The Scottish government has nationalised a ship yard that is building 2 ferries for Cal Mac. The ship yard has gone insolvent because of cost overruns on the ferries that they maintain have been caused by numerous variations of contract by Cal Mac. They claim to be due an additional £40m or so. This is disputed but the company is unable to have these claims resolved in a timescale consistent with its survival.
The owner of Cal Mac is...the Scottish government. So they are now on both sides of this contract and will bear directly or indirectly all of the losses occasioned by it. A truly brilliant use of public money, no doubt. And the private sector in Scotland shrinks just that bit more.
WE need those ferries David, peanuts compared to the likes of crossrail , Boris bridges , DUP bribes , etc
Then perhaps Cal Mac should have paid for them instead of driving a company out of business.
They would have had to get money from Scottish government and it would have had unionists howling that it was state aid etc. Tory idea of just letting the workers lose their jobs and the ferries rot was not a viable solution.
There is no need to panic - look at the wonderful success the SNP has made of Prestwick Airport after it was taken into government hands.
Best airport in Scotland for sure. Saw a nice Antonov and a 747 there yesterday.
Yes - zero queues and none of the hideous crowds one faces at Edinburgh or even Inverness.
Inverness Airport was pretty quiet back in July.
Prestwick has 3 flights a day.
Dear Dear Harry, I just looked and 8 in and 8 out today , use those fingers and man up.
But for an alternative to work, a good starting point is that we don't all rubbish each others' prospects before they're even tried, in the hope that people will then rally behind our preferred alternative. The weakness of Swinson's position is that she vacillates between implying that she'd be up for a Corbyn caretaker government on the right conditions (but "sadly" thinks it won't work) or she'd be against it (even if it would work). My impression is that she thinks the latter, which is why it's what first came out, but has been advised that she needs to pretend the former.
The LibDem and Green leaders in my patch have written with me jointly to the Guardian to urge consideration of Corbyn's proposals without preconditions. Give it an honest try; if it doesn't work, then we'll look at alternatives and see if they might.
On the other hand Nick, there's not all that long to get this sorted! So if something is really a non starter, we need to know quickly.
I think your assessment of what Swinson really thinks is accurate, but it's been explained to her that she cannot be seen to be enabling No Deal. If all other parties backed Corbyn the caretaker, then she would buckle under the pressure.
I hope that Corbyn and team are working on a backup option, potentially Harman and testing the water around that. They can reasonably expect certain guarantees like a time limit etc.
I'm unconvinced that Labour leavers would prefer Johnson and No Deal to Harman in great numbers.
The Scottish government has nationalised a ship yard that is building 2 ferries for Cal Mac. The ship yard has gone insolvent because of cost overruns on the ferries that they maintain have been caused by numerous variations of contract by Cal Mac. They claim to be due an additional £40m or so. This is disputed but the company is unable to have these claims resolved in a timescale consistent with its survival.
The owner of Cal Mac is...the Scottish government. So they are now on both sides of this contract and will bear directly or indirectly all of the losses occasioned by it. A truly brilliant use of public money, no doubt. And the private sector in Scotland shrinks just that bit more.
WE need those ferries David, peanuts compared to the likes of crossrail , Boris bridges , DUP bribes , etc
Then perhaps Cal Mac should have paid for them instead of driving a company out of business.
They would have had to get money from Scottish government and it would have had unionists howling that it was state aid etc. Tory idea of just letting the workers lose their jobs and the ferries rot was not a viable solution.
There is no need to panic - look at the wonderful success the SNP has made of Prestwick Airport after it was taken into government hands.
Best airport in Scotland for sure. Saw a nice Antonov and a 747 there yesterday.
Yes - zero queues and none of the hideous crowds one faces at Edinburgh or even Inverness.
Inverness Airport was pretty quiet back in July.
Prestwick has 3 flights a day.
Dear Dear Harry, I just looked and 8 in and 8 out today , use those fingers and man up.
8 whole flights? In a whole day? So about the same as Alderney (Pop. 1.200)?
Your problem is? It has lots of infrastructure and business and supports about 2000 jobs. I know people like you , Harry and Scott are so desperate to prove your Englishness that you cannot get beyond your bile for Scotland but change the record and maybe try to post some positives about your immigration.
But for an alternative to work, a good starting point is that we don't all rubbish each others' prospects before they're even tried, in the hope that people will then rally behind our preferred alternative. The weakness of Swinson's position is that she vacillates between implying that she'd be up for a Corbyn caretaker government on the right conditions (but "sadly" thinks it won't work) or she'd be against it (even if it would work). My impression is that she thinks the latter, which is why it's what first came out, but has been advised that she needs to pretend the former.
The LibDem and Green leaders in my patch have written with me jointly to the Guardian to urge consideration of Corbyn's proposals without preconditions. Give it an honest try; if it doesn't work, then we'll look at alternatives and see if they might.
On the other hand Nick, there's not all that long to get this sorted! So if something is really a non starter, we need to know quickly.
I think your assessment of what Swinson really thinks is accurate, but it's been explained to her that she cannot be seen to be enabling No Deal. If all other parties backed Corbyn the caretaker, then she would buckle under the pressure.
I hope that Corbyn and team are working on a backup option, potentially Harman and testing the water around that. They can reasonably expect certain guarantees like a time limit etc.
I'm unconvinced that Labour leavers would prefer Johnson and No Deal to Harman in great numbers.
Except, it's Harman and no Brexit, isn't it? Be honest here.
And "all other parties back Corbyn"? I think you'll find the Tories and the DUP will never back Corbyn.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
The of contract by Cal Mac. They claim to be due an additional £40m or so. This is disputed but the company is unable to have these claims resolved in a timescale consistent with its survival.
