Miss Fitalass, although I'm not entirely neutral (had a playstation and then PS2/PS3) I would argue the PS4 is better.
It won't need an internet connection to play games offline (without a patch), and I've read varying reports that the 1080p (high-definition) is better than the Xbox One. Some say it's equal, others that it's better.
There's also the fact the Xbox One costs more ($100, not sure if that translates to £100. It shouldn't, but the UK pays somewhat over the odds). This is because the Xbox One comes with a Kinect, whereas the Playstation equivalent is an option, and is bought separately if you want it. If you like that sort of thing then it being part of the console package is a plus because more developers will use it.
What would concern me most is that Microsoft's dickish efforts to make selling games second hand all but impossible and borrowing them for more than one hour without an online check actually impossible were only dropped because Sony was slaughtering them in PR and people were outraged about it. It's not impossible that might come back, and even if it doesn't, it's a pretty clear indication of a really bad approach (in my view).
I might've recommended Shogun 2, but if so that was only because of a little research on Amazon. I'm distracted enough without gaming on the PC. Blimey. Rome II only has 3* from 328 reviews. The top rated reviews are 2* and 1*. I'd suggest avoiding it. Sounds like a good idea with shoddy execution.
Max, what's the thinking behind not making new generation consoles backward compatible? That's one thing my kids always complain about. Is it down to cost, software issues, or just about maximising new game profit, or a mix of things?.
The new architecture is incompatible with the PS3. The only way to make it backwards compatible would have been to include the PS3 processor and RAM in the system which would have raised the price to at least £400-420 for consumers here and $500 in the US. It's that or lose a bundle of money for a feature that no one really wants to pay extra for.
Talking to one of our analysts, he said removing b/c from the PS3 has saved SCE around $1.5bn since 2007. It is something that doesn't go down in cost and also something people aren't willing to part with extra cash for. It had to make way.
In a perfect world, the PS3 would never have happened, we would have gone from the PS2 to some kind of off the shelf design and not spend $5bn on "incentivising" consumers to buy the PS3 (selling at below cost). But we are where we are and on a technical level, b/c is not possible on the PS4 because the architecture is just too different and costs too much to include and would make SCE unsustainable in the medium term.
If @Morris or any other gamers around, what is the verdict on Rome II? A while back I got our youngest lad Shogun 2 on the back of recommendations here which he loved.
Don't get it just yet. Riddled with bugs and balance issues. Wait for a few months and get it with all of the DLC included after it has been patched to remove the bugs.
Cheers Max. I'll quote that when my youngest is moaning about losing his CoD zombies maps, when we trade in the household PS3s and games for a PS4!
Many thanks, will do, how long do you think it will take to get all the bugs ironed out on Rome II? IIRC, it was you that recommended Shogun2 on here as well.
Max, what's the thinking behind not making new generation consoles backward compatible? That's one thing my kids always complain about. Is it down to cost, software issues, or just about maximising new game profit, or a mix of things?.
The new architecture is incompatible with the PS3. The only way to make it backwards compatible would have been to include the PS3 processor and RAM in the system which would have raised the price to at least £400-420 for consumers here and $500 in the US. It's that or lose a bundle of money for a feature that no one really wants to pay extra for.
Talking to one of our analysts, he said removing b/c from the PS3 has saved SCE around $1.5bn since 2007. It is something that doesn't go down in cost and also something people aren't willing to part with extra cash for. It had to make way.
In a perfect world, the PS3 would never have happened, we would have gone from the PS2 to some kind of off the shelf design and not spend $5bn on "incentivising" consumers to buy the PS3 (selling at below cost). But we are where we are and on a technical level, b/c is not possible on the PS4 because the architecture is just too different and costs too much to include and would make SCE unsustainable in the medium term.
If @Morris or any other gamers around, what is the verdict on Rome II? A while back I got our youngest lad Shogun 2 on the back of recommendations here which he loved.
