returns are small and you have to cope with some long barren spells.
Political betting shows a very much higher rate of return, but unfortunately decent markets are few and far between.
Why would a British government wish to build their Royal Navy ships in the dockyards of a foreign power ?
For the same reasons that caused them to do it previously - necessity, expediency, cost, convenience?
You mean the reasons they and BAE set out yesterday?
*titters*
The other being that the expectation is that Scotland would remain within the UK and accordingly the reasons are valid. If Scotland becomes a foreign power the noted reasons are mute.
Another example of why press regulation is needed in regard to how errors are corrected. The apology will be a small column hidden on page 27, when the original article may have been more prominent in the paper. People will remember the article on Brown claiming expenses when hardly attending parliament, but they probably won't see the apology.
They will remember the legacy of his disastrous time in office for another 10 years as we dig our way out of his spending to achieve power machinations.
Brown may not claim expenses - but he does a salary - perhaps you can defend his attendance record in the HoP ?
I see Chris Christie supports both gun control and believes in global warming.
He's a politician. He will say whatever he thinks is necessary to get himself elected no matter how stupid it is.
People who feel strongly about guns in the US tend to be strongly opposed to gun control. The Democrats recently lost two seats in recall elections in Colorado, as a result of voting in favour of (pretty modest) gun controls.
No problem, Pulpy. Everybody should find and use the approach that suits them best.
As I've said before, I only post racing tips here for a bit of fun and because one or two others are interested in the nags. I do make a long-term profit, but the percentage returns are small and you have to cope with some long barren spells.
Political betting shows a very much higher rate of return, but unfortunately decent markets are few and far between.
You ned to check your inbox btw Peter - I've messaged you regarding Cheltenham !
As far as the 2015 General Election and swingback is concerned the concomitant issue of Labour swingdown is worthy of comment :
How far, who benefits and where ?
Lib Dems in CON-LD marginals.
There has been a small shift of Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives since 2010. That matters, as Lib Dems are often defending small majorities over the Conservatives.
Among those saying they are certain to vote, 29% intend to vote Yes and 47% plan to vote No. Nearly one-quarter of certain voters (24%) remained undecided.
"While design responsibility would be shared between consortium members, each country would build its own frigates. This would protect jobs in the politically sensitive warship-building industry in the West."
As far as the 2015 General Election and swingback is concerned the concomitant issue of Labour swingdown is worthy of comment :
How far, who benefits and where ?
Lib Dems in CON-LD marginals.
There has been a small shift of Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives since 2010. That matters, as Lib Dems are often defending small majorities over the Conservatives.
Fairy nuff in respect of support vessels but not in respect of front line ships. Scotland should not expect any special consideration if it becomes a foreign power - independence has consequences.
Why would a British government wish to build their Royal Navy ships in the dockyards of a foreign power ?
For the same reasons that caused them to do it previously - necessity, expediency, cost, convenience?
You mean the reasons they and BAE set out yesterday?
*titters*
I must admit I am finding it difficult to understand why people (outside of those directly affected) are so concerned about one British Dockyard getting work instead of another British dockyard. Almost every one of these politicians and commentators - including those on here - who are moaning about the decision are also those who support a No vote in the referendum next year. As such they are supposedly in favour of the continuation of one United Kingdom. This by implication means that they would want decisions made on a basis that is best for the whole of the UK not just one southern portion of it.
So to now claim that jobs should not go to Scotland because of the threat of independence - particularly when they all seem to gloat about how it will never happen anyway - seems rather daft.
I see Chris Christie supports both gun control and believes in global warming.
He's a politician. He will say whatever he thinks is necessary to get himself elected no matter how stupid it is.
Why is gun control stupid? Why do people need to carry things around that are designed to kill people? And they do, regularly. Ban all citizen guns in the US now - it's the only sensible approach.
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
Overall, though, the right-wing vote is larger now than in 2010, so that's not necessarily a bad strategy.
As far as the 2015 General Election and swingback is concerned the concomitant issue of Labour swingdown is worthy of comment :
How far, who benefits and where ?
Lib Dems in CON-LD marginals.
There has been a small shift of Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives since 2010. That matters, as Lib Dems are often defending small majorities over the Conservatives.
