Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far, at least, it is hard to discern a Falkirk or Flowe

SystemSystem Posts: 11,699
edited November 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far, at least, it is hard to discern a Falkirk or Flowers effect in YouGov’s daily polls

The YouGov/Sunday Times has
Con 33%
Lab 40%
LD9%
UKIP 11%
So no sign that the Flowers story or Falkirk is impinging on LAB position

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    First!
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2013
    Both the Telegraph and Guardian on Sunday highlight Labour’s ‘financial crises’ in the wake of the Flowers scandle.

    Guardian - Labour faces cash crisis as Co-op's new bosses move to cut funding

    Flowers scandal fallout 'could cost £850,000' in what would be a major blow for the party in the runup to a general election

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/23/labour-faces-co-op-cash-crisis
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2013
    Telegraph - Labour in financial crisis in wake of Co-op scandal

    More than £2 million in loans from Co-op and sister bank to the party may now have to be paid off before 2015 general election

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10470556/Labour-in-financial-crisis-in-wake-of-Co-op-scandal.html
  • Options
    YouGov:

    Doing a Well/badly (net)
    Cameron : -13 (+6)
    Miliband: -31 (-1)
    Clegg: -50 (+4)


  • Options
    tim said:

    "Labour pledges to build five new towns to ease shortage of new homes

    http://t.co/kw1pv1rZ10

    Do you expect anyone to take this claim seriously?

    Five new towns will be built in the first five years of a Labour government under plans being drawn up by the party, its new shadow housing minister has claimed.

    As Andrew Neil pointed out, even if they named the sites on their first day in office, construction wouldn't have started by 2020.
  • Options
    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    edited November 2013
    tim said:

    @Carlotta

    Look at the thread header and remember the PB Tory motto

    The PB Tories are always wrong
    The PB Tories never learn

    That's a"no" then.....

    I thought you were going to defend Labours ludicrous claim on the basis of its record - but I see your difficulty,,,,,,

    As for your other point......

    MAN CRIES AT FUNERAL

  • Options
    tim said:

    "Labour pledges to build five new towns to ease shortage of new homes

    http://t.co/kw1pv1rZ10

    Great stuff. We'll be expecting an announcement on cats in the coming months.
  • Options

    tim said:

    "Labour pledges to build five new towns to ease shortage of new homes

    http://t.co/kw1pv1rZ10

    Great stuff. We'll be expecting an announcement on cats in the coming months.
    And a Unicorn for every child!
  • Options
    The London slave case takes on a bizarre twist as police claim - “London 'slaves' had been in political collective with captors” – interesting, sounds more like a cult gone wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/23/london-slaves-political-collective-captor-police

  • Options

    The London slave case takes on a bizarre twist as police claim - “London 'slaves' had been in political collective with captors” – interesting, sounds more like a cult gone wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/23/london-slaves-political-collective-captor-police

    As part of the "Tory Smear Campaign" the ST says it was a Marxist group.

    The Observer left that bit out......
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited November 2013
    tim said:

    "Labour pledges to build five new towns to ease shortage of new homes

    http://t.co/kw1pv1rZ10

    Obviously this is normal for British papers, but the article doesn't live up to the headline. The actual quote seems to be,
    "I would love to think we could deliver four or five, and that would still be significant."
    Not only is that not a pledge, I'm not sure that it's even an aspiration.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited November 2013

    The London slave case takes on a bizarre twist as police claim - “London 'slaves' had been in political collective with captors” – interesting, sounds more like a cult gone wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/23/london-slaves-political-collective-captor-police

    As part of the "Tory Smear Campaign" the ST says it was a Marxist group.

    The Observer left that bit out......
    Do they give the name of the group? Is it actual Marxism, ie a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry based on a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social transformation, an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society? Or is it the special right-wing version of the word, meaning pretty much anything they don't agree with?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    edited November 2013

    The London slave case takes on a bizarre twist as police claim - “London 'slaves' had been in political collective with captors” – interesting, sounds more like a cult gone wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/23/london-slaves-political-collective-captor-police

    As part of the "Tory Smear Campaign" the ST says it was a Marxist group.

    The Observer left that bit out......
    Do they give the name of the group? Is it actual Marxism, ie a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry based on a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social transformation, an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society? Or is it the special right-wing version of the word, meaning pretty much anything they don't agree with?
    No, the official word is "shared political ideology". I don't think there were too many UKIP collectives in the 1970s......

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1344419.ece
  • Options

    The London slave case takes on a bizarre twist as police claim - “London 'slaves' had been in political collective with captors” – interesting, sounds more like a cult gone wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/23/london-slaves-political-collective-captor-police

    As part of the "Tory Smear Campaign" the ST says it was a Marxist group.

    The Observer left that bit out......
    The MoS has an even more bizarre take on the story, involving one of the ‘slaves’ - 500 love letters to the chap in the flat above, but not one asking for “help” it would appear.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512503/Slave-womans-scented-love-letters-photographs-neighbour-obsessed-with.html


  • Options
    Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited November 2013
    Since 2004 occasionally blogging from outwith the Westminster Bubble.
  • Options
    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.
  • Options
    - "Do you think that Nick Clegg is doing well or badly as leader of the Liberal Democrats?"

    Net Well

    Rest of South -41
    London -44
    Midlands/Wales -49
    North -57
    Scotland -73

    Great Britain -50

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q0ir85hkfv/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-221113.pdf
  • Options

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table?

    At least we know the Scots Labour MPs can only represent England - Scottish Labour having pushed ahead with MSP selection......

  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    Interesting question - if the referendum went through the negotiation would be between Scotland and the current organization which is the UK, so we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.

    For extra constitutionally-interesting points, the main party returned in 2015 and tasked with completing the Scotland negotiation could be a few seats short and end up forming a coalition with the SNP...
  • Options
    The Fragrant Flowers....contd.

    The Reverend Paul Flowers boasted to his drug dealer that a retired police chief inspector friend was allowed to watch over last week’s raid at his home.
    Flowers called Peter Wilson hours after the raid finished and said a ‘good mate of mine’ knew the officers and that they had not found anything incriminating.
    West Yorkshire officers with sniffer dogs executed a search warrant at Flowers’s home in Bradford on Tuesday.


    Just as well the West Yorkshire Police are above reproach.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512511/Sex-drugs-blasphemy-depravity-arrogance-Crystal-Methodist-didnt-believe-God--brazen-texts.html#ixzz2lXxexjIe
  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.
    Do you think anyone might mention that in the 2015 GE campaign?