Don't get it just yet. Riddled with bugs and balance issues. Wait for a few months and get it with all of the DLC included after it has been patched to remove the bugs.
Thanks, I'd forgotten Reid had done similar deeds in the past.
But just because he got away with it, does not mean that Dorries should. This is post the expenses scandal, and we cannot have MPs not cooperating with the relevant authorities.
There’s another problem for LAB. If they are short on seats then it’s quite likely that they would have ended up with fewer votes than the Tories which would make it that bit harder for the LDs to give EdM the keys of Number 10
I think this is a great point, especially if the Tories pump up vote share by dragging back some UKIP switchers when it really matters (one of the great political unknowns of our time).
But the British tradition is that seats, not votes, make a mandate. See 1929, 1951 (if we count the National Liberals as Conservatives) and especially the fascinating precedent of Feb 1974. Labour governed despite receiving fewer votes, though it's quite possible the Libs would have taken a coalition with Heath had enough goodies been on offer. But there weren't, and I don't think the failure of that prospect can be described as "Liberals handing the keys of No 10 to Wilson". It's not clear that Cameron has much he could afford to offer either, given his party's well-established, deep-rooted, committed (and in my opinion, counterproductive and self-destructive) resistance to electoral reform, and his likely inability to can-kick the European issue back into yet another parliamentary cycle..
The inter-war period is a fun object lesson in a lot of things "that would never happen" happening in short succession. A reminder to keep prognosticators humble.
(Also contained one of the forgotten and underrated political conspiracy theories in British political history, the disappearance of Victor Grayson.
Miss Fitalass, although I'm not entirely neutral (had a playstation and then PS2/PS3) I would argue the PS4 is better.
It won't need an internet connection to play games offline (without a patch), and I've read varying reports that the 1080p (high-definition) is better than the Xbox One. Some say it's equal, others that it's better.
There's also the fact the Xbox One costs more ($100, not sure if that translates to £100. It shouldn't, but the UK pays somewhat over the odds). This is because the Xbox One comes with a Kinect, whereas the Playstation equivalent is an option, and is bought separately if you want it. If you like that sort of thing then it being part of the console package is a plus because more developers will use it.
It's £80 more for the Bone over here.
Bone games are upscaled to 1080p, almost all PS4 games render at 1080p natively. It means that on a 1080p TV, PS4 games will look sharper and the textures will look clearer. I've seen side by side comparisons at trade shows, the difference exists, but a lot of the press are scared of being blacklisted by MS so close to launch so aren't giving much away.
We benefit from Kinect being included as standard as well because the architectures are so similar porting games between systems is not very costly, it means that releasing camera-required games on PS4 will be cheap and I'm told our libraries are pretty similar to what MS provides for Kinect.
Though I am clearly a biased source, I can't recommend an Xbox One to anyone as a gamer or a tech person. It's more money for worse hardware (1.13TFLOP usable vs 1.84TFLOP). On that basis alone it is a rip off.
Many thanks, will do, how long do you think it will take to get all the bugs ironed out on Rome II? IIRC, it was you that recommended Shogun2 on here as well.
Could be a while tbh, maybe three to four months. The work has been slow because there are so many bugs and issues. When they released the game it was almost unplayable. It loaded but that was about it.
Thanks, I'd forgotten Reid had done similar deeds in the past.
But just because he got away with it, does not mean that Dorries should. This is post the expenses scandal, and we cannot have MPs not cooperating with the relevant authorities.
Nicky Blair, son of Tony Blair, scores million-dollar deal in sports management
The younger Blair has ditched his ambitions to follow in the former prime minister's footsteps to go into running his own Magnitude Limited sports agency. He took home around $1 million after getting Mexican soccer star Hector Herrera to the F.C. Porto club in Portugal in a deal valued at $10.7 million. If all goes right, he could also have Marco Fabian playing for $16 million for an English Premier League team.
