politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s 2014 prediction time: Will it be another year when the
Comments
-
My answer to the header question would be "don't really know" - But I voted "1-2".
I'm reassured to see that that places me fairly median among PBers.
I'd personally like it to be much higher, but what's the way that would happen?
Swingback? Economic good news affecting polling?
It's nice to think that the Tories/ coalition might succeed in getting a positive message across, just once, but they don't seem to be any good at that at all.0 -
'Stuart_Dickson said:
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
Not just Churchill, the Germans also used to refer to the UK as "England" or the "English".0 -
The idea that the permanent loss of 40 odd Scottish Labour MPs would be bad for the Tories is fanciful.0
-
saddened said:
The only comment I've heard re independence in England boils down to "it's up to them, don't care either way". I think you underestimate the don't give a toss factor in England.
I'm not sure how he can link to a comment that he has heard.Stuart_Dickson said:
Link?
The polling evidence would tend to back my take rather than yours or Easterross's.
0 -
On topic I went for zero ICM next year!0
-
Can we look at the polling? As I understand it Independence has never, ever, ever featured in /Mike's beloved Mori salient issues poll, which reports issues which concern as little as 1% of respondents. So 0.5% of English people (bearing in mind the Mori poll is UK, not England) looks a credible maximum to me. On that basis, we can expect IndyRef to turn out to be a story of embarrassingly low turnout figures.Stuart_Dickson said:
I disagree. A lot of English people care very much indeed about the outcome of the IndyRef. Certainly a lot more than your 0.5%.
.
0 -
Some of us are hoping we Just can't get enough Tory leads with ICM next year.Sunil_Prasannan said:On topic I went for zero ICM next year!
0 -
Good evening, everyone.
I don't think it will be such a negative for Cameron. Devolution was the ill-considered and badly applied idea of Labour. Furthermore, it's the Coalition Government.
If people will decide the fate of nations based on trying to annoy a single political party then they're damned fools.0 -
Another factor is the Scottish / Northern contingent are less PC. One of the reasons the public face of New Labour was so Scottish / Northern was if they allowed the much more PC southern contingent on the telly they'd curdle breast milk.SeanT said:
It would be a nasty but temporary setback for CAMERON. Fact is, the Tories are now largely an English party - as lefties and Libs never cease to to remind them. So the Tories would recover pretty quickly, as reality on the ground would not change much.MikeSmithson said:
I think that Stuart is right on this one. If it is YES then it will be a huge negative for Cameron and his party for years to come. That's one of the reasons why I'm not ruling out a YES victory. Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.Stuart_Dickson said:
)Easterross said:Stuart I don't think 99.5%
What it will do is permanently deprive Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster which will suit the London Tory Party perfectly, though they will never admit it.Stuart_Dickson said:
If Scotland votes Yes in September, is it not more likely that David Cameron and his party will get a lot of the blame? Or do you think that English voters are more likely to blame Tony Blair and his party for implementing the devolution policy he had inherited from John Smith?Easterross said:I opted for 3-4. I think we may get one before the Euro elections and then pretty much level pegging. Once Scotland says YES in September I expect the Tory lead to be constant in English polls (as they effectively will be by then).
I've never been convinced by the argument that Scottish independence would boost the Tories in England. I think that losing the last of the colonies, and thus finally closing the British Empire chapter for good could be a nail in the coffin of Toryism. The movement grew and flourished because of Empire, but is it really fit for purpose in the post-Empire phase of England's history?
The depriving Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster thing is just a temporary setback to Miliband. The damage to Cameron will more than offset that.
For Labour, a Scottish YES would be an amputation - a hideous mutilation. Yes they would lose 40 MPs, for a start, but they would also lose their heartland, home to many of their most notable politicians over the decades (and still today - from Darling to Murphy). Scotland is where the Labour party was BORN.
If Scotland votes YES, the heart is cut out of Labour - brutally. I am not sure they would ever recover. The party that eventually emerged from the carnage would be very different to the Labour party we know now - it would be significantly to the right, to begin with.
Ignoring this is stupid.
0 -
Maybe I'm a cynic but isn't it possible that Cameron etc want to play down the No's chances of winning so when they do win it, they can say look at us we saved the Union. Classic piece of expectation management. Cameron can then grin and say how pleased he is that the country will stay together, sending a message to those outside the SE that he cares about them.0
-
Just for you, i'll add one more.saddened said:
Still believe that UKIP will get 23 seats?MikeK said:
Giving UKIP more supporters is a bonus, SeanT. Lat's hope they are voters as well.;)SeanT said:
I do occasionally poke the Telegraph demographic in the eye, as well. I did a blog implying UKIPpers are kinky ("suburban doggers") and got about 2,000 angry emails.SouthamObserver said:
The way you constantly challenge the beliefs of your Telegraph readers is hugely admirable (and brave).SeanT said:Heh. Just done blog saying all believers in climate change are literally insane.