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    I think Ed might be weally, weally, weally upset by a piece in the Sunday Times today. It contains a number of vicious smears.

    Not only this

    "Miliband grew up in London in a political and intellectual environment. His father, Ralph, was a prominent Marxist thinker."

    but this!

    "Ed went to the school disco and this was playing and had an extremely bad pair of white trousers and a purple jumper"

    Shocking stuff.

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1344424.ece
  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    Interesting question - if the referendum went through the negotiation would be between Scotland and the current organization which is the UK, so we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.

    For extra constitutionally-interesting points, the main party returned in 2015 and tasked with completing the Scotland negotiation could be a few seats short and end up forming a coalition with the SNP...

    The likely reality is surely that were Scotland to vote Yes, the rUK would have to work out how to be represented at the divorce talks. The Welsh and Northern Irish would certainly (and reasonably) want a level of distinct involvement, as would the English, of course. My guess is that a cross-party rUK negotiating team would have to be agreed and assembled. It would also be a huge surprise if the negotiations took as little as 18 months. And you'd imagine the final terms would have to then be approved - at least - by both Parliaments (by that time Scottish seats would not be voting at Westminster), while one or both sides may also require referenda. If the 24th March date is set in stone, Scotland is very likely to be going it alone with a lot still up in the air.

    On a separate, but related, note: will a Scottish constitution have to be written and approved by referendum prior to independence? You'd have thought that would definitely have to be a cross-party affair for it to have any kind of permanence. That could also complicate things.

    Should we get a Yes it will put everything else in the shade in these islands for years to come. But it could be a fantastic opportunity to rework everything.

  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.
    Do you think anyone might mention that in the 2015 GE campaign?

    If Scotland voted for independence and the negotiation wasn't settled at that point it would presumably be something that would come up in the 2015 campaign.

    I'm not really sure how everyone would play an actual negotiation - I could imagine both sides making all-party delegations, then having the cabinet and parliament sign off on the result, rather than the whole thing being Salmond vs <Cameron|Miliband> while everybody else demagogues whatever deal they come up with. If that happened I guess you'd have MPs representing Scottish seats inside the Scottish delegation and outside the rUK delegation, but still potentially inside the cabinet that gave the final sign-off.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SkyNewsPR: An array of top guests on #MURNAGHAN. Alistair Darling & Nicola Sturgeon on Scottish independence, Tim Yeo & Paddy Ashdown on green energy
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    The economic supplementaries in You Gov are pretty encouraging for the government: those saying it's doing a good job are up 5 to 40, while those saying it isn't down 3 to 51.

    We'll see if it lasts, and if people begin to feel more prosperous themselves (still very low and no change) in the months ahead.

    That's what will decide the election.
  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.
    Do you think anyone might mention that in the 2015 GE campaign?

    If Scotland voted for independence and the negotiation wasn't settled at that point it would presumably be something that would come up in the 2015 campaign.

    I'm not really sure how everyone would play an actual negotiation - I could imagine both sides making all-party delegations, then having the cabinet and parliament sign off on the result, rather than the whole thing being Salmond vs <Cameron|Miliband> while everybody else demagogues whatever deal they come up with. If that happened I guess you'd have MPs representing Scottish seats inside the Scottish delegation and outside the rUK delegation, but still potentially inside the cabinet that gave the final sign-off.

    If they are sensible both sides will assemble cross-party, extra-Parliamentary teams. The rUK will surely do that. The divorce settlement will need to be rock solid and not something that is revisited time and again. Compare and contrast the UK's relationship with the Eu and the Northern Ireland constitutional accord.

  • Options
    @SouthamObserver

    I agree with all of that except for this bit:
    by that time Scottish seats would not be voting at Westminster
    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.
  • Options

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table?

    At least we know the Scots Labour MPs can only represent England - Scottish Labour having pushed ahead with MSP selection......

    Indeed.

    For the uninitiated, Carlotta is referring to The McStavka Directive:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/burning-the-lifeboats/
  • Options
    In other news - it's a huge surprise to see England's spineless, clueless batsmen surrender so abjectly yet again. Is there anyone left willing to defend a unit that has shown itself to be so brittle time and time again? After this series, whatever happens, it's time for a complete shake-up. They need to do more batting in non-limited over games. Back to the county championship for them, I say.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,046
    Mike says: The other big development this month has, of course, been the improving economic data that has been coming out and that does not appear to be having an impact either. That, surely, will start to show if people start to feel a bit better off."

    Problem is, for the Tories, that people don't FEEL better off. Fuel costs are up, and talked a lot about, the cost of living is up but wages, salaries, except for very few, and those few right at the top, aren't improving. Increase in house prices doesn't stir anyone either; it's just as difficult to get on the housing ladder, and I suspect a lot of people are "once bitten" as far as mortgage costs and similar debts are concerned. Then there's report after report suggesting that the NHS is in trouble, which frightens people …… what happens if I get sick, what happens if Mum/Granny gets sick?
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    For a take on the Labour claims of smear pop over to Order-Order
  • Options

    @SouthamObserver

    I agree with all of that except for this bit:

    by that time Scottish seats would not be voting at Westminster
    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.



    I think we'd find there'd be a cross-party agreement that Scottish MPs would not vote on constitutional issues. So they'd be in Westminster, able to make decisions on issues affecting Scotland while it remained part of the UK, but not on stuff that would affect rUK once Scotland is gone.

    What's more, should Scotland vote Yes, no Scottish-based politician with the remotest ambition would be interested in a Westminster seat. Scots representing seats elsewhere in rUK would also have some serious thinking to; especially, I suspect, Labour ones.

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
  • Options
    tim said:

    @SimonStClare

    Repeatedly posting the same story that was posted numerous times on the last thread but with bold lettering will massively increase its import.

    Read that and thought 'that must be aimed at tim' .....

    Oh ......

    Unspoofable.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    Interesting question - if the referendum went through the negotiation would be between Scotland and the current organization which is the UK, so we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.

    For extra constitutionally-interesting points, the main party returned in 2015 and tasked with completing the Scotland negotiation could be a few seats short and end up forming a coalition with the SNP...
    In practice, I suspect that directly after the referendum vote, a quick bill would be passed suspending the 2015 Westminster election in Scotland. You would either extend the term of the current members or would replace them with representatives nominated by what would then be, in effect, the Scottish-government-in-waiting at Holyrood. But this would also be combined with a limitation on their ability to vote on any rUK-only legislation. So SNP MPs wouldn't be worth much to a coalition

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,046
    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    I suspect that voting in co-op board elections has a turn-out similar to that in TU elections. Or PCC elections.