Thanks for all the advice, I just got out of the way and let son No3 read the comments here himself in the end, it was easier. He and his mates have all been Xboxers the last few years, but there seems to be a general consensus developing that switching to the new PS4 might be the best option this time around which suggests that Microsoft are losing the PR battle big time. I haven't had the usual parental pressures with new games releases recently, but I suspect that its the calm before the storm while he awaits the new console as I see that all his favourites games have new releases to coincide.
Miss Fitalass, although I'm not entirely neutral (had a playstation and then PS2/PS3) I would argue the PS4 is better.
It won't need an internet connection to play games offline (without a patch), and I've read varying reports that the 1080p (high-definition) is better than the Xbox One. Some say it's equal, others that it's better.
There's also the fact the Xbox One costs more ($100, not sure if that translates to £100. It shouldn't, but the UK pays somewhat over the odds). This is because the Xbox One comes with a Kinect, whereas the Playstation equivalent is an option, and is bought separately if you want it. If you like that sort of thing then it being part of the console package is a plus because more developers will use it.
What would concern me most is that Microsoft's dickish efforts to make selling games second hand all but impossible and borrowing them for more than one hour without an online check actually impossible were only dropped because Sony was slaughtering them in PR and people were outraged about it. It's not impossible that might come back, and even if it doesn't, it's a pretty clear indication of a really bad approach (in my view).
I might've recommended Shogun 2, but if so that was only because of a little research on Amazon. I'm distracted enough without gaming on the PC. Blimey. Rome II only has 3* from 328 reviews. The top rated reviews are 2* and 1*. I'd suggest avoiding it. Sounds like a good idea with shoddy execution.
The inter-war period is a fun object lesson in a lot of things "that would never happen" happening in short succession. A reminder to keep prognosticators humble.
(Also contained one of the forgotten and underrated political conspiracy theories in British political history, the disappearance of Victor Grayson.
Indeed, which is why I was careful not to rule anything out! Though it's hardly wild speculation to point out that the Lib Dems are likely to need some pretty serious persuasion to enter a new coalition with the Tories, particularly if the electoral circumstances are not clear-cut, nor is it controversial to suggest that Cameron's party leaves him with limited room for manoeuvre to entice them.
More to the point, the circumstances to which OGH alluded are plausible but still on a low rung on the ladder of likely electoral outcomes. And even if they do arise, as @anothernick said, vote share legitimacy is likely to be of secondary concern. The size of any discrepancy in vote share between seat-leading and second party will be small compared to the Lib Dem percentage, which should suffice to assuage the concerns of any PR-fundamentalists.
So this is a "what if" scenario that I don't think changes the odds significantly if priced in. If the first-placed party does so with a lower vote-share, the main political implication of this is (in my opinion) not so likely to be a genuine, serious impediment to the Lib Dems forming a coalition with them. Rather, it would furnish the Lib Dems with a ready-made excuse of "democratic legitimacy" if negotiations fail or if the party simply decides to chicken out from taking the flak that comes as part and parcel of the political relevance of power.
Thanks, I'd forgotten Reid had done similar deeds in the past.
But just because he got away with it, does not mean that Dorries should. This is post the expenses scandal, and we cannot have MPs not cooperating with the relevant authorities.
The inter-war period is a fun object lesson in a lot of things "that would never happen" happening in short succession. A reminder to keep prognosticators humble.
(Also contained one of the forgotten and underrated political conspiracy theories in British political history, the disappearance of Victor Grayson.
Indeed, which is why I was careful not to rule anything out! Though it's hardly wild speculation to point out that the Lib Dems are likely to need some pretty serious persuasion to enter a new coalition with the Tories,
..and some Tories, I think, would need to have hot irons applied to sensitive places before they would countenance a new coalition with the Lib Dems...
Anyone betting on another LibCon Coalition needs, surely, to answer the question I set out below. How do they get round the EU referendum problem.
Cameron would have to make offering an EU vote a red line, or his backbenchers would excarnate him. But this plebiscite will rapidly become de facto IN/OUT, therefore I can't see any Lib Dem leader agreeing to enact it.