And yet there is no market for Torbay ;(
Speaking of which, what news of young Marcus Wood of this parish ?
Another example of why press regulation is needed in regard to how errors are corrected. The apology will be a small column hidden on page 27, when the original article may have been more prominent in the paper. People will remember the article on Brown claiming expenses when hardly attending parliament, but they probably won't see the apology.
They will remember the legacy of his disastrous time in office for another 10 years as we dig our way out of his spending to achieve power machinations.
Brown may not claim expenses - but he does a salary - perhaps you can defend his attendance record in the HoP ?
Being in the chamber of parliament is not an indication of attendance. Personally I don't actually know how often Brown works from offices in Westminster. Perhaps because he is not sitting on the greenbenches for hours listening to the same old tired debates, he is able to spend more time dealing with issues affecting his constituents.
Actually because Brown stood for election in 2010, he was right to honour his commitment to his constituents that he would serve for the 5 years. Previous PM's have not acted in such an honourable way. They have simply walked away to pursue other interests.
As far as the 2015 General Election and swingback is concerned the concomitant issue of Labour swingdown is worthy of comment :
How far, who benefits and where ?
Lib Dems in CON-LD marginals.
There has been a small shift of Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives since 2010. That matters, as Lib Dems are often defending small majorities over the Conservatives.
And yet there is no market for Torbay ;(
Speaking of which, what news of young Marcus Wood of this parish ?
Hopefully making some money. I remember he posted here that fighting two elections cost him a fortune.
I now think that by failing the Parliamentary Assessment Board, I dodged a very wide bullet.
The writing was on the wall for the IDS and his inept reforms years before now. As was pointed out at the time when some of the implementation dates being talked about were slipping to 2017 and even beyond. The fact that there was also a spin war between IDS and Osbrowne was also extremely telling. IDS occasionally made threatening noises about leaving the cabinet over Europe yet he never had the bottle to do so. Of course if IDS wanted to stick the knife in he would quit before being booted and cite Europe as the reason instead of his failure on reforms. It's very unlikely though since the war in the tory party over staying IN or OUT of Europe won't break out fully till after the next election. No doubt there will be shots fired if the EU elections are dire for the tories, but that is a timebomb that can likely wait till after 2015. Unlike some "events dear boy, events".
The administrative principle of Universal Credit is that employers will report the earnings of all employees to HMRC on a monthly basis and this data will be fed into a DWP system that will calculate benefit entitlement. This sounds great in theory but no one seems to have thought of the practicalities. HMRC (a creaking and under-resourced organisation at the best of times) now has to process 12 times the volume of data it previously handled (earnings used to be reported annually). Naturally this data will contain 12 times as many errors and it will all be fed into an untried and under-resourced DWP system which will attempt to automate the (very complex) benefit calculation process which up to now has been largely manual.
No doubt IT companies told IDS how they could provide all of this for a pittance and it would all work perfectly but IT companies always say that, they take the money and then run when the system is shown to be unworkable. Universal credit will shortly join the long list of failed IT megaprojects (NHS records, Identity cards,. BBC IT etc etc).
The next election - as backed up by Jack's Arse will see relatively few seats changing hands in England and Wales IMHO.
Labour % may be up - but I'm struggling to see where the huge splashes of red will appear in the south.
There won't be - And it doesn't need to - Labour will clean up in the Midlands and the North.
If the economy keeps improving Labour won't clean up in the Midlands, in fact there is scope for the Tories to do better than last time. Things are on the up round here.
I see Chris Christie supports both gun control and believes in global warming.
He's a politician. He will say whatever he thinks is necessary to get himself elected no matter how stupid it is.
Why is gun control stupid? Why do people need to carry things around that are designed to kill people? And they do, regularly. Ban all citizen guns in the US now - it's the only sensible approach.
Guns are a tool just like any other. Perhaps we should also have every one use plastic knives and forks or have a government official come round and cut up our meat for us every mealtime.
As far as the 2015 General Election and swingback is concerned the concomitant issue of Labour swingdown is worthy of comment :
How far, who benefits and where ?
Lib Dems in CON-LD marginals.