  • Options


    I think we'd find there'd be a cross-party agreement that Scottish MPs would not vote on constitutional issues. So they'd be in Westminster, able to make decisions on issues affecting Scotland while it remained part of the UK, but not on stuff that would affect rUK once Scotland is gone.

    In practice it would probably be moot as everything will be worked out by the various delegations and parliament will just rubber-stamp it, but if it came to a contested vote you'd want every vote you could get.

    This brings us to the other interesting constitutional outcome, which is a Lab or Lib/Lab government dependent on the votes of MPs representing Scottish seats, after Scotland had voted to leave. A government in circumstances like this would be anxious to make sure that the settlement was very thorough and had full cross-party agreement, rather than rush the process so that they lost their MPs before 2020...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
  • Options

    Next Yookay general election: 7 May 2015

    Independence Day: 24 March 2016

    Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey: Danny Alexander 4/6 (Ladbrokes)

    So, is Danny planning on representing the Scots or the English side at the negotiating table? His constituents deserve to know.

    Interesting question - if the referendum went through the negotiation would be between Scotland and the current organization which is the UK, so we could certainly end up with Scottish people or people representing Scottish seats negotiating on the rUK side.

    For extra constitutionally-interesting points, the main party returned in 2015 and tasked with completing the Scotland negotiation could be a few seats short and end up forming a coalition with the SNP...

    The likely reality is surely that were Scotland to vote Yes, the rUK would have to work out how to be represented at the divorce talks. The Welsh and Northern Irish would certainly (and reasonably) want a level of distinct involvement, as would the English, of course. My guess is that a cross-party rUK negotiating team would have to be agreed and assembled. It would also be a huge surprise if the negotiations took as little as 18 months. And you'd imagine the final terms would have to then be approved - at least - by both Parliaments (by that time Scottish seats would not be voting at Westminster), while one or both sides may also require referenda. If the 24th March date is set in stone, Scotland is very likely to be going it alone with a lot still up in the air.

    On a separate, but related, note: will a Scottish constitution have to be written and approved by referendum prior to independence? You'd have thought that would definitely have to be a cross-party affair for it to have any kind of permanence. That could also complicate things.

    Should we get a Yes it will put everything else in the shade in these islands for years to come. But it could be a fantastic opportunity to rework everything.

    If Scotland votes Yes then the next questions on the agenda will be the English Question, the Irish Question and the Welsh Question. The "rUK" is an intrinsically unstable concept.
  • Options
    Charles said:



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
    They're either citizens of the UK or citizens of an independent Scotland, there wouldn't be a time when they were neither.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    I suspect that voting in co-op board elections has a turn-out similar to that in TU elections. Or PCC elections.


    Sure. But it isn't anyone else's fault he was chosen. My contact on the Co-op Board (retired several years ago - before all the problems!) hadn't met Flowers: said he "appeared from nowhere" having climbed up the elected committee route.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
    They're either citizens of the UK or citizens of an independent Scotland, there wouldn't be a time when they were neither.
    Sure, but assuming we are talking about a 2 year process, why should they get to vote on rUK legislation that will have a longer term impact. In practice the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Betting Post

    Backed Rosberg to get a podium at 2.16:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/brazil-pre-race.html
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Flowers may have been elected to the board, but surely it was the remainder of the board who made him Chairman?

    MOS stuff on him today pretty sensational, he was seriously off the rails. I hope he is getting some support from his friends, he is at serious risk of self harm, but we shall see if they are fairweather friends soon.
    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,359
    An interesting aspect of today's YG is that the secondaries are quite positive (in a "less bad" sense) for the Coalition but it has not affected the voting intention of the same voters.

    There are four ways of reading this:

    1. The improvements are among people who were going to vote Tory or LibDem anyway, but are now less fed up. That would probably increase their certainty to vote and reduce the chance of UKIP snaffling more votes on an "you're all rubbish" basis. It would not affect the Labour share. Note that it's not reduced the UKIP vote.

    2. The improvements are across the board but voting intentions are quite settled. People will take a more or less friendly view of individual issues, but a plurality intends to remove the Government when they get the chance, and improving economic data, leadership ratings etc. have no impact on that intention. In principle this seems rather unlikely, but the stability of the Labour share in particular suggests it may be correct.

    3. The poll has happened to sample people who are a bit more favourable to aspects of the Government than average. In that case the Labour lead in a more critical sample would be higher.

    4. It's all just random movement and we happen to have a sample who are a bit unusual, and the next polls may see it all reversed. It's happened before.

    Personally I think it's a mix of 1 and 2. I think Tories are starting to cheer up a bit and it will help their turnout and limit further UKIP gains, but the Lab/Lib voter coalition to remove the Government is quite solid, and impervious to good economic data, which they tend not to attribute to the brilliance of the Coalition and/or don't feel it's benefiting them. The Government project of either reducing UKIP share or getting back 2010 LibDems is not making progress.

  • Options
    SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    Looks like Ed is setting up a marker for the Conservatives that Labour`ll be watching closely and will use legal measures if necessary to make sure that they aren`t using sweeping generalisations.

    Can`t see Conservatives stop using aggressive tactics though.But individually it should make them a little weary incase they are called smearers and their careers and reputations go down the pan.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,046
    edited November 2013
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    I suspect that voting in co-op board elections has a turn-out similar to that in TU elections. Or PCC elections.


    Sure. But it isn't anyone else's fault he was chosen. My contact on the Co-op Board (retired several years ago - before all the problems!) hadn't met Flowers: said he "appeared from nowhere" having climbed up the elected committee route.
    Yes, and we thought Kinnock had sorted out the Militant Tendency years ago. There are quite a few powerful organisations in British life where it's very easy to climb to the top simply by turning up to meetings and being prepared to stand for election. Local political parties are another example.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
    They're either citizens of the UK or citizens of an independent Scotland, there wouldn't be a time when they were neither.
    Sure, but assuming we are talking about a 2 year process, why should they get to vote on rUK legislation that will have a longer term impact. In practice the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim.
    There wouldn't yet be an rUK, so there couldn't be any rUK legislation. There would only be UK legislation, not all of which would directly affect the whole of the UK, which is also true at the moment.