There won't be a formal deal.
They certainly wouldn't want to block a deal, watch the govt fall then go into another GE.
This is the weakness of the LD position - fail to form a coalition and another GE is required - nobody will be betting on their number of seats going upwards in a second election.
Miss Fitalass, I don't play multi-player much (ever, nowadays), but for those who do there might be a big shift, as it makes sense for groups of friends to have the same system. Until it reversed the insane DRM and online check-in policies Microsoft was getting murdered by Sony. One Sony bigwig at a conference (E3, I think) got an enormous cheer just for saying people could sell their own PS4 games.
On games, I think Amazon are offering a buy 2 get the 3rd free deal (next-gen only).
That's fair enough, but it's not the behaviour I'd expect from any MP, regardless of party. It means the next accused MP or Lord could come along and not cooperate in exactly the same way. And next time, an even bigger misdemeanour might be covered up.
Anyone betting on another LibCon Coalition needs, surely, to answer the question I set out below. How do they get round the EU referendum problem.
Cameron would have to make offering an EU vote a red line, or his backbenchers would excarnate him. But this plebiscite will rapidly become de facto IN/OUT, therefore I can't see any Lib Dem leader agreeing to enact it.
There won't be a formal deal.
I don't know that there can't be a formal deal, but as I wrote below, I can't see how Cameron can kick the European can for another 5 years either. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Lib Dems can rediscover their old love of a proper EU referendum... I'm sure plenty of people are willing to remind them about that! But seriously, that is going to be a thorny issue in any negotiations.
The flip side of this is that the Lib Dem leadership (whoever that is at the time) will be under massive internal pressure not to accept a deal without movement on electoral reform that Cameron does not appear to be in a position to provide. After the AV disaster, this time round a referendum alone is unlikely to prove sufficiently palatable. How can they be assuaged? I seem to recall electoral reform scuppered Lib-Con negotations in 1974.
I don't think a formal deal is utterly impossible, but it would require a lot of movement from people with little room for manoeuvre, and it only seems viable if circumstances combine to push the two together. If the parliamentary calculus leaves the Lib Dems with with any serious alternatives to a coalition with the Tories, or vice versa, a successful negotiation seems unlikely.
There’s another problem for LAB. If they are short on seats then it’s quite likely that they would have ended up with fewer votes than the Tories which would make it that bit harder for the LDs to give EdM the keys of Number 10
I think this is a great point, especially if the Tories pump up vote share by dragging back some UKIP switchers when it really matters (one of the great political unknowns of our time).
But the British tradition is that seats, not votes, make a mandate. See 1929, 1951 (if we count the National Liberals as Conservatives) and especially the fascinating precedent of Feb 1974. Labour governed despite receiving fewer votes, though it's quite possible the Libs would have taken a coalition with Heath had enough goodies been on offer. But there weren't, and I don't think the failure of that prospect can be described as "Liberals handing the keys of No 10 to Wilson". It's not clear that Cameron has much he could afford to offer either, given his party's well-established, deep-rooted, committed (and in my opinion, counterproductive and self-destructive) resistance to electoral reform, and his likely inability to can-kick the European issue back into yet another parliamentary cycle..
The inter-war period is a fun object lesson in a lot of things "that would never happen" happening in short succession. A reminder to keep prognosticators humble.
(Also contained one of the forgotten and underrated political conspiracy theories in British political history, the disappearance of Victor Grayson.
One odd feature of the 1918-1929 period is that the Liberals won about 300 seats at least once (fluid party labels make it hard to be precise) but never more than 158 MP's took the party whip at any one time. Individual seats showed wild swings between the parties.
That's fair enough, but it's not the behaviour I'd expect from any MP, regardless of party. It means the next accused MP or Lord could come along and not cooperate in exactly the same way. And next time, an even bigger misdemeanour might be covered up.
Anyway, it looks like it's over. Sadly.