The owner of Cal Mac is...the Scottish government. So they are now on both sides of this contract and will bear directly or indirectly all of the losses occasioned by it. A truly brilliant use of public money, no doubt. And the private sector in Scotland shrinks just that bit more.
WE need those ferries David, peanuts compared to the likes of crossrail , Boris bridges , DUP bribes , etc
Then perhaps Cal Mac should have paid for them instead of driving a company out of business.
They would have had to get money from Scottish government and it would have had unionists howling that it was state aid etc. Tory idea of just letting the workers lose their jobs and the ferries rot was not a viable solution.
There is no need to panic - look at the wonderful success the SNP has made of Prestwick Airport after it was taken into government hands.
Best airport in Scotland for sure. Saw a nice Antonov and a 747 there yesterday.
Yes - zero queues and none of the hideous crowds one faces at Edinburgh or even Inverness.
Inverness Airport was pretty quiet back in July.
Prestwick has 3 flights a day.
Dear Dear Harry, I just looked and 8 in and 8 out today , use those fingers and man up.
8 whole flights? In a whole day? So about the same as Alderney (Pop. 1.200)?
Your problem is? It has lots of infrastructure and business and supports about 2000 jobs. I know people like you , Harry and Scott are so desperate to prove your Englishness that you cannot get beyond your bile for Scotland but change the record and maybe try to post some positives about your immigration.
Prestwick was built where it is when it was because it enjoyed better weather for transatlantic flights in days when fog was a problem. Times change. But not if you’re an SNP government. Happy that you’re happy paying for it. Will it be a luxury SINDY can afford?
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
Warren looking strong. She is very able and there is clear blue water between her and any GOP candidate. Trump will play up the thing about her claiming to be an Indian, but that'll get boring quite quickly. The "Socialist" attack will be more constant, and will scare a few percent, just like (I know, it's hard to believe) some people here were scared of a Kinnock premiership.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
Malcolm - you don’t make me sick, but you do make me sad. If Scotland and Scots cannot criticise their own government, what has become of the country?
The of contract by Cal Mac. They claim to be due an additional £40m or so. This is disputed but the company is unable to have these claims resolved in a timescale consistent with its survival.
The owner of Cal Mac is...the Scottish government. So they are now on both sides of this contract and will bear directly or indirectly all of the losses occasioned by it. A truly brilliant use of public money, no doubt. And the private sector in Scotland shrinks just that bit more.
WE need those ferries David, peanuts compared to the likes of crossrail , Boris bridges , DUP bribes , etc
Then perhaps Cal Mac should have paid for them instead of driving a company out of business.
They would have had to get money from Scottish government and it would have had unionists howling that it was state aid etc. Tory idea of just letting the workers lose their jobs and the ferries rot was not a viable solution.
There is no need to panic - look at the wonderful success the SNP has made of Prestwick Airport after it was taken into government hands.
Best airport in Scotland for sure. Saw a nice Antonov and a 747 there yesterday.
Yes - zero queues and none of the hideous crowds one faces at Edinburgh or even Inverness.
Inverness Airport was pretty quiet back in July.
Prestwick has 3 flights a day.
Dear Dear Harry, I just looked and 8 in and 8 out today , use those fingers and man up.
8 whole flights? In a whole day? So about the same as Alderney (Pop. 1.200)?
Your problem is? It has lots of infrastructure and business and supports about 2000 jobs. I know people like you , Harry and Scott are so desperate to prove your Englishness that you cannot get beyond your bile for Scotland but change the record and maybe try to post some positives about your immigration.
Prestwick was built where it is when it was because it enjoyed better weather for transatlantic flights in days when fog was a problem. Times change. But not if you’re an SNP government. Happy that you’re happy paying for it. Will it be a luxury SINDY can afford?
It still has 2000 jobs in the campus , it is worth supporting.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
Anyone interested in a fabulous dramatisation of the Iowa caucus should watch series 7, episode 11 of 'The Good Wife' entitled (appropriately enough) 'Iowa'.
Gripping to watch a high-risk presidential campaign attempt to woo Iowa and slowly become a train wreck - largely around an Ed Milliband-style incident involving a 'loose meat sandwich'...
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
Malcolm - you don’t make me sick, but you do make me sad. If Scotland and Scots cannot criticise their own government, what has become of the country?
Name one positive thing any of you , Scott and Harry have ever posted. If it was a positive critique etc I could see the point but all I ever see is just petty vitriol regardless if correct or not and you are not consistent where London government is concerned. Scott and Harry are the worst , however as you are intelligent I would have expected a far more balanced opinion from you.
But for an alternative to work, a good starting point is that we don't all rubbish each others' prospects before they're even tried, in the hope that people will then rally behind our preferred alternative. The weakness of Swinson's position is that she vacillates between implying that she'd be up for a Corbyn caretaker government on the right conditions (but "sadly" thinks it won't work) or she'd be against it (even if it would work). My impression is that she thinks the latter, which is why it's what first came out, but has been advised that she needs to pretend the former.
The LibDem and Green leaders in my patch have written with me jointly to the Guardian to urge consideration of Corbyn's proposals without preconditions. Give it an honest try; if it doesn't work, then we'll look at alternatives and see if they might.
On the other hand Nick, there's not all that long to get this sorted! So if something is really a non starter, we need to know quickly.
I think your assessment of what Swinson really thinks is accurate, but it's been explained to her that she cannot be seen to be enabling No Deal. If all other parties backed Corbyn the caretaker, then she would buckle under the pressure.
I hope that Corbyn and team are working on a backup option, potentially Harman and testing the water around that. They can reasonably expect certain guarantees like a time limit etc.
I'm unconvinced that Labour leavers would prefer Johnson and No Deal to Harman in great numbers.
Except, it's Harman and no Brexit, isn't it? Be honest here.