There has been a small shift of Lib Dem voters to the Conservatives since 2010. That matters, as Lib Dems are often defending small majorities over the Conservatives.
And yet there is no market for Torbay ;(
Speaking of which, what news of young Marcus Wood of this parish ?
Hopefully making some money. I remember he posted here that fighting two elections cost him a fortune.
I now think that by failing the Parliamentary Assessment Board, I dodged a very wide bullet.
Yes I recall that Sean.
I had a number of spats with Marcus but was always of the view that he'd be an enhancement to the HoC.
The arbitrariness of choosing a point in time and variability in polling methodologies was the very reason I moved to the by-election swingback model in 2006...
Been busy arranging my Dad's funeral, which went off perfectly on Monday. It was the only funeral I've been to where there was a round of applause at the graveside!
A Catholic Requiem Mass with some personal touches. Masefield's "Sea Fever", Lizzie Hardy's "Sometime at eve", and Al Jolson singing "Some Enchanted Evening" at the end... We also raised £300 for the Royal Marsden Hospital with a collection in the church.
The administrative principle of Universal Credit is that employers will report the earnings of all employees to HMRC on a monthly basis and this data will be fed into a DWP system that will calculate benefit entitlement. This sounds great in theory but no one seems to have thought of the practicalities. HMRC (a creaking and under-resourced organisation at the best of times) now has to process 12 times the volume of data it previously handled (earnings used to be reported annually).
A big IT project which, despite the prophecies of doom and gloom from the usual suspects, has been working fine since it went live in April. It's a notable success for the government.
David Cameron: Portsmouth shipyard was closed in the 'national interest' - 940 jobs will be lost at in Portsmouth as shipbuilding moves to the Clyde, raising fears it was sacrificed to spare Scottish jobs ahead of referendum
The two other BAE shipyards in Govan and Scotstoun on the Clyde in Scotland will continue shipbuilding, in what is being seen as a victory for Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister.
... Downing Street repeatedly refused to deny that any decision was made in part to influence the outcome of the Scottish referendum.
Mr Cameron's official spokesman said: "These are decisions taken in the UK's national interest." Asked whether the desire to encourage Scots to vote No in next year's independence referendum had played any part in the decision, the spokesman said: "This is a Government that always takes decisions based on the national interest.
Mike Hancock, the MP for Portsmouth South, said... "Whatever happens Alex Salmond in a no lose situation. He can claim credit for jobs being saved in Scotland because the UK government are running scared of him, or if they close a yard in Scotland he'll say they are punishing Scots because of the referendum. The government ought to have seen through that."
Comments
Will it work? Don't think so. Their progress on attracting either LD->Lab switchers or Gordon Brown voters is basically zilch, after 3 and a half years of intermittently trying. There is an implacable plurality of voters who want them out.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bae-shipyard-jobs-shipbuilding-glasgow-defence-contract
Even if we leave aside the incredible stupidity of having out of touch tories being the ones trying to threaten the scottish voters into voting no, it would still have to be a remotely credible threat to begin with. Certainly not one that is destroyed by the simple question "So you would have to reverse your decision and reopen Portsmouth?" As well as all the data that shows this was a commercial decision that was considered long before now.
The only thing that the out of touch tory twits could do to top all that is for them along with their lib dem and scottish labour chums to try and posture on over 800 jobs being lost in Govan before christmas as proof of "better together". Which some of them they duly did because they really are that dumb.
*It may be recalled that I've long criticised all parties for cutting Defence spending (recently) and for not increasing it (Labour) when money was thrown at every other department and Blair was running around invading countries without considering the resources required. We should have higher military spending, and the early 2000s should've been spent building up our hardware. Not to mention we should spend more on medical/psychological care for the wounded and for the families of the wounded and slain. But I'm getting a bit ranty now, so I'll stop.
For perspective the Norwegian Navy has 70.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Norwegian_Navy
Northern Ireland has a government working in the interests of NI people and business.
Wales has a government working in the interests of Welsh people and business.
Scotland has a government working in the interests of Scottish people and business.
But England has a government working in the interests of London, Brussels and Scottish Unionists.
There are very clear signals that the English electorate (outwith London) are waking up to the facts. But it looks like the principal political parties in England are going to wake up too late.