Cameron has David Laws in Cabinet, once you've sunk to that level people can get away with what they like, and the recall bill was delayed and watered down specifically to protect people like Laws and Dorries. Another case of Cameron being one thing before the election and another afterwards
That's dangerous ground for a Labour supporter to go down. Ed's hardly made stellar decisions in that department, has he? And going back further, how about Mandelson's yo-yo resignations?
Besides (1), I cannot help but feel a little sympathy for Laws. You'll probably disagree, but there you go.
Besides (2), Laws is a Lib Dem, and so surely would have been a Clegg appointment?
Other Others on 10% seems very high, especially when you consider that the Greens, Plaid Cymru and BNP don't appear to be particularly popular at the moment. (They won about 6.5% in 2010).
Other Others on 10% seems very high, especially when you consider that the Greens, Plaid Cymru and BNP don't appear to be particularly popular at the moment.
Other Others on 10% seems very high, especially when you consider that the Greens, Plaid Cymru and BNP don't appear to be particularly popular at the moment.
SNP surging
Even if they were surging in Westminster terms it wouldn't have that much effect on a GB-wide poll because Scotland comprises only about 8% of the electorate.
In a good month for the minor parties, the Scottish nationalists are on 5% (up two on the month), Plaid Cymru climb one to 2%, and the Greens hold steady on 3%.
Can anyone convert a 5% nationally to Scotland only % (Assuming that they are not piling up votes in Corby...)
"This month's poll suggests a continuing gender gap in British politics. Among men, Labour and the Conservatives are tied on 32% each, but among women Labour enjoys a large lead – 45% versus 26%."
Does it mean that the voters for UKIP and Others are overwhelmingly male (I am assuming this is not the case for the LDs)?
Telegraph - Former Wren to ex-minister: You Sir are a disgrace "A Royal British Legion worker approached a former Armed Forces minister following a Remembrance Day service and 'reimbursed' him for £7.20 in expenses he claimed after attending a previous ceremony.
Fiona Laing, 45, marched up to Sir Nick Harvey, 52, in front of other dignitaries, officials and members of the public, and gave him an envelope containing the money.
"To Sir Nick Harvey, I have taken the liberty of enclosing £7.20 to cover your expenses in attending this parade to show your supposed support for Armed Forces past and present.
"As a veteran I am disgusted at your claim.
"You Sir are a disgrace.
"A Former Wren."
The mother-of-three acted after the Liberal Democrat MP for North Devon caused anger by claiming £7.20 expenses to attend Armistice Day ceremonies in 2011.
Ms Laing, of Barnstaple, Devon, handed the MP the cash sealed in a Royal British Legion card."
In a good month for the minor parties, the Scottish nationalists are on 5% (up two on the month), Plaid Cymru climb one to 2%, and the Greens hold steady on 3%.
Can anyone convert a 5% nationally to Scotland only % (Assuming that they are not piling up votes in Corby...) Last ICM Labour & SNP were tied in Scotland on 38 each....tim's seen this month's sub sample (tho its not on the website yet) - so it can only be Corby......
Lets see what's happened in Scotland to the nationalists...which the more perceptive realise is the issue.....but London Labour are happy to carry on dictating to Scotland.....
"This month's poll suggests a continuing gender gap in British politics. Among men, Labour and the Conservatives are tied on 32% each, but among women Labour enjoys a large lead – 45% versus 26%."
Lets see what's happened in Scotland to the nationalists...which the more perceptive realise is the issue.....but London Labour are happy to carry on dictating to Scotland.....
In a good month for the minor parties, the Scottish nationalists are on 5% (up two on the month), Plaid Cymru climb one to 2%, and the Greens hold steady on 3%.
Can anyone convert a 5% nationally to Scotland only % (Assuming that they are not piling up votes in Corby...)
Last ICM Labour & SNP were tied in Scotland on 38 each....tim's seen this month's sub sample (tho its not on the website yet) - so it can only be Corby......