And "all other parties back Corbyn"? I think you'll find the Tories and the DUP will never back Corbyn.
It's Harman and new GE. If the Tories win that GE, then Boris can carry on with No Deal. If it's Lab + supporting cast, then it's Ref 2. So Brexiteers will only need to win 1 of 2 public votes.
And you're quite right, that should have been all *opposition* parties.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
A bit harsh.
I am fed up with the negativity, not harsh enough. Fine people having strong opinions but to be be 100% biased and just spout crap constantly gets on my thrupennies. Ruined my good mood.
Warren looking strong. She is very able and there is clear blue water between her and any GOP candidate. Trump will play up the thing about her claiming to be an Indian, but that'll get boring quite quickly. The "Socialist" attack will be more constant, and will scare a few percent, just like (I know, it's hard to believe) some people here were scared of a Kinnock premiership.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
I worry that Warren is too cold a figure, and too easily portrayed as elitist. Her "I'll just get me a beer" video was cringe-y. No amount of policy can help her shake the question mark about whether she's on the side of the ordinary, working Jo(e).
It's deeply unfair, of course. The idea Trump genuinely gives a flying fart about such people is laughable to anyone looking from the outside. But that'll be the problem - he can fake the, "I'm an outsider, fighting for you against The Man" thing even though he is The Man. She probably can't .
I know that runs against theoretical polls, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think she has an air of inauthenticity that will cause her real problems moving into the part of the campaign where most people start paying attention.
It IS premature but something about that photo the other day - Kamala hugging the Professor so tightly - the first thing it said to me was Mother/Daughter and from this it is no great stretch to arrive at what it is most definitely far too early to be speculating about.
Trump/Pence vs Warren/Harris.
That would be awesome. Movie material even. Casting writes itself -
Donald Trump - Danny Devito Mike Pence - Denzil Washington Elizabeth Warren - Dame Maggie Smith Kamala Harris - Beyonce
TBF to the current government (George Osborne should burn in hell for this), the student loan book has already been sold. Consequently it will be fiendishly difficult to unpick the decision / change the interest rate.
You are right: it was simply wrong to do this. I think charging RPI/CPI (even though the government can borrow cheaper at present) would have been reasonable. But then it wouldn't have been as attractive an investment for third parties, so George went for the "clever" solution
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Warren looking strong. She is very able and there is clear blue water between her and any GOP candidate. Trump will play up the thing about her claiming to be an Indian, but that'll get boring quite quickly. The "Socialist" attack will be more constant, and will scare a few percent, just like (I know, it's hard to believe) some people here were scared of a Kinnock premiership.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
I worry that Warren is too cold a figure, and too easily portrayed as elitist. Her "I'll just get me a beer" video was cringe-y. No amount of policy can help her shake the question mark about whether she's on the side of the ordinary, working Jo(e).
It's deeply unfair, of course. The idea Trump genuinely gives a flying fart about such people is laughable to anyone looking from the outside. But that'll be the problem - he can fake the, "I'm an outsider, fighting for you against The Man" thing even though he is The Man. She probably can't .
I know that runs against theoretical polls, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think she has an air of inauthenticity that will cause her real problems moving into the part of the campaign where most people start paying attention.
My current thinking, as it has been for some time, is that Warren loses to Trump.
I also think Biden is correct to say this is a marathon not a sprint. Maybe she comes top in Iowa, but then what.
Name one positive thing any of you , Scott and Harry have ever posted.
And what was the last positive thing you posted, Malky?
A constant stream of invective at anyone who doesn't worship the SNP
I do not worship the SNP and rarely praise them as they are just about as bad as the rest apart from fact that they at least have some care for Scotland. I only support them for independence and the fact that the opposition are useless turds and London sockpuppets. There is no equivalent on the site who does down England 100% of the time, it is unique to lickspittle Scots.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Rubbish, you ever heard of Maintenance. Is there any road, rail or bridge in England that is maintenance free. Why are you such a lickspittle for Westminster. Did you get your pigtails pulled at school.
Malc, you can't seriously be suggesting the new bridge is a great success. They messed up the approaches which is why it is always so congested.
I don't use it so cannot comment on the approaches but given the timescales and done in budget it has to be a success. If it was down to the unionists people would be queued for miles using Kincardine bridge. However my main point is that lickspittles like Scott are just desperate to try and do down Scotland , people like him make me sick. Absolutely nothing to say , bitter twisted little weak nobodies. I try to feel sorry for him but just feel pity that a human can be so bereft of humanity, a sick individual and one of several on here.
Malcolm - you don’t make me sick, but you do make me sad. If Scotland and Scots cannot criticise their own government, what has become of the country?
Name one positive thing any of you , Scott and Harry have ever posted. If it was a positive critique etc I could see the point but all I ever see is just petty vitriol regardless if correct or not and you are not consistent where London government is concerned. Scott and Harry are the worst , however as you are intelligent I would have expected a far more balanced opinion from you.
I'm sure CV is impressed by your largesse even if she resists voicing her approval. Not intending to talk for you CV, apologies if I offend.
His margin last time was very tight and he's almost certainly alienated supporters (some, at least) since then.
Reckon the Democrats will go so far left it puts off their own moderate supporters?
How will Warren pull those few thousands that he won by in a handful of rust belt states back? Biden might.
There is also the Obama black vote. Clinton lost some of that. Biden gets it back according to polls so far. Look at his support in S Carolina. Warren? I don't know.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Warren looking strong. She is very able and there is clear blue water between her and any GOP candidate. Trump will play up the thing about her claiming to be an Indian, but that'll get boring quite quickly. The "Socialist" attack will be more constant, and will scare a few percent, just like (I know, it's hard to believe) some people here were scared of a Kinnock premiership.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
I worry that Warren is too cold a figure, and too easily portrayed as elitist. Her "I'll just get me a beer" video was cringe-y. No amount of policy can help her shake the question mark about whether she's on the side of the ordinary, working Jo(e).
