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

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

YouGov:

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

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)

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.

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

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.

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

SimonStClare said:

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

Stuart_Dickson said:

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...

edmundintokyo said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

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?

edmundintokyo said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

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.

@SkyNewsPR: An array of top guests on #MURNAGHAN. Alistair Darling & Nicola Sturgeon on Scottish independence, Tim Yeo & Paddy Ashdown on green energy

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

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.

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?

edmundintokyo said:

@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.

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.

Charles said:

CarlottaVance 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.

edmundintokyo 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?

Charles said:

edmundintokyo 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.

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo 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.

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:

CarlottaVance 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.

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.

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo 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.

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?

CarlottaVance said:

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.

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

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.

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo 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.

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

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!!

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.

edmundintokyo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

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.

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo 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

CarlottaVance said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance 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.

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!

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.

Lol I just 'found' 2 bets that I was worried I hadn't placed - Susanna Reid and Nathalie Gumede for Strictly !

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?

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.....)

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.

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

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.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

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.

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?

@Tim Inbox...

SouthamObserver said:

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

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

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