Answering my own question - assuming a GB Poll, so 632 GB seats (650-18) of which 59 are Scottish - 5% x 632/59 = 53% across Scotland as a whole for the SNP.
Surely not even Ed Miliband can blow this huge lead in 18 months ?
Cameron lost a much bigger lead, so anything can happen. But that Labour vote has now been on or above 35% every month for over three years. And Ed's leadership credentials are now firming up among Labour supporters. The Tories need something to happen or the economic recovery to start feeding through. Even then, they may just find that the anti-Tory vote will be big enough to win Labour most seats. It's all very interesting, that's for sure.
"This month's poll suggests a continuing gender gap in British politics. Among men, Labour and the Conservatives are tied on 32% each, but among women Labour enjoys a large lead – 45% versus 26%."
Guardian / ICM
We need a thread on "Why does Cameron repel women" at some point, it'll be similar to the reasons Romney did I'd imagine.
Boarding school ?
More seriously, childcare has a lot to do with it would be my guess.
ICM is yet to register the impact of Falkirk though
You've seen the Scottish sub sample, have you?
You are playing a dangerous game Carlotta - there was a time, not so long ago, when PBers would be exiled to ToryHome for months merely for uttering the words Scottish subsample. Just ask Stuart Dickson
It should not also go unnoticed that the Lib Dems are gradually creeping up. I think the 24% at GE2010 has confused matters. That is not a normal LD score. Lib Dems always said if they start a GE campaign at around 16-18%, they will add 2/3 points.
Some Labour voters in Con-LD marginals will begin their historical trek.
Nasty poll for Tories. Ed's energy wheeze has completely changed the narrative. Hats off to him for a cynical but brilliant political stunt.
Not sure much a stunt as tapping into voters' concerns. The energy companies have been taking the piss for years and it was high time someone had the cojones to have a crack at them
I don't think a formal deal is utterly impossible, but it would require a lot of movement from people with little room for manoeuvre
@MBE I don't think the obstacles you posit to another Con/LD deal are as big as you suggest? On voting reform the obvious compromise is a changed system for local government, which is already working out fine in Scotland. On Europe and the Referendum, remember that Cameron is simply trying to keep his activists' eyes focused forwards, and wants the thing to end with an 'in' decision, just the same as Clegg. If a 1975-style result looks achievable, following some small concessions from our Euro-partners, then both the Tory and LD leaders would be on the same side in the campaign, which is hardly a problem for either of them if the coalition continues. It would also bolster the proportion of the Gvt arguing for "in', compared to a situation where the Tories have a small majority, or a minority Gvt, where Cameron could find himself with many or most of his colleagues arguing the other way. And of course Labour would be for 'in' too (unless a Labour opposition does another Syria, which on a decision central to the UK's future we can hopefully discount). What's not to like?
Anyone betting on another LibCon Coalition needs, surely, to answer the question I set out below. How do they get round the EU referendum problem.
Cameron would have to make offering an EU vote a red line, or his backbenchers would excarnate him. But this plebiscite will rapidly become de facto IN/OUT, therefore I can't see any Lib Dem leader agreeing to enact it.
There won't be a formal deal.
If the numbers make sense, they will do a deal. Cameron's promise of a referendum was dependant on there being a conservative government - if there is another coalition, it isn't a conservative gov't. Obviously that'll fuel UKIP ((even more) votes & motivation) for 2020 but I think Cameron will stand down and take the hit for not delivering the referendum before that date.
Comments
It won't need an internet connection to play games offline (without a patch), and I've read varying reports that the 1080p (high-definition) is better than the Xbox One. Some say it's equal, others that it's better.
There's also the fact the Xbox One costs more ($100, not sure if that translates to £100. It shouldn't, but the UK pays somewhat over the odds). This is because the Xbox One comes with a Kinect, whereas the Playstation equivalent is an option, and is bought separately if you want it. If you like that sort of thing then it being part of the console package is a plus because more developers will use it.