It's deeply unfair, of course. The idea Trump genuinely gives a flying fart about such people is laughable to anyone looking from the outside. But that'll be the problem - he can fake the, "I'm an outsider, fighting for you against The Man" thing even though he is The Man. She probably can't .
I know that runs against theoretical polls, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think she has an air of inauthenticity that will cause her real problems moving into the part of the campaign where most people start paying attention.
Don't forget that being a representative of Massachusetts doesn't necessarily play well with the rest of the country (see Dukakis, Kerry, Romney)
My current thinking, as it has been for some time, is that Warren loses to Trump.
I also think Biden is correct to say this is a marathon not a sprint. Maybe she comes top in Iowa, but then what.
In a sense, the latest poll in Iowa is bad news for Warren.
The key in the early primaries is not so much winning as beating expectations.
If the expectation is that Warren wins and she does, it has limited impact. If the expectation is a win and she falls short, it's a problem.
We're some way out, so the polls may well shift anyway and the expectation may well change. But if it was tomorrow, you'd actually quite like to be where Buttigieg is - where a second place is both credible and a big positive story.
I'm reminded if 2008 - polling was tight, but the expectation was just about that Hillary Clinton was in poll position. As it turns out, she didn't even get second. Similarly, the other Clinton "won" New Hampshire in 1992 by coming second and calling himself "the Comeback Kid".
As I say, the polls will probably bounce about a lot before Iowa. But, on balance, you'd probably rather be polling strongly but NOT as clear favourite.
His margin last time was very tight and he's almost certainly alienated supporters (some, at least) since then.
Reckon the Democrats will go so far left it puts off their own moderate supporters?
The economy has done well under Trump (superficially at least - may be storing up problems, but people are richer). The argument "you like him, but can you risk him?" may have worked for a fair few people in 2016, and may work less well this time.
Also, people say what a bad candidate Clinton was. But it's exaggerated with hindsight. She had a lot of positives - bags of experience, her hubby's Presidency generally viewed favourably, a moderate position not likely to scare the horses, a good debater (who won the debates in fact). She had negatives too, very obviously, but she wasn't McGovern or Goldwater, and the Democrats may well choose a worse one this time.
Mr. Borough, Trump will help the Democrats with black (and other) support.
As for the rust belt, that was lost more due to Clinton's daft misallocation of resources. It's eminently winnable.
Trump knows how to punch the wound. By saying offensive things, he causes the Democrats to shift leftwards. If he can get them to champion causes like abolishing ICE and demanding reparations for slavery, he'll win.
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
Name one positive thing any of you , Scott and Harry have ever posted. If it was a positive critique etc I could see the point but all I ever see is just petty vitriol regardless if correct or not and you are not consistent where London government is concerned. Scott and Harry are the worst , however as you are intelligent I would have expected a far more balanced opinion from you.
Malc, I hadn't realised that you were a champion of generosity and balance in your posts? The list of politicians who you admire seems notable mainly for its brevity.
It IS premature but something about that photo the other day - Kamala hugging the Professor so tightly - the first thing it said to me was Mother/Daughter and from this it is no great stretch to arrive at what it is most definitely far too early to be speculating about.
Trump/Pence vs Warren/Harris.
That would be awesome. Movie material even. Casting writes itself -
Donald Trump - Danny Devito Mike Pence - Denzil Washington Elizabeth Warren - Dame Maggie Smith Kamala Harris - Beyonce
I can't see Harris as the VP pick to Warren; I think she'd go for a relatively young white Democrat. My money would be on Beto O'Rourke, assuming he's not dropped out to run for the Senate in Texas.
TBF to the current government (George Osborne should burn in hell for this), the student loan book has already been sold. Consequently it will be fiendishly difficult to unpick the decision / change the interest rate.
You are right: it was simply wrong to do this. I think charging RPI/CPI (even though the government can borrow cheaper at present) would have been reasonable. But then it wouldn't have been as attractive an investment for third parties, so George went for the "clever" solution
Selling the student loan book was foolish and gratuitous.
Just collect the revenue as it comes in over the years?
Oh no that's far too simple. That's boring. Let's do something fancypants - like those City trader types do - and lose a ton in fees and discount so as to get the money now and make the balance sheet look artificially better.
A classic example of government doing things it shouldn't. See PFI.
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
I was about to write exactly this: the interesting betting in a nutshell... Biden and Saunders are cruising on name recognition, but are not going to win. Beto is becalmed, but Warren and Buttigieg have *momentum*...
But for an alternative to work, a good starting point is that we don't all rubbish each others' prospects before they're even tried, in the hope that people will then rally behind our preferred alternative. The weakness of Swinson's position is that she vacillates between implying that she'd be up for a Corbyn caretaker government on the right conditions (but "sadly" thinks it won't work) or she'd be against it (even if it would work). My impression is that she thinks the latter, which is why it's what first came out, but has been advised that she needs to pretend the former.
The LibDem and Green leaders in my patch have written with me jointly to the Guardian to urge consideration of Corbyn's proposals without preconditions. Give it an honest try; if it doesn't work, then we'll look at alternatives and see if they might.
On the other hand Nick, there's not all that long to get this sorted! So if something is really a non starter, we need to know quickly.
I think your assessment of what Swinson really thinks is accurate, but it's been explained to her that she cannot be seen to be enabling No Deal. If all other parties backed Corbyn the caretaker, then she would buckle under the pressure.
I hope that Corbyn and team are working on a backup option, potentially Harman and testing the water around that. They can reasonably expect certain guarantees like a time limit etc.
I'm unconvinced that Labour leavers would prefer Johnson and No Deal to Harman in great numbers.