    I'm not sure that it's true that the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim. The stuff that's easy to delegate while the UK exists has mostly already been devolved, so we're talking about stuff that's going to need a bit of work to unpick. I'd imagine there would be more consultation with Scotland than there is now about areas that affected Scotland, but parliament would still be sovereign over and responsible for the whole UK until such time as it wasn't.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    Was he elected Chairman by the voting members also, or by the board?

  • Options
    SMukesh said:

    Looks like Ed is setting up a marker for the Conservatives that Labour`ll be watching closely and will use legal measures if necessary to make sure that they aren`t using sweeping generalisations.

    Can`t see Conservatives stop using aggressive tactics though.But individually it should make them a little weary incase they are called smearers and their careers and reputations go down the pan.

    The party of Damian McBride is seeking the moral high ground on smearing?

    Pull the other one.

    Just as well Miliband has never mentioned Bullingdon, Plebs or Flashman at PMQs, isn't it?

  • Options
    SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    Flowers may have been elected to the board, but surely it was the remainder of the board who made him Chairman?

    MOS stuff on him today pretty sensational, he was seriously off the rails. I hope he is getting some support from his friends, he is at serious risk of self harm, but we shall see if they are fairweather friends soon.

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    The question in my mind is if he had resigned from the Co-op over expenses claims 6 months ago,why did they let him attend the Select Committee hearing.It`s very odd!
  • Options
    SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    Looks like Ed is setting up a marker for the Conservatives that Labour`ll be watching closely and will use legal measures if necessary to make sure that they aren`t using sweeping generalisations.

    Can`t see Conservatives stop using aggressive tactics though.But individually it should make them a little weary incase they are called smearers and their careers and reputations go down the pan.

    The party of Damian McBride is seeking the moral high ground on smearing?

    Pull the other one.

    Just as well Miliband has never mentioned Bullingdon, Plebs or Flashman at PMQs, isn't it?

    So Cameron didn`t join the Bullingdon then and he is quite calm and relaxed at PMQ`s then.What about `two schoolboys who don`t know about the price of milk`Is that a smear too?Try to understand the difference between a smear and a colourful adjective.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    If that really is the timeline, then it is very odd indeed.
    SMukesh said:

    Flowers may have been elected to the board, but surely it was the remainder of the board who made him Chairman?

    MOS stuff on him today pretty sensational, he was seriously off the rails. I hope he is getting some support from his friends, he is at serious risk of self harm, but we shall see if they are fairweather friends soon.

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    The question in my mind is if he had resigned from the Co-op over expenses claims 6 months ago,why did they let him attend the Select Committee hearing.It`s very odd!
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    I'm shocked.
    Can only be a matter of time before the PB Tories are proved right.

    You would need a heart of stone not to laugh.

    LOL

    :)
  • Options
    Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    We're all in this together.
    Mike ‏@BlueEyedSoulMan 2h

    Nick Clegg secretly briefed investors at his French neighbour's dinner http://dailym.ai/18xvgvQ via @MailOnline #NastyNick
    :)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    If the vote is Yes, the first step of the rUK would be to have a Westminster vote to answer the WLQ. It would be nessecary to remove the right of Scots MPs to vote on rUK issues.

    This in itself would cause problems in that Labour could well have a Westminster majority but not a rUK majority, and may not be able to implement its manifesto.

    Indeed, I would like the WLQ answered even with a No vote.

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
    They're either citizens of the UK or citizens of an independent Scotland, there wouldn't be a time when they were neither.
    Sure, but assuming we are talking about a 2 year process, why should they get to vote on rUK legislation that will have a longer term impact. In practice the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim.
    There wouldn't yet be an rUK, so there couldn't be any rUK legislation. There would only be UK legislation, not all of which would directly affect the whole of the UK, which is also true at the moment.

    I'm not sure that it's true that the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim. The stuff that's easy to delegate while the UK exists has mostly already been devolved, so we're talking about stuff that's going to need a bit of work to unpick. I'd imagine there would be more consultation with Scotland than there is now about areas that affected Scotland, but parliament would still be sovereign over and responsible for the whole UK until such time as it wasn't.
  • Options

    If the vote is Yes, the first step of the rUK would be to have a Westminster vote to answer the WLQ. It would be nessecary to remove the right of Scots MPs to vote on rUK issues.

    This in itself would cause problems in that Labour could well have a Westminster majority but not a rUK majority, and may not be able to implement its manifesto.

    Right, that's one of the reasons why they wouldn't do it. It's possible the Scottish members might start abstaining voluntarily or even agree formally agree to abstain, but only if it was already moot, ie the arithmetic was such that the government didn't need their votes.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,985
    edited November 2013
    Morning all - Stayed out of betting on the boxing, was tempted by

    a) Froch on points
    b) Froch 10-12th round
    c) Groves victory

    With the frankly unbelievable judge's cards though even if the referee hadn't stopped it early Groves would have definitely lost on points.

    Fwiw I had the fight Froch 73 - 78 Groves after the 8th. The 9th would have most likely have been a 10-8 to Froch meaning if the rest of the rounds had gone to Froch with Groves not being knocked down in the 10th - 12th the fight would have ended a draw. But Groves could have hung in for the 10th and 11th and then just gone all out to pip the 12th perhaps... we will never know. He wasn't robbed of victory, but he was robbed of a massive chance for it. It sets up the biggest British boxing rematch since the Benn-Eubank days.
    I think Groves will win the rematch, those 9 rounds were fantastic experience for him and Froch is suddenly looking 'old overnight' but again I think it is No bet as boxing is utterly unpredictable, especially with some of the dreadful scoring we have around these days. Was a corker of a fight, Froch needs a chance to beat Groves 'properly', Groves certainly deserves it, and the rematch will sell out within about 5 minutes. It is a no brainer from every perspective. Don't count the Cobra out though.

    Onto the 1st Test - Oh Dear Oh Dear oh dear. Expect 4 more pitches full of bounce, Australia have a bowler that can strike genuine fear into England's top order - something I haven't seen for a very long time. When Mitch is bad he is very bad, but when he's good he is Jonathan Trott's nightmare. England can come back though - remember India.
    Profit on the Test was £39.90 (I was quite cautious but sensible with my various moves), but 3-0 Eng is a loser so Net £29.90 out of the Ashes thus far.