What would concern me most is that Microsoft's dickish efforts to make selling games second hand all but impossible and borrowing them for more than one hour without an online check actually impossible were only dropped because Sony was slaughtering them in PR and people were outraged about it. It's not impossible that might come back, and even if it doesn't, it's a pretty clear indication of a really bad approach (in my view).
I might've recommended Shogun 2, but if so that was only because of a little research on Amazon. I'm distracted enough without gaming on the PC. Blimey. Rome II only has 3* from 328 reviews. The top rated reviews are 2* and 1*. I'd suggest avoiding it. Sounds like a good idea with shoddy execution.
I'll quote that when my youngest is moaning about losing his CoD zombies maps, when we trade in the household PS3s and games for a PS4!
Thanks, I'd forgotten Reid had done similar deeds in the past.
But just because he got away with it, does not mean that Dorries should. This is post the expenses scandal, and we cannot have MPs not cooperating with the relevant authorities.
I've just looked it up. It is mentioned here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/23/labour.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479751/Hounding-decent-woman-Labours-brutal-campaign-destroy-ethics-watchdog-Elizabeth-Filkin.html
(Also contained one of the forgotten and underrated political conspiracy theories in British political history, the disappearance of Victor Grayson.
Bone games are upscaled to 1080p, almost all PS4 games render at 1080p natively. It means that on a 1080p TV, PS4 games will look sharper and the textures will look clearer. I've seen side by side comparisons at trade shows, the difference exists, but a lot of the press are scared of being blacklisted by MS so close to launch so aren't giving much away.
We benefit from Kinect being included as standard as well because the architectures are so similar porting games between systems is not very costly, it means that releasing camera-required games on PS4 will be cheap and I'm told our libraries are pretty similar to what MS provides for Kinect.
Though I am clearly a biased source, I can't recommend an Xbox One to anyone as a gamer or a tech person. It's more money for worse hardware (1.13TFLOP usable vs 1.84TFLOP). On that basis alone it is a rip off. Could be a while tbh, maybe three to four months. The work has been slow because there are so many bugs and issues. When they released the game it was almost unplayable. It loaded but that was about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vi-0DnL38
Not good enough. Read the report and see what you think.
But they only asked her to apologise and correct the register.
Go, Nads.
(say it out loud)
Nicky Blair, son of Tony Blair, scores million-dollar deal in sports management
The younger Blair has ditched his ambitions to follow in the former prime minister's footsteps to go into running his own Magnitude Limited sports agency. He took home around $1 million after getting Mexican soccer star Hector Herrera to the F.C. Porto club in Portugal in a deal valued at $10.7 million. If all goes right, he could also have Marco Fabian playing for $16 million for an English Premier League team.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/son-tony-blair-scores-million-dollar-deal-sports-agency-article-1.1512870#ixzz2kMHOUSbF
More to the point, the circumstances to which OGH alluded are plausible but still on a low rung on the ladder of likely electoral outcomes. And even if they do arise, as @anothernick said, vote share legitimacy is likely to be of secondary concern. The size of any discrepancy in vote share between seat-leading and second party will be small compared to the Lib Dem percentage, which should suffice to assuage the concerns of any PR-fundamentalists.
So this is a "what if" scenario that I don't think changes the odds significantly if priced in. If the first-placed party does so with a lower vote-share, the main political implication of this is (in my opinion) not so likely to be a genuine, serious impediment to the Lib Dems forming a coalition with them. Rather, it would furnish the Lib Dems with a ready-made excuse of "democratic legitimacy" if negotiations fail or if the party simply decides to chicken out from taking the flak that comes as part and parcel of the political relevance of power.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/11/11/women-voters-dont-mind-cameron-after-all/
This is the weakness of the LD position - fail to form a coalition and another GE is required - nobody will be betting on their number of seats going upwards in a second election.
On games, I think Amazon are offering a buy 2 get the 3rd free deal (next-gen only).