He does realise that, in the modern information age, viewers, listeners and readers in Glasgow and Portsmouth can access the same media output, doesn't he?
Mr. Away, as long as there are threats we must have the means to face them, and to protect our interests (the Falklands, deterring Somalian pirates etc).
How far, who benefits and where ?
On this very thread SNPers have stated that it would be a good thing for Scotland to be independent as it would mean government jobs moving to Scotland from Wales and England. You can't claim that and then complain at the prospect of UK government jobs moving from Scotland to the UK (less Scotland).
I haven't seen Hammond's interview but how did he imply that the decision was politically influenced?
The day the North East referendum result was declared I was literally skipping round the house like a happy easter bunny on acid. The look on Prescott's fizzog was worth a week's gin & tonics by a Med poolside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004
http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/lorne-jackson/prescott_1396703c.jpg
Indeed. IMHO the failure of the Tories to ensure they got the boundary changes is the most baffling of all their strategic errors. These changes were fundamental to their chances of winning a majority - nothing could be more important, but they threw it all away purely in order to stick two fingers up at the Lib Dem HoL reform proposals! Unbelievable!
I would and did agree with you but on further analysis I actually think that the Conservatives, or rather a small minority of Conservatives (the actual rebels led by Jesse Norman were far from a majority of the Parliamentary party) were right to make this seemingly foolish trade.
The fact is that electing the house of lords, by whatever mechanism, would have given that house aspirations of democratic legitimacy ( and therefore of its right to rule and thwart the will of the commons) that it has never had before. Currently its relationship with the Commons is governed by two things- the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention. In practice the Parliament Act is very rarely used by the Commons to get its way and were it needed on a more regular basis it would essentially mean that the ability of the Commons to legislate effectively would be severly compromised. Instead it is the Salisbury Convention, rather more than the Parliament Acts, which allows the party with a majority in the Commons to govern effectively; however it is only a convention NOT a statute. It would not be at all surprising if an elected house of lords, armed with the shroud of democratic legitimacy, dispensed with the convention very rapidly.
The result would be constant legislative logjam and an awful lot of power being given. to the party which holds the balance of power in the house of lords ( which, of course it was envisaged to elect by PR). That party was (surprise surprise) likely to be the Liberal Democrats- hence their enthusiasm for the project. In any case, apart, from the dis-proportionate amount of power the proposals effectively gave to the Lib-Dems.
If Labour comes to power in coalition with the Lib-Dems after the next election I would not be at all surprised if the same mis-givings did not surface on the labour benches and that a minority of Labour mps might be prepared to vote down the legislation in conjunction with a Conservative opposition by then wholly opposed to reform.
If military spend concerns you the you might also be interested to know that not only has Blair stated in his own biography that he thought Trident was "ridiculous" but that he also bizarrely made it a red line for his stepping down. Blair handed the PM job to Brown on understanding Brown would never give up Trident.
That gap is bigger than Thatcher's victory lead in 1979.
The truth is for the conservatives a (5%) lead is almost irrelevant to the chances of a majority - Yet for Labour a 5% lead pretty much guarantees a majority no matter what. The thresholds are 32% and 43%. Indeed a CON majority doesn't look remotely possible (Even with an unbelievably low 25% for Labour) till CON hits 37% !
The dice are completely stacked, the deck rigged and the roulette table biased in Labour's favour for the next GE.
Labour % may be up - but I'm struggling to see where the huge splashes of red will appear in the south.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/cartoon/
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02725/ADAMS20131107_2725915a.jpg
It's a simple statement of historical fact. Why would a British government wish to build their Royal Navy ships in the dockyards of a foreign power ?
Scottish independence is what it says on the tin.
Good we got that cleared up.
Meanwhile its 'Scottish jobs for Scottish Workers' and 'British jobs for Scottish Workers' in Indie land.......
Cheers - so you think that rUK would continue to build their warships in an Independent Scotland? I think its fair for the SNP to say that they would seek to diversify the Clyde shipyards in the event of independence ( although given this hasn't already happened suggests that it is more difficult than people think ) but to try and pretend that separation will have no impact on where rUK builds their ships is silly.