    Right, onto ON topic - The Labour vote share is very resilient, I was predicting a bit of a Conservative bounce with Camo cutting the Green nonsense, improving economy and perhaps a small Labour drop with the crystal methodist etc (Falkirk really is a non story in my book). But this still has time to come as Mike says and the Autumn statement could see a small upturn in CON fortunes.
    Having said that the Labour vote share looks super-solid at the moment, though there is still a long time to the election. Labour Minority is still my view on it.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The Indy ref is next autumn, so there will be a Queens speech a few weeks later. A Yes vote would surely make the WLQ the first bill in the speech.

    It may not be in Labour's hands, and blocking or trashing the bill would not play well in rUK marginals in the run up to GE 2015.

    If a No vote and negotiations to some form of increased devolution the WLQ will feature in the GE manifestos.

    If the vote is Yes, the first step of the rUK would be to have a Westminster vote to answer the WLQ. It would be nessecary to remove the right of Scots MPs to vote on rUK issues.

    This in itself would cause problems in that Labour could well have a Westminster majority but not a rUK majority, and may not be able to implement its manifesto.

    Right, that's one of the reasons why they wouldn't do it. It's possible the Scottish members might start abstaining voluntarily or even agree formally agree to abstain, but only if it was already moot, ie the arithmetic was such that the government didn't need their votes.
  • Options

    The Indy ref is next autumn, so there will be a Queens speech a few weeks later. A Yes vote would surely make the WLQ the first bill in the speech.

    The LibDems would spike that.

    It may not be in Labour's hands, and blocking or trashing the bill would not play well in rUK marginals in the run up to GE 2015.

    Joe Public doesn't care about obscure constitutional stuff like this - to the extent that they pay any attention they'd be wondering why the government is tinkering around with it when Scotland is about to leave in any case.

    If a No vote and negotiations to some form of increased devolution the WLQ will feature in the GE manifestos.

    I suppose Con might put something in about the WLQ, but I doubt they'll say anything specific. And I can't see anyone doing increased devolution if the voters have just voted no to independence.
  • Options
    Another Labour Councillor is Deputy Chairman of the Coop:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512516/Anger-current-deputy-chairman-Co-op-arrest-gross-indecency-male-lover-17-hotel-room.html

    And Flowers just goes on......

    ‘When I asked him what chairing a bank entailed, he was a bit short on detail and just said he was mostly a figurehead and not concerned with the actual running of it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512480/Humbling-bank-chief-Rev-Flowers-boasted-lunches-Labour-MPs-took-cocaine-Co-op-board-meetings.html#ixzz2lYP9OQI3
  • Options
    Scottish independence will undoubtedly kickstart a great wave of soul-searching about how the remaining UK works - or whether it has a future at all. For me, if Scotland goes there seems very little reason for us not to break up completely. I suspect the Welsh will come round to that way of thinking pretty quickly. Northern Ireland is trickier, but its British links are as much if not more Scottish than English. I suspect that a press-led head of steam will build pretty rapidly in England that we are better off going it alone. All in all it would be a fascinating time and a golden opportunity to build something new and fit for 21st century. No doubt it will be squandered!!
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    I suspect that voting in co-op board elections has a turn-out similar to that in TU elections. Or PCC elections.


    Sure. But it isn't anyone else's fault he was chosen. My contact on the Co-op Board (retired several years ago - before all the problems!) hadn't met Flowers: said he "appeared from nowhere" having climbed up the elected committee route.
    Yes, and we thought Kinnock had sorted out the Militant Tendency years ago. There are quite a few powerful organisations in British life where it's very easy to climb to the top simply by turning up to meetings and being prepared to stand for election. Local political parties are another example.
    I've got to admit, though, that the whole Co-op thing has made me more sceptical about whether it is healthy for powerful vested interests to be so intertwined with a political party.

    It's one thing a company or an individual or organisation donating (although that should be absolutely watched and policed to ensure that there is no influence peddling). It's quite another when an organisation is embedded to the extent that they have affiliate membership or participate in the internal procedures.

    The problem is that these organisations will inevitably have their own interests, and any lack of transparency makes it very hard to see where their influence starts and stops. A good parallel is, perhaps, Michael Ashcroft. It was very unhealthy for the Conservative party that one person had, historically, as much influence as he did.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Would the LDs really block it?

    We are hypothesizing a Yes vote, and in that situation I think Constitutional issues will suddenly be very prominent election issues. Suddenly the constitution would have major financial implications in midland marginals.

    Who negotiates for rUK would not be an obscure issue, and Lib Dems and Labour would either be incoherent or have to back the WLQ answer.

    The Indy ref is next autumn, so there will be a Queens speech a few weeks later. A Yes vote would surely make the WLQ the first bill in the speech.

    The LibDems would spike that.

    It may not be in Labour's hands, and blocking or trashing the bill would not play well in rUK marginals in the run up to GE 2015.

    Joe Public doesn't care about obscure constitutional stuff like this - to the extent that they pay any attention they'd be wondering why the government is tinkering around with it when Scotland is about to leave in any case.

    If a No vote and negotiations to some form of increased devolution the WLQ will feature in the GE manifestos.

    I suppose Con might put something in about the WLQ, but I doubt they'll say anything specific. And I can't see anyone doing increased devolution if the voters have just voted no to independence.
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Pulpstar said:

    Morning all - Stayed out of betting on the boxing, was tempted by

    a) Froch on points
    b) Froch 10-12th round
    c) Groves victory

    With the frankly unbelievable judge's cards though even if the referee hadn't stopped it early Groves would have definitely lost on points.

    Fwiw I had the fight Froch 73 - 78 Groves after the 8th. The 9th would have most likely have been a 10-8 to Froch meaning if the rest of the rounds had gone to Froch with Groves not being knocked down in the 10th - 12th the fight would have ended a draw. But Groves could have hung in for the 10th and 11th and then just gone all out to pip the 12th perhaps... we will never know. He wasn't robbed of victory, but he was robbed of a massive chance for it. It sets up the biggest British boxing rematch since the Benn-Eubank days.
    I think Groves will win the rematch, those 9 rounds were fantastic experience for him and Froch is suddenly looking 'old overnight' but again I think it is No bet as boxing is utterly unpredictable, especially with some of the dreadful scoring we have around these days. Was a corker of a fight, Froch needs a chance to beat Groves 'properly', Groves certainly deserves it, and the rematch will sell out within about 5 minutes. It is a no brainer from every perspective. Don't count the Cobra out though.