That's fair enough, but it's not the behaviour I'd expect from any MP, regardless of party. It means the next accused MP or Lord could come along and not cooperate in exactly the same way. And next time, an even bigger misdemeanour might be covered up.
Anyway, it looks like it's over. Sadly.
The numbers were UKIP 1,141,567 and LDs 795,106. That's 19.90% and 13.86%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDFzVlVSWGtOaGlNQllBQjBmVzc0Mnc&usp=drive_web#gid=0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10441071/French-President-Francois-Hollande-booed-at-Armistice-ceremony-in-Paris.html
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/perez-out-at-mclaren/
The flip side of this is that the Lib Dem leadership (whoever that is at the time) will be under massive internal pressure not to accept a deal without movement on electoral reform that Cameron does not appear to be in a position to provide. After the AV disaster, this time round a referendum alone is unlikely to prove sufficiently palatable. How can they be assuaged? I seem to recall electoral reform scuppered Lib-Con negotations in 1974.
I don't think a formal deal is utterly impossible, but it would require a lot of movement from people with little room for manoeuvre, and it only seems viable if circumstances combine to push the two together. If the parliamentary calculus leaves the Lib Dems with with any serious alternatives to a coalition with the Tories, or vice versa, a successful negotiation seems unlikely.
Ed Miliband also outperforms David Cameron on several personal scores – but not on question of who makes best PM
Any day now ?
Tories 30 (-4)
Lab 38 (nc)
LD 13 (+1)
UKIP 10 (+2)
Others 10 (+2)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron
Intriguing
Besides (1), I cannot help but feel a little sympathy for Laws. You'll probably disagree, but there you go.
Besides (2), Laws is a Lib Dem, and so surely would have been a Clegg appointment?
*chuckles*
"This month's poll suggests a continuing gender gap in British politics. Among men, Labour and the Conservatives are tied on 32% each, but among women Labour enjoys a large lead – 45% versus 26%."
Does it mean that the voters for UKIP and Others are overwhelmingly male (I am assuming this is not the case for the LDs)?
"A Royal British Legion worker approached a former Armed Forces minister following a Remembrance Day service and 'reimbursed' him for £7.20 in expenses he claimed after attending a previous ceremony.
Fiona Laing, 45, marched up to Sir Nick Harvey, 52, in front of other dignitaries, officials and members of the public, and gave him an envelope containing the money.
"To Sir Nick Harvey, I have taken the liberty of enclosing £7.20 to cover your expenses in attending this parade to show your supposed support for Armed Forces past and present.
"As a veteran I am disgusted at your claim.
"You Sir are a disgrace.
"A Former Wren."
The mother-of-three acted after the Liberal Democrat MP for North Devon caused anger by claiming £7.20 expenses to attend Armistice Day ceremonies in 2011.
Ms Laing, of Barnstaple, Devon, handed the MP the cash sealed in a Royal British Legion card."
The Miliband ratings jump may also suggest that the Labour vote is getting more solid.
Last ICM Labour & SNP were tied in Scotland on 38 each....tim's seen this month's sub sample (tho its not on the website yet) - so it can only be Corby......
But you're right, as Sir Bob Worcester keeps on telling Mike and I.
It's all about the share of the vote.
Guardian / ICM
How about 'man cries at funeral'?
In this ICM, Con + UKIP = 40%
in 2010 Lab + LD = 52%
In this ICM Lab + LD = 51%
Never have I heard so much pig headed ignorance from the backbenches in a very long time (from all sides)
Stop pandering to the bloody Daily Mail
Answering my own question - assuming a GB Poll, so 632 GB seats (650-18) of which 59 are Scottish - 5% x 632/59 = 53% across Scotland as a whole for the SNP.
Self-evidently my maths has gone wrong somewhere.
As Len says, the 2015 election (and run in therein) will be full of smears.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3254806.stm
How is Rehabilitation supposed to work, if there is a hue and cry?
More seriously, childcare has a lot to do with it would be my guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk
Some Labour voters in Con-LD marginals will begin their historical trek.