Apart from Labour swingdown, differential turnout will IMO be a very important part of the picture, something I've been banging on about for yonks.
Wind turbine costing Welsh gov £48,000 has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month, according to BBC Wales
Sounds like a bargin to me...
Wind turbine costing Welsh gov £48,000 has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month, according to BBC Wales
I love it when a plan falls into place.
It will take 9,600 months or
800 years to get their money back at this rate. LOL
After yesterday's poor showing I promised to keep quiet today but was prevailed upon by one of my two loyal followers to persist, and since there is a very good card at Lingfield, I'm giving it another go.
I am backing three at Lingfield to large stakes:
1.50 Captain Swift 11/1
2.50 Derfenna Art 13/2
3.20 Duke Of Destiny 4/1
I also think Thank You Very Much in the 3.50 is way overpriced at 25/1, but obviously at those odds you wouldn't want to be going in too heavy.
Wolverhampton is trickier, but I have had two small speculative punts on:
4.50 Jaeger Connoisseur 16/1
6.50 George Fenton 16/1
I'll be looking at the Towcester card later where all eyes will be on Tony McCoy who stands one winner away from his 4,000th. You don't have to be a racing fan to appreciate what an extraordinary achievement that is. Even the BBC, which has virtually given up on horse-racing coverage, has seen fit to comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/24826875
Wonder if they will bother to include him in their ten candidates for SPOTY this year?
PS - I have backed all these ew, but as always, follow the approach that suits you best.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2489392/Clarifications-corrections.html
"....Something I've been banging on about for yonks. "
Isn't it time Matron increased your daily dose of Calpol?
You have started to sound like Stuart Truth
There's no substitute for using informed judgement on this, and of course events can intervene. Overall, the likelihood is that the Labour lead will fall. Whether it will fall into sufficiently negative territory to avoid a Labour or Labour-led government remains to be seen.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m7oq79w88h/YG-Archive-131106-Political-system.pdf
"Leaving aside your views of the current government, and
thinking more generally about the political system and the
governments it has produced over the years, which of the
following best reflects your view?"
Works:
Well: 6
Some Minor Problems: 40
Major Problems: 34
Broken: 12
Party splits show coalition parties happier (well/minor probs) Con: 72, LibD: 56, Lab: 40, UKIP 29, with the opposition parties most unhappy (major probs/broken): Con: 22, Lib
Interestingly the level of 'don't knows' was quite low at 8.
Demographically, not a lot of skew, although the young are more Don't know (17) than the old (3), whose 'don't knows' break for the 'unhappy camp: (54 vs 46 OA).
The south is happier than the North: (well/minor probs) Lon: 51, North: 40, the better off than the worse off (net 'happy'): ABC1: +7, C2DE: -9
Hic ....
Edit: I expect quite a few people to have a ballot box moment where they realise Ed is crap, but not enough to overcome his huge efficiency and electoral bias advantages.
Are you predicting WW III with a non belligerent Scotland acting as the arsenal of democracy ??
Titters ....
Yes 25% nc
No 43% -1
DK 32% +1
Taken before the current shipbuilding imbroglio and Grangemouth was 'saved'.
http://archive.is/RdAXC
Can the GOP tolerate this man?
*titters*
Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years. So I should imagine there are plenty of examples you could cite.
"The thing is, this is my problem. It’s not politics’ problem. There is a system, and if I cared enough — if I had humility enough to do thankless things and pretend to care about them, and send leaflets, and knock on doors, and make endless small talk, and not mind terribly when people stabbed me in the back, and almost certainly do a fair bit of stabbing myself — then, if I was lucky and if I was good enough, I could contribute towards changing that system. Be the change, as I think Mahatma Gandhi said. Drive the moneychangers from the temple, like that other bloke. But I don’t. And so I don’t.