That's all fair enough, and I agree that it makes sense to use August to sort out what will work and what won't, ideally not on the basis that we shoot down each others' ideas.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
What makes you think Trump will stop at 4 more years?
Unlike this country, the constitution will prohibit him from continuing in office, and there is no way he could change that to allow him to do a Roosevelt.
He has been unpopular for a long time and he may as well have the whip withdrawn
That's my take on several other Tories who've already had or are facing votes of no confidence etc from their associations (or have already said they'll walk at the next election given such a likelihood). What do they have to lose?
Some of those associations may in retrospect look like they've acted hastily in calling disloyalty, if it removes any power the whips have to get them through the lobbies when it *really* matters.
I can understand the Zoomers want "self government" for Scotland.
What I fail to understand is why they don't want better government.
Nippy and her happy band of incompetents have fucked up just about everything they touched.
Scottish education used to be respected around the World. Now it's a joke.
Hospitals. Let's not even go there.
The bridge is not finished yet, however hard they wish.
And the shipyard is another fiasco entirely created at Holyrood.
Patriotic Scots should be mortified at these numpties, not worshipping them.
That makes me sad...
Those issues don't translate into significant differences in voter's concerns - Tax, Welfare, Pensions (all reserved or majority reserved matters) are areas where Scottish voters are more concerned than UK average, Housing and Crime (devolved) much less of a concern.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Pick any construction contract guide and look up the meaning of "Practical Completion" - it's one of the cornerstones of the building industry.
Unfortunately he is not interested in reality or facts , he just wants to whine about the Scottish Government regardless of facts.
I was really impressed with the new Queensferry crossing when I used it for the first time last Autumn. A beautiful example of engineering and due to its location, length and complexity it is bound to have extended teething problems.
I watched from a distance from my bedroom window in Edinburgh as they spun the cables for the older crossing and I drove my wife with 2 friends over it the day it opened in September 1964.
We did not realise we had crossed over due to a classic east coast 'haar' but used it many times afterwards
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
I was about to write exactly this: the interesting betting in a nutshell... Biden and Saunders are cruising on name recognition, but are not going to win. Beto is becalmed, but Warren and Buttigieg have *momentum*...
What momentum does Buttigieg have pray tell ? He has PLUMMETED by 12% from the previous Change Research Iowa poll.
If the Lib Dems were really smart they would vote Corbyn in, wait until he had taken no deal off the table, and then vote him out again.
Then claim the credit for both avoiding no deal and getting rid of Corbyn.
Job done.
How do the Lib Dems vote him out? There are only 14 of them.
But don't you think the Tories and DUP would support a vote to get rid of Corbyn?
Only if it suited their purposes. A weak, faction-ridden Corbynite government might well be useful for a time, as a means of uniting the Right.
If the Conservatives are voted out, they may well put down a VONC of their own, at a time when it suits them, but they won't be working with the people who voted them out.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
What makes you think Trump will stop at 4 more years?
Unlike this country, the constitution will prohibit him from continuing in office, and there is no way he could change that to allow him to do a Roosevelt.
If that got proposed as a constitutional amendment, the true depth of Trump's support among even Republican congresspersons would soon become apparent. They might fight against impeachment and tolerate a second term.. but it would take four more years for them to stop laughing at that idea.
(And - feel free to throw this back at me in 5 years - IMO the US Constitution is too strong for him to do it unconstitutionally)
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
Lots of weirdo Trumptons on PB. HY is a Trumpton nowadays. All very depressing.
There really are not that many Trump fans here. Theres quite a few who think he will win, and some prepared to say he has done a few things ok, but it's a mischaracterisation to suggest theres lots of Trump fans.
TBF to the current government (George Osborne should burn in hell for this), the student loan book has already been sold. Consequently it will be fiendishly difficult to unpick the decision / change the interest rate.
You are right: it was simply wrong to do this. I think charging RPI/CPI (even though the government can borrow cheaper at present) would have been reasonable. But then it wouldn't have been as attractive an investment for third parties, so George went for the "clever" solution
Selling the student loan book was foolish and gratuitous.
Just collect the revenue as it comes in over the years?
Oh no that's far too simple. That's boring. Let's do something fancypants - like those City trader types do - and lose a ton in fees and discount so as to get the money now and make the balance sheet look artificially better.
A classic example of government doing things it shouldn't. See PFI.
The point is of course it is likely that most of that money will never be recovered. Because the loans are too big and the interest rates too high.
What I couldn't understand was why anyone was fool enough to buy them.
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
I was about to write exactly this: the interesting betting in a nutshell... Biden and Saunders are cruising on name recognition, but are not going to win. Beto is becalmed, but Warren and Buttigieg have *momentum*...
If I had a crystal ball to stare into, I reckon it would have Warren winning Iowa with around 40% of the delegates, and Buttigieg trailing with 30%. Biden, Sanders and Harris would pick up 30% between them. (And everyone else would have to drop out.)
This fundamentally changes the dynamic of the race: Warren becomes the standard bearer of the left, while Buttigieg becomes that of moderates.
I'd reckon that Warren would win that race, but it would be a fascinating contest.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
Lots of weirdo Trumptons on PB. HY is a Trumpton nowadays. All very depressing.
There really are not that many Trump fans here. Theres quite a few who think he will win, and some prepared to say he has done a few things ok, but it's a mischaracterisation to suggest theres lots of Trump fans.
I cannot think of many either other than HY.
The sooner Trump is out of office the better for all of us
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
Iowa Caucus has only led the process since 1972 (so before then is not really comparable).
1996 and 2012 were walkovers with a sitting Democrat President (Carter had a fairly serious challenger in Teddy Kennedy in 1980).
Of the others, 1972 (Muskie), 1988 (Gephardt), and 1992 (Harkin) were won by losers in the nomination process. So I don't think 90% is right at all.