    The Sky Commentary was up its own arse, it wasn't as runaway as it looked. I have been fan of both boxers since much earlier in their careers and had my money on Groves to beat DeGale when it was a minority pick. Groves was ahead on points by 2-3 (given the knockdown) but anyone who has watched Froch's career could see what was going to happen.

    This fight was well trailed as having Groves outboxing Froch then Froch would wear him down and thats exactly what happened. None of what I saw was a surprise, Froch gets hit hard in fights, he is too slow to get out of the way. He has problems with anyone with speed. On all measures of boxing skill, Froch shouldn't have the achievements that he does, yet there he is as a top of the tree in his trade because the man is an absolute brute of a fighter.

    Premature step in by the referee maybe but Froch would have stopped him and I'd have put my last cent on it. The man is worthy of being a World Champion on Sunday morning.

    As it was I had money on stoppage in rounds 9 10 or 11 because the pattern of the fight was enitrely predictable.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    Scottish voters couldn't really be disfranchised at the UK level until independence was actually in force and their replacement Scottish vote was meaningful, so MPs would still have a vote in Westminster until Independence Day when everything was settled and power was formally transferred.

    Why not?
    They're either citizens of the UK or citizens of an independent Scotland, there wouldn't be a time when they were neither.
    Sure, but assuming we are talking about a 2 year process, why should they get to vote on rUK legislation that will have a longer term impact. In practice the vast majority of decisions would be delegated to Holyrood in the interim.
    There wouldn't yet be an rUK, so there couldn't be any rUK legislation. There would only be UK legislation, not all of which would directly affect the whole of the UK, which is also true at the moment.
    That is true, but essentially the vote for independence magnifies the West Lothian question to a point where there is no basis for not addressing it. On "UK-wide" issues such as defence and foreign affairs it is reasonable that they get to vote. On rUK-only issues such as health and education there is absolutely no reasonable case for them voting. People tend to shrug at the moment as it is just an anomaly, but with independence coming it needs to be fixed.

    Where it comes to the representative functions of an MP - lobbying and so forth - that could be handled by their MSPs? Or by non-voting MPs
  • Options
    To my eye that chart shows a slight notch down - not much of one granted but if the next 2 or so are in the 30's then it would be more clear.

    First part of my miserable double has already come in, Spurs to complete the let down.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    YouGov

    Voters get it right on where blame lies for Flowers appointment:
    Coop board: 45
    FSA: 19
    Politicians within Coop: 16

    Also support Osborne enquiry (net): +50 (Lab:+38)

    And severing Labour/Coop links: +19 (Lab: -44)

    TBF to the Co-op board, I'm not sure that is right.

    AIUI, Flowers was an elected member of the board, meaning that the blame lies with the voting members/politicians within the Co-op.
    Was he elected Chairman by the voting members also, or by the board?

    I don't know the details, but all of the board members are elected.

    It says that the Group Chair is elected "from the Board" but it doesn't say who by.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,062

    Scottish independence will undoubtedly kickstart a great wave of soul-searching about how the remaining UK works - or whether it has a future at all. For me, if Scotland goes there seems very little reason for us not to break up completely. I suspect the Welsh will come round to that way of thinking pretty quickly. Northern Ireland is trickier, but its British links are as much if not more Scottish than English. I suspect that a press-led head of steam will build pretty rapidly in England that we are better off going it alone. All in all it would be a fascinating time and a golden opportunity to build something new and fit for 21st century. No doubt it will be squandered!!

    For sure we will kick off the opportunity, Better Together is a busted flush, downhill all the way for them.
  • Options
    Oldest 6 = 40 average (thus missing the likely outlier of 42)
    Latest 6 = 39.1 average

    Oldest 5 = 39.8
    Mid 5 = 40
    Latest 5 = 39.2

    Not quite an england collapse granted!
  • Options

    To my eye that chart shows a slight notch down - not much of one granted but if the next 2 or so are in the 30's then it would be more clear.

    First part of my miserable double has already come in, Spurs to complete the let down.

    It can only be a let down if you're not expecting it. No rational cricket follower could have been surprised by England's abject batting in Brisbane. And no-one can seriously expect a team that can't score to win at City. A nil-all draw is possible, but if City get a goal it's game over. Isn't sport great!!??

  • Options
    Charles said:

    People tend to shrug at the moment as it is just an anomaly, but with independence coming it needs to be fixed.

    Nah, they'd just shrug all the more, because it wouldn't just be a minor anomaly, it would be one that was just about to solve itself.

    People aren't going to dream up, think through and pass a whole new constitutional settlement to cover the period while you're busy dreaming up, thinking through and passing a different new constitutional settlement. You have the old one, until you're finished making the new one, and then you switch to the new one.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Today's YouGov

    The 2010 LD split is Cons: 11; LAB: 42; LD: 33; UKIP:8; Green:4

    This is at the top end of split in favour of Labour compared with recent VIs.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,985
    Lol I just 'found' 2 bets that I was worried I hadn't placed - Susanna Reid and Nathalie Gumede for Strictly !
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    edited November 2013
    @tim - any of this sound familiar?

    To which the Conservative response is, not unreasonably, that, for eight years, they have put up with sneering references to the Bullingdon, “Notting Hill Tories”, the “Chipping Norton set” and the supposedly sybaritic elite that runs the Conservative Party. Now it is Labour’s turn.

    Happy to dish it out.....but can't take it.....
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    When behind in the polls pick a fight overseas.

    The Times and Mail have by far the most interesting political story of the day for me, Dave's latest planned clash with Brussels over immigrants.

    Can we expect a new 'flounce bounce' over the coming weeks?
  • Options

    tim said:

    "Labour pledges to build five new towns to ease shortage of new homes

    http://t.co/kw1pv1rZ10

    Obviously this is normal for British papers, but the article doesn't live up to the headline. The actual quote seems to be,
    "I would love to think we could deliver four or five, and that would still be significant."
    Not only is that not a pledge, I'm not sure that it's even an aspiration.

    And tim falls for it every time.

    Perhaps he'd like to tell us how many new towns were built between 1997 and 2010 ?

    For tim's education I'll tell him what Labour's housing policy will be in government:

    TO GET HOUSE PRICES TO GO UP

    tim, always wrong, never learns
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,785
    edited November 2013
    SeanT said:

    not pretendy MPs

    who will be unemployed in 10 months.....(the Scottish Parliament seats are being selected before the Indie vote...tee hee.....)

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    People tend to shrug at the moment as it is just an anomaly, but with independence coming it needs to be fixed.