Mea culpa. This is apathy. This is the subtext when people like Russell Brand — and this week even Jeremy Paxman himself — moan on about a political system blind to the needs of ‘ordinary’ people. It’s a worldview that hinges on a concept of ‘us’ and ‘them’, but makes no effort whatsoever to become ‘them’ and do things any differently. I will take a lecture on the distant political class from somebody who has tried to penetrate that class and failed, and I will be told ‘they’re all the same’ by somebody who has not only done that, but then tried to be different, and crashed back to earth as a result. Not, though, from people who simply don’t like what they see, and want somebody else to do all the work. I mean, honestly. Lazy sods." http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/hugo-rifkind/9073251/why-id-never-be-a-tory-princeling/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
LOL
'Clydeside loses out to South Korea to build £½bn Royal Navy tankers'
http://tinyurl.com/qf75r6e
HMG appears to be pimping abroad for warships also.
'UK proposes building future warships with India'
http://tinyurl.com/o7qnl3s
No problem, Pulpy. Everybody should find and use the approach that suits them best.
As I've said before, I only post racing tips here for a bit of fun and because one or two others are interested in the nags. I do make a long-term profit, but the percentage returns are small and you have to cope with some long barren spells.
Political betting shows a very much higher rate of return, but unfortunately decent markets are few and far between.
Brown may not claim expenses - but he does a salary - perhaps you can defend his attendance record in the HoP ?
So, excluding DK/WNV we get:
Yes 38%
No 62%
Current Betfair prices:
Yes 6
No 1.19
Did you read your India article?
"While design responsibility would be shared between consortium members, each country would build its own frigates. This would protect jobs in the politically sensitive warship-building industry in the West."
So to now claim that jobs should not go to Scotland because of the threat of independence - particularly when they all seem to gloat about how it will never happen anyway - seems rather daft.
The man is plainly insane.
*scratches head*
Actually because Brown stood for election in 2010, he was right to honour his commitment to his constituents that he would serve for the 5 years. Previous PM's have not acted in such an honourable way. They have simply walked away to pursue other interests.
I now think that by failing the Parliamentary Assessment Board, I dodged a very wide bullet.
The writing was on the wall for the IDS and his inept reforms years before now. As was pointed out at the time when some of the implementation dates being talked about were slipping to 2017 and even beyond. The fact that there was also a spin war between IDS and Osbrowne was also extremely telling. IDS occasionally made threatening noises about leaving the cabinet over Europe yet he never had the bottle to do so. Of course if IDS wanted to stick the knife in he would quit before being booted and cite Europe as the reason instead of his failure on reforms. It's very unlikely though since the war in the tory party over staying IN or OUT of Europe won't break out fully till after the next election. No doubt there will be shots fired if the EU elections are dire for the tories, but that is a timebomb that can likely wait till after 2015. Unlike some "events dear boy, events".
The administrative principle of Universal Credit is that employers will report the earnings of all employees to HMRC on a monthly basis and this data will be fed into a DWP system that will calculate benefit entitlement. This sounds great in theory but no one seems to have thought of the practicalities. HMRC (a creaking and under-resourced organisation at the best of times) now has to process 12 times the volume of data it previously handled (earnings used to be reported annually). Naturally this data will contain 12 times as many errors and it will all be fed into an untried and under-resourced DWP system which will attempt to automate the (very complex) benefit calculation process which up to now has been largely manual.
No doubt IT companies told IDS how they could provide all of this for a pittance and it would all work perfectly but IT companies always say that, they take the money and then run when the system is shown to be unworkable. Universal credit will shortly join the long list of failed IT megaprojects (NHS records, Identity cards,. BBC IT etc etc).
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/349514/940-English-jobs-sink-as-yard-is-sacrificed-to-win-Scottish-votes-
I had a number of spats with Marcus but was always of the view that he'd be an enhancement to the HoC.
I wish him well.
Been busy arranging my Dad's funeral, which went off perfectly on Monday. It was the only funeral I've been to where there was a round of applause at the graveside!
A Catholic Requiem Mass with some personal touches. Masefield's "Sea Fever", Lizzie Hardy's "Sometime at eve", and Al Jolson singing "Some Enchanted Evening" at the end...
We also raised £300 for the Royal Marsden Hospital with a collection in the church.
Nothing in my inbox. Check address?
arklebar@gmail.com
- 940 jobs will be lost at in Portsmouth as shipbuilding moves to the Clyde, raising fears it was sacrificed to spare Scottish jobs ahead of referendum http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10430738/David-Cameron-Portsmouth-shipyard-was-closed-in-the-national-interest.html