It's been more predictive in recent years, but I don't think that's down to much more than chance - the Republican Iowa caucus has been LESS predictive (last three winners have been Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz) so I'm not sure there's some sort of real logic that says nowadays winning early is vital.
You've also got a more competitive process than most this year. If Warren did win with 28%, that'd be less than ANY Democrat winner from 1972 to date.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
Lots of weirdo Trumptons on PB. HY is a Trumpton nowadays. All very depressing.
There really are not that many Trump fans here. Theres quite a few who think he will win, and some prepared to say he has done a few things ok, but it's a mischaracterisation to suggest theres lots of Trump fans.
Trump has the biggest fan base in PB history! EVER! BEST EVER! HUGE NUMBERS
Warren looking strong. She is very able and there is clear blue water between her and any GOP candidate. Trump will play up the thing about her claiming to be an Indian, but that'll get boring quite quickly. The "Socialist" attack will be more constant, and will scare a few percent, just like (I know, it's hard to believe) some people here were scared of a Kinnock premiership.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
I worry that Warren is too cold a figure, and too easily portrayed as elitist. Her "I'll just get me a beer" video was cringe-y. No amount of policy can help her shake the question mark about whether she's on the side of the ordinary, working Jo(e).
It's deeply unfair, of course. The idea Trump genuinely gives a flying fart about such people is laughable to anyone looking from the outside. But that'll be the problem - he can fake the, "I'm an outsider, fighting for you against The Man" thing even though he is The Man. She probably can't .
I know that runs against theoretical polls, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think she has an air of inauthenticity that will cause her real problems moving into the part of the campaign where most people start paying attention.
That being said...
Her policy platform is tailored for the rust belt, which works in her favour.
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
I was about to write exactly this: the interesting betting in a nutshell... Biden and Saunders are cruising on name recognition, but are not going to win. Beto is becalmed, but Warren and Buttigieg have *momentum*...
If I had a crystal ball to stare into, I reckon it would have Warren winning Iowa with around 40% of the delegates, and Buttigieg trailing with 30%. Biden, Sanders and Harris would pick up 30% between them. (And everyone else would have to drop out.)
This fundamentally changes the dynamic of the race: Warren becomes the standard bearer of the left, while Buttigieg becomes that of moderates.
I'd reckon that Warren would win that race, but it would be a fascinating contest.
A problem for Warren there may be that I can see Biden dropping out after a couple of disappointing early results, but find it harder to see Sanders doing so.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
What makes you think Trump will stop at 4 more years?
Unlike this country, the constitution will prohibit him from continuing in office, and there is no way he could change that to allow him to do a Roosevelt.
If that got proposed as a constitutional amendment, the true depth of Trump's support among even Republican congresspersons would soon become apparent. They might fight against impeachment and tolerate a second term.. but it would take four more years for them to stop laughing at that idea.
(And - feel free to throw this back at me in 5 years - IMO the US Constitution is too strong for him to do it unconstitutionally)
He would be unable to do it. Does anyone honestly think 75% of state legislatures would pass that? Even if Republcian legislatures did - and I doubt if they would, given supermajorities are usually required - only 60% ratification would be possible. It simply would not be possible to get such a change through.
And if he tried to do it unconstitutionally he would be undermining his own power. The only there is a United States is because they all signed the constitution. The president exists because of the constitution. At its most extreme, it only takes Maryland and Washington to temporarily secede and put him under arrest in those circumstances and he's finished. More likely is that he would simply be arrested for treason on the orders of Congress.
What a tool, typical unionist raging because it was finished in time and under budget unlike UK budgets where the overruns cost more than the Scottish project.
It's no finished
Long tailbacks caused by finishing work on the Queensferry Crossing will stretch beyond its second birthday, a motoring group fears.
Evening commuters have reported mile-long queues as contractors step up remaining tasks to complete the £1.35 billion bridge, which opened in August 2017.
The work is not scheduled to end until October and Transport Scotland has now revealed the builders will not be completely clear of the crossing until December.
Pick any construction contract guide and look up the meaning of "Practical Completion" - it's one of the cornerstones of the building industry.
Unfortunately he is not interested in reality or facts , he just wants to whine about the Scottish Government regardless of facts.
I was really impressed with the new Queensferry crossing when I used it for the first time last Autumn. A beautiful example of engineering and due to its location, length and complexity it is bound to have extended teething problems.
I watched from a distance from my bedroom window in Edinburgh as they spun the cables for the older crossing and I drove my wife with 2 friends over it the day it opened in September 1964.
We did not realise we had crossed over due to a classic east coast 'haar' but used it many times afterwards
Oh, yes, its attractive (although, unfortunately, the buffers prevent you from seeing the view as you motor across). It's just that it was great opportunity to significantly reduce congestion and travel time and it doesn't seem to have achieved that. Dualling the A9 will have an impact for those heading north though.
If I had a crystal ball to stare into, I reckon it would have Warren winning Iowa with around 40% of the delegates, and Buttigieg trailing with 30%. Biden, Sanders and Harris would pick up 30% between them. (And everyone else would have to drop out.)
The point is of course it is likely that most of that money will never be recovered. Because the loans are too big and the interest rates too high.
What I couldn't understand was why anyone was fool enough to buy them.
That would have been factored in, I would imagine, so the buyer will do very nicely.
Usually where the government transacts with private sector finance, when the motive is short term cashflow and accounting advantage, the government gets ripped off.
PFI is an excellent example. I worked on some of those deals (from both sides) and I can confirm that they were a fabulously efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the many (taxpayers) to the few (directors and shareholders).
Selling student loans fell squarely in that category.
The point is of course it is likely that most of that money will never be recovered. Because the loans are too big and the interest rates too high.
What I couldn't understand was why anyone was fool enough to buy them.