    Nah, they'd just shrug all the more, because it wouldn't just be a minor anomaly, it would be one that was just about to solve itself.

    People aren't going to dream up, think through and pass a whole new constitutional settlement to cover the period while you're busy dreaming up, thinking through and passing a different new constitutional settlement. You have the old one, until you're finished making the new one, and then you switch to the new one.
    It's a one clause bill, suspending the right of MPs from Scottish seats to vote on any bill before the house unless the Speaker deems it to be a UK-wide topic.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,985
    edited November 2013
    SeanT said:

    If Scotland votes Yes, Labour will lose the election in 2015, because Scots will stop voting for ANY English parties at Westminster - what's the point? They will want to vote for the Nat team which will negotiate the divorce, not pretendy MPs stuck in some constitutional limbo.

    Similarly, English voters will swing behind the English party - the Tories - to get England the best deal in the same negotiation.

    The West Lothian Question will solve itself as Anglo-Scots Labour are locked out of power for two decades, until they learn to walk without one of their limbs.

    Scot will vote Nat, yes - but then they might not take their seats or something like that. I don't think people in England will give a hoot. Definitely increases NOM chances, though.

    Scottish Labour's pain will be amusing though. However this is all theoretical anyway.
  • Options

    To my eye that chart shows a slight notch down - not much of one granted but if the next 2 or so are in the 30's then it would be more clear.

    First part of my miserable double has already come in, Spurs to complete the let down.

    It can only be a let down if you're not expecting it. No rational cricket follower could have been surprised by England's abject batting in Brisbane. And no-one can seriously expect a team that can't score to win at City. A nil-all draw is possible, but if City get a goal it's game over. Isn't sport great!!??

    Being a Spurs fan is not rational - it's the hope that kills you - this time the england batting won't be so adbject again as it always is in the first test of a series, this time spurs will hit the barn door with a banjo and show everyone they are a genuine top-4 threat capable of playing the spurs way...
  • Options
    There's a link between EdM's crybabying and the Co-op's problems.

    Namely that when a person or organisation deems themselves 'ethical' they therefore deem themselves above criticism or indeed above the rules and regulations everyone else has to follow.

    So

    Labour wrecks the economy - doesn't matter as Labour deem themselves 'ethical'
    Labour starts illegal wars - doesn't matter as Labour deem themselves 'ethical'
    Labour politicians steal money - doesn't matter as Labour deem themselves 'ethical'
    Labour politicians treat their constituencies like shite - doesn't matter as Labour deem themselves 'ethical'

    etc, etc, etc
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    If Scotland votes Yes, Labour will lose the election in 2015, because Scots will stop voting for ANY English parties at Westminster - what's the point? They will want to vote for the Nat team which will negotiate the divorce, not pretendy MPs stuck in some constitutional limbo.

    Similarly, English voters will swing behind the English party - the Tories - to get England the best deal in the same negotiation.

    The West Lothian Question will solve itself as Anglo-Scots Labour are locked out of power for two decades, until they learn to walk without one of their limbs.

    Negotiating teams will be decided before the 2015 GE and are likely to be X-party on both sides. Their conclusions will be ratified (or not) by both Parliaments; there may well be referenda too. Much will be left to decide if Scotland does become independent on 24th March 2016. Of course, for that to be recognised internationally both sides would have to agree.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    If the PB Tories were capable of stopping for breath instead of ploughing on despite getting every call wrong they'd read this and remember just how very well Matt D'Ancona knows Osborne and Cameron

    @PaulGoodmanCH: The personalised Tory campaign over Flowers & the Co-op is a potential boomerang, warns wise @MatthewdAncona. http://t.co/pWXig3TzSH

    His argument is entirely about drugs.

    I doubt the public would care very much about a politician having done drugs at university. Hash certainly not. Cocaine I doubt. Heroin or crystal meth I suspect would be more widely condemned.

    The biggest impact, perhaps, would be on 60+ voters who would be most disapproving (I actually recall a report recently suggesting that the 35-55 group is more likely to have taken drugs than the 18-24 group). So perhaps a moderate risk to the Tories, but not that significant.

    However, what is clear - from multiple stories - is that Labour was prepared to turn a blind eye to all sorts of behaviour by their friends.
  • Options
    Spurs beating Man C are the same odds as Cardiff beating Man Utd.

    Welcome to the Beatles after selling Elvis...
  • Options

    To my eye that chart shows a slight notch down - not much of one granted but if the next 2 or so are in the 30's then it would be more clear.

    First part of my miserable double has already come in, Spurs to complete the let down.

    It can only be a let down if you're not expecting it. No rational cricket follower could have been surprised by England's abject batting in Brisbane. And no-one can seriously expect a team that can't score to win at City. A nil-all draw is possible, but if City get a goal it's game over. Isn't sport great!!??

    Being a Spurs fan is not rational - it's the hope that kills you - this time the england batting won't be so adbject again as it always is in the first test of a series, this time spurs will hit the barn door with a banjo and show everyone they are a genuine top-4 threat capable of playing the spurs way...

    A Spurs fan with hope is a fool! Supporting that club is an affliction. It is Hotspur syndrome.

    England's batting will continue to be what it has been for a long time: brittle, unconvincing, suspect under pressure and generally not good enough. And the Aussies will not prepare pitches that will help our excellent, downtrodden, all-too-often letdown bowlers.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,046
    edited November 2013
    Charles said:




    The problem is that these organisations will inevitably have their own interests, and any lack of transparency makes it very hard to see where their influence starts and stops. A good parallel is, perhaps, Michael Ashcroft. It was very unhealthy for the Conservative party that one person had, historically, as much influence as he did.

    As the Irishman said when asked directions. "Ah Sir, If I was going there I wouldn't start from here!"
    It has to be recognised that the Co-op was part of the Movement in the very early days. There were, IIRC, once upon a time occasional Co-ops which weren't part, as there were TUC-affiliated Trade Unions which aren't. But, again IIRC, they're very few and far between.
  • Options


    Onto the 1st Test - Oh Dear Oh Dear oh dear. Expect 4 more pitches full of bounce, Australia have a bowler that can strike genuine fear into England's top order - something I haven't seen for a very long time. When Mitch is bad he is very bad, but when he's good he is Jonathan Trott's nightmare. England can come back though - remember India.
    Profit on the Test was £39.90 (I was quite cautious but sensible with my various moves), but 3-0 Eng is a loser so Net £29.90 out of the Ashes thus far.