That would have been factored in, I would imagine, so the buyer will do very nicely.
Usually when the government transacts with private sector finance, when the motive is short term cashflow and accounting advantage, the government gets ripped off.
PFI is an excellent example. I worked on some of those deals (from both sides) and I can confirm that they were a fabulously efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the many (taxpayers) to the few (directors and shareholders).
Selling student loans fell squarely in that vein.
I'm glad to hear PFI was fabulously efficient at something.
It certainly wasn't fecking efficient at putting up good-quality schools.
Edit - btw, I take it everyone does know the sell off of student loans began under Labour?
I'd say lay anyone at implied probability over 30% (which isn't Warren yet, but may be very soon).
It remains a big field, and there are too many twists to come in this. Someone will have a "moment" in the September debates. Someone will have an Autumn scandal. Someone will outperform expectations in Iowa. And so on, and so on.
That's not to say one of the front-runners won't win... they probably will. But there is money to be made on the roller-coaster on the way there... if Warren does come through, say, she'll very probably have periods when she's well under 30%.
It is worth remembering that the Iowa winner gets the Democratic nomination 90% of the time. It's therefore very important to see who's outperforming there (Warren, Buttigieg), and who's underperforming (Harris, Biden).
Iowa Caucus has only led the process since 1972 (so before then is not really comparable).
1996 and 2012 were walkovers with a sitting Democrat President (Carter had a fairly serious challenger in Teddy Kennedy in 1980).
Of the others, 1972 (Muskie), 1988 (Gephardt), and 1992 (Harkin) were won by losers in the nomination process. So I don't think 90% is right at all.
It's been more predictive in recent years, but I don't think that's down to much more than chance - the Republican Iowa caucus has been LESS predictive (last three winners have been Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz) so I'm not sure there's some sort of real logic that says nowadays winning early is vital.
You've also got a more competitive process than most this year. If Warren did win with 28%, that'd be less than ANY Democrat winner from 1972 to date.
1992 had the Democratic Senator for Iowa running, so most candidates simply skipped it. But your point about sitting Presidents is a good one.
Nevertheless, Iowa defines the field, and results in polling shifts. In the last three competitive Democratic nominations ('16, '08 and '04), the winning candidate had a big, big polling jump following it, and those who failed to get into the top three dropped away sharply.
If Warren wins Iowa, and Sanders is third or worse, then he will lose support. If Biden fails in Iowa, it will reflect on his electibility.
(It's also worth remembering that the 15% rule means that all those Kloubachar and O'Rourke and the like 2-3% end up as nothings. And Harris, were she to poll 8% would likely end up with nothing too. That leaves the delegate split just going four ways, so 28% would become 35%.)
Comments
So about the same as Alderney (Pop. 1.200)?
Your inability to read is making a mockery of the Scottish education system...
I think your assessment of what Swinson really thinks is accurate, but it's been explained to her that she cannot be seen to be enabling No Deal. If all other parties backed Corbyn the caretaker, then she would buckle under the pressure.
I hope that Corbyn and team are working on a backup option, potentially Harman and testing the water around that. They can reasonably expect certain guarantees like a time limit etc.
I'm unconvinced that Labour leavers would prefer Johnson and No Deal to Harman in great numbers.
PS apologies for autocorrect , it should have been stupid tool
Then claim the credit for both avoiding no deal and getting rid of Corbyn.
Job done.
And "all other parties back Corbyn"? I think you'll find the Tories and the DUP will never back Corbyn.
Absolutely everybody happy except Chris Leslie.
Put a little on her at 8 (8.5 with boost) yesterday. Had fallen to 7 when I checked today.
I still prefer Harris - slightly less of a politician, slightly less left-wing, a lot less WASP - as perhaps having a slightly easier fight against Trump, but the activists might be more enthusiastic working to GOTV for Warren.
Now 8/11
It wasn't done in the time allotted. That's the whole point. It's not finished...
Gripping to watch a high-risk presidential campaign attempt to woo Iowa and slowly become a train wreck - largely around an Ed Milliband-style incident involving a 'loose meat sandwich'...
https://order-order.com/2019/08/16/sarah-wollaston-may-not-lib-dem-candidate-next-election/
(Yes, I know we can't have precisely that name any more. But you get the point...)
Or would even ask such a silly question.
(edit) I see that was an attempt at a pun, so I withdraw my criticism.
If it's Lab + supporting cast, then it's Ref 2. So Brexiteers will only need to win 1 of 2 public votes.
And you're quite right, that should have been all *opposition* parties.
It's deeply unfair, of course. The idea Trump genuinely gives a flying fart about such people is laughable to anyone looking from the outside. But that'll be the problem - he can fake the, "I'm an outsider, fighting for you against The Man" thing even though he is The Man. She probably can't .
I know that runs against theoretical polls, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think she has an air of inauthenticity that will cause her real problems moving into the part of the campaign where most people start paying attention.
Con 11/10
A constant stream of invective at anyone who doesn't worship the SNP
Well, you would if you were capable of original thought. Instead you just post endless Twitter links.
I shall enjoy doing my bit to defeat her, proven liar that she is.
You are right: it was simply wrong to do this. I think charging RPI/CPI (even though the government can borrow cheaper at present) would have been reasonable. But then it wouldn't have been as attractive an investment for third parties, so George went for the "clever" solution
He has been unpopular for a long time and he may as well have the whip withdrawn
I also think Biden is correct to say this is a marathon not a sprint. Maybe she comes top in Iowa, but then what.
What I fail to understand is why they don't want better government.
Nippy and her happy band of incompetents have fucked up just about everything they touched.
Scottish education used to be respected around the World. Now it's a joke.
Hospitals. Let's not even go there.
The bridge is not finished yet, however hard they wish.
And the shipyard is another fiasco entirely created at Holyrood.