    I would take Trott out of the firing line, same with Prior, and would give both Swann and Anderson one more test as they deserve that. However 2-215 and a pair in Swann's case is not good and Anderson managed 2-140 in conditions that don't suit him. We also need a fourth seamer, to me a number six has to do more than just bat. I know Root can turn his arm over but he should be higher up the order. Personally I believe too many of our players have peaked and are no longer as good as they were, I would go for the following in Adelaide:

    Cook
    Carberry
    Root
    Pieterson
    Bell
    Bairstow
    Stokes
    Broad
    Swann/Monty
    Anderson
    Tremlett/Finn
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Talking of smears.. Has Hideaway Ed apologised for his massive smear on Mitchell yet...didn't think so..cos it was an ethical smear no doubt
  • Options
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    If the PB Tories were capable of stopping for breath instead of ploughing on despite getting every call wrong they'd read this and remember just how very well Matt D'Ancona knows Osborne and Cameron

    @PaulGoodmanCH: The personalised Tory campaign over Flowers & the Co-op is a potential boomerang, warns wise @MatthewdAncona. http://t.co/pWXig3TzSH

    His argument is entirely about drugs.

    I doubt the public would care very much about a politician having done drugs at university. Hash certainly not. Cocaine I doubt. Heroin or crystal meth I suspect would be more widely condemned.

    The biggest impact, perhaps, would be on 60+ voters who would be most disapproving (I actually recall a report recently suggesting that the 35-55 group is more likely to have taken drugs than the 18-24 group). So perhaps a moderate risk to the Tories, but not that significant.

    However, what is clear - from multiple stories - is that Labour was prepared to turn a blind eye to all sorts of behaviour by their friends.

    Just out of interest, when did Dave first become a Ministerial adviser? Did he work for Lamont?

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Interesting law of cricket that a lot of cricketers aren't aware of:

    When attempting to run out a batsman, a fielder can use any part of his arm to hit the stumps/bails as long as the ball is in the hand of the arm in question.

    So you can use your upper arm or elbow, which is what almost happened in Brisbane a few hours ago to take the final wicket.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,985
    @Tim Inbox...
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Drugs would only be an issue if they did them in recent times. Juvenile follies are just that.

    I am one of the most anti drug posters on here, having seen too many lives ruined by them, and it would not change my opinion on a politician if they had done some in the past.

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    If the PB Tories were capable of stopping for breath instead of ploughing on despite getting every call wrong they'd read this and remember just how very well Matt D'Ancona knows Osborne and Cameron

    @PaulGoodmanCH: The personalised Tory campaign over Flowers & the Co-op is a potential boomerang, warns wise @MatthewdAncona. http://t.co/pWXig3TzSH

    His argument is entirely about drugs.

    I doubt the public would care very much about a politician having done drugs at university. Hash certainly not. Cocaine I doubt. Heroin or crystal meth I suspect would be more widely condemned.

    The biggest impact, perhaps, would be on 60+ voters who would be most disapproving (I actually recall a report recently suggesting that the 35-55 group is more likely to have taken drugs than the 18-24 group). So perhaps a moderate risk to the Tories, but not that significant.

    However, what is clear - from multiple stories - is that Labour was prepared to turn a blind eye to all sorts of behaviour by their friends.

    Just out of interest, when did Dave first become a Ministerial adviser? Did he work for Lamont?

  • Options

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    If the PB Tories were capable of stopping for breath instead of ploughing on despite getting every call wrong they'd read this and remember just how very well Matt D'Ancona knows Osborne and Cameron

    @PaulGoodmanCH: The personalised Tory campaign over Flowers & the Co-op is a potential boomerang, warns wise @MatthewdAncona. http://t.co/pWXig3TzSH

    His argument is entirely about drugs.

    I doubt the public would care very much about a politician having done drugs at university. Hash certainly not. Cocaine I doubt. Heroin or crystal meth I suspect would be more widely condemned.

    The biggest impact, perhaps, would be on 60+ voters who would be most disapproving (I actually recall a report recently suggesting that the 35-55 group is more likely to have taken drugs than the 18-24 group). So perhaps a moderate risk to the Tories, but not that significant.

    However, what is clear - from multiple stories - is that Labour was prepared to turn a blind eye to all sorts of behaviour by their friends.

    Just out of interest, when did Dave first become a Ministerial adviser? Did he work for Lamont?

    Wikipedia - in what appears to be a well researched page - says April 1992.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#cite_note-Lamont.27s_Spad-48
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden
    .@YvetteCooperMP on Marr: Labour have sources of funding from "many different areas"..Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU, in fact 77% from union barons
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    If the PB Tories were capable of stopping for breath instead of ploughing on despite getting every call wrong they'd read this and remember just how very well Matt D'Ancona knows Osborne and Cameron

    @PaulGoodmanCH: The personalised Tory campaign over Flowers & the Co-op is a potential boomerang, warns wise @MatthewdAncona. http://t.co/pWXig3TzSH

    His argument is entirely about drugs.

    I doubt the public would care very much about a politician having done drugs at university. Hash certainly not. Cocaine I doubt. Heroin or crystal meth I suspect would be more widely condemned.

    The biggest impact, perhaps, would be on 60+ voters who would be most disapproving (I actually recall a report recently suggesting that the 35-55 group is more likely to have taken drugs than the 18-24 group). So perhaps a moderate risk to the Tories, but not that significant.

    However, what is clear - from multiple stories - is that Labour was prepared to turn a blind eye to all sorts of behaviour by their friends.

    Just out of interest, when did Dave first become a Ministerial adviser? Did he work for Lamont?

    Wikipedia - in what appears to be a well researched page - says April 1992.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#cite_note-Lamont.27s_Spad-48
    You can see Dave standing behind David Mellor outside Conservative Central Office near the end of ITN's 1992 election show. I think Andrew Lansley is standing next to him.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Salmond will probably win the 2014 referendum, mainly through the total ineptitude of all other Scottish politicians apart from himself.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,985
    AndyJS said:

    Interesting law of cricket that a lot of cricketers aren't aware of:

    When attempting to run out a batsman, a fielder can use any part of his arm to hit the stumps/bails as long as the ball is in the hand of the arm in question.

    So you can use your upper arm or elbow, which is what almost happened in Brisbane a few hours ago to take the final wicket.

    Here is another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ae5DFkLJj0
This discussion has been closed.