Patriotic Scots should be mortified at these numpties, not worshipping them.
That makes me sad...
There is no equivalent on the site who does down England 100% of the time, it is unique to lickspittle Scots.
His margin last time was very tight and he's almost certainly alienated supporters (some, at least) since then.
Reckon the Democrats will go so far left it puts off their own moderate supporters?
When it comes to a choice between People & Parliament versus Cheats & Tax-Dodgers, I think you are on the losing side, Mr Mark.
There is also the Obama black vote. Clinton lost some of that. Biden gets it back according to polls so far. Look at his support in S Carolina. Warren? I don't know.
Four more years of Trump and the American Republic is just about finished, and that's assuming he doesn't blow us all up with a war on China.
He will be unbound. It is beyond terrifying. Dems have to get this right.
As for the rust belt, that was lost more due to Clinton's daft misallocation of resources. It's eminently winnable.
The key in the early primaries is not so much winning as beating expectations.
If the expectation is that Warren wins and she does, it has limited impact. If the expectation is a win and she falls short, it's a problem.
We're some way out, so the polls may well shift anyway and the expectation may well change. But if it was tomorrow, you'd actually quite like to be where Buttigieg is - where a second place is both credible and a big positive story.
I'm reminded if 2008 - polling was tight, but the expectation was just about that Hillary Clinton was in poll position. As it turns out, she didn't even get second. Similarly, the other Clinton "won" New Hampshire in 1992 by coming second and calling himself "the Comeback Kid".
As I say, the polls will probably bounce about a lot before Iowa. But, on balance, you'd probably rather be polling strongly but NOT as clear favourite.
Also, people say what a bad candidate Clinton was. But it's exaggerated with hindsight. She had a lot of positives - bags of experience, her hubby's Presidency generally viewed favourably, a moderate position not likely to scare the horses, a good debater (who won the debates in fact). She had negatives too, very obviously, but she wasn't McGovern or Goldwater, and the Democrats may well choose a worse one this time.
I think it will be very tight in Totnes. Wollaston will sweep Totnes town, and the Dart Valley, the Conservatives will fight back in the resorts.
It's also an organisation heavy state, which also favours Warren and Buttigieg over the field.
If Warren holds her leads in Iowa, it will be very hard for others to catch her. And of the pack in Iowa, I have to say that Buttigieg looks best positioned. He's a 20-1 shot for the nomination, but probably a 7 or 8-1 shot for Iowa. That makes him clear value here.
Just collect the revenue as it comes in over the years?
Oh no that's far too simple. That's boring. Let's do something fancypants - like those City trader types do - and lose a ton in fees and discount so as to get the money now and make the balance sheet look artificially better.
A classic example of government doing things it shouldn't. See PFI.
Some of those associations may in retrospect look like they've acted hastily in calling disloyalty, if it removes any power the whips have to get them through the lobbies when it *really* matters.
I watched from a distance from my bedroom window in Edinburgh as they spun the cables for the older crossing and I drove my wife with 2 friends over it the day it opened in September 1964.
We did not realise we had crossed over due to a classic east coast 'haar' but used it many times afterwards
If the Conservatives are voted out, they may well put down a VONC of their own, at a time when it suits them, but they won't be working with the people who voted them out.
(And - feel free to throw this back at me in 5 years - IMO the US Constitution is too strong for him to do it unconstitutionally)
What I couldn't understand was why anyone was fool enough to buy them.
This fundamentally changes the dynamic of the race: Warren becomes the standard bearer of the left, while Buttigieg becomes that of moderates.
I'd reckon that Warren would win that race, but it would be a fascinating contest.
The sooner Trump is out of office the better for all of us
1996 and 2012 were walkovers with a sitting Democrat President (Carter had a fairly serious challenger in Teddy Kennedy in 1980).
Of the others, 1972 (Muskie), 1988 (Gephardt), and 1992 (Harkin) were won by losers in the nomination process. So I don't think 90% is right at all.
It's been more predictive in recent years, but I don't think that's down to much more than chance - the Republican Iowa caucus has been LESS predictive (last three winners have been Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz) so I'm not sure there's some sort of real logic that says nowadays winning early is vital.
You've also got a more competitive process than most this year. If Warren did win with 28%, that'd be less than ANY Democrat winner from 1972 to date.
Her policy platform is tailored for the rust belt, which works in her favour.
And if he tried to do it unconstitutionally he would be undermining his own power. The only there is a United States is because they all signed the constitution. The president exists because of the constitution. At its most extreme, it only takes Maryland and Washington to temporarily secede and put him under arrest in those circumstances and he's finished. More likely is that he would simply be arrested for treason on the orders of Congress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA0Klgvv5wY
Usually where the government transacts with private sector finance, when the motive is short term cashflow and accounting advantage, the government gets ripped off.
PFI is an excellent example. I worked on some of those deals (from both sides) and I can confirm that they were a fabulously efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the many (taxpayers) to the few (directors and shareholders).
Selling student loans fell squarely in that category.
It certainly wasn't fecking efficient at putting up good-quality schools.
Edit - btw, I take it everyone does know the sell off of student loans began under Labour?
Nevertheless, Iowa defines the field, and results in polling shifts. In the last three competitive Democratic nominations ('16, '08 and '04), the winning candidate had a big, big polling jump following it, and those who failed to get into the top three dropped away sharply.
If Warren wins Iowa, and Sanders is third or worse, then he will lose support.
If Biden fails in Iowa, it will reflect on his electibility.
(It's also worth remembering that the 15% rule means that all those Kloubachar and O'Rourke and the like 2-3% end up as nothings. And Harris, were she to poll 8% would likely end up with nothing too. That leaves the delegate split just going four ways, so 28% would become 35%.)
Even Corbyn has some on here !!!!