Now I just need the ideal time to post it.
0 -
Stuart_Dickson said:
Take it or leave it, I have no axe to grind I'm firmly in the don't give a toss camp along with virtually everybody I've ever spoken to about it, which to be fair isn't a huge number as it just doesn't register down here. If you go I'll not fret, if you stay it will have zero impact on me. You may not like our believe that, which is something else I don't give a toss about.saddened said:
Link?Stuart_Dickson said:
The only comment I've heard re independence in England boils down to "it's up to them, don't care either way". I think you underestimate the don't give a toss factor in England.Easterross said:Stuart I don't think 99.5% of the population of England will give a toss if Scotland votes YES in September. They don't actually realise there is any difference between England and GB/UK. Even Dr David Starkey doesn't know the difference, given he was rabbiting on about English kings when referring to the descendants of James VI sitting on the combined thrones from 1625-1901. Equally I don't think it will affect their voting intentions in the slightest other than some of the loony far right will probably revert to Tory because they will credit David Cameron in their own eyes with getting rid of the sponging Scots.
What it will do is permanently deprive Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster which will suit the London Tory Party perfectly, though they will never admit it.
I disagree. A lot of English people care very much indeed about the outcome of the IndyRef. Certainly a lot more than your 0.5%.Stuart_Dickson said:Easterross said:I opted for 3-4. I think we may get one before the Euro elections and then pretty much level pegging. Once Scotland says YES in September I expect the Tory lead to be constant in English polls (as they effectively will be by then).
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
The depriving Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster thing is just a temporary setback to Miliband. The damage to Cameron will more than offset that.
The polling evidence would tend to back my take rather than yours or Easterross's.0 -
Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
The loss of a major constituent part of the UK would a massive blow to this country's prestige, and that would certainly hit Cameron.
The loss of 40 Labour MPs would be pretty cold comfort.0 -
"destroy the forces of conservatism"SeanT said:
It is bizarre, isn't it? It's surely a kind of wilful self-delusion. The intellectual and political damage to Labour of losing Scotland, its ancient heartland, would be so enormous the lefty mind can't bear to think about it, so they don't. Literally.MonikerDiCanio said:The idea that the permanent loss of 40 odd Scottish Labour MPs would be bad for the Tories is fanciful.
0 -
Cool care to put 500 GBP on at evens? I'm happy to lodge the money with Mike or another site member to hold in advance.MikeK said:
Just for you, i'll add one more.saddened said:
Still believe that UKIP will get 23 seats?MikeK said:
Giving UKIP more supporters is a bonus, SeanT. Lat's hope they are voters as well.;)SeanT said:
I do occasionally poke the Telegraph demographic in the eye, as well. I did a blog implying UKIPpers are kinky ("suburban doggers") and got about 2,000 angry emails.SouthamObserver said:
The way you constantly challenge the beliefs of your Telegraph readers is hugely admirable (and brave).SeanT said:Heh. Just done blog saying all believers in climate change are literally insane.
Now I just need the ideal time to post it.
0 -
Lib Dem voice have done a poll of members to see how they rate the performance of their party's ministers in government. Vince comes out on top with +59%, Norman Baker gets +58%, whilst Nick Clegg gets +17% and David Laws is the lowest performer with just +2. So it's fairly clear where the Party's heart is beating, though they nonetheless remain a loyal bunch.0
-
Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
The Welsh and Scottish cases are not comparable. Wales has no oil or finance. In fact Wales has nothing and is entirely reliant on English money.
The sort of austerity needed to pull Wales around into becoming an independent, self financing concern would make Greece look like a walk in the park.
0 -
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
0 -
Indeed. Cameron would be a much diminished figure on the world stage even if we were only losing 10% of our population and economy. He'd never be taken as seriously again and it wouldn't be a good legacy.Sean_F said:Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
The loss of a major constituent part of the UK would a massive blow to this country's prestige, and that would certainly hit Cameron.
The loss of 40 Labour MPs would be pretty cold comfort.0 -
It's far from clear what impact a Yes vote would have on David Cameron's authority. At the beginning of the year I would have thought that a defeat for the Prime Minister on a vote to launch a military strike on another country would be fatal for his authority, but it hasn't worked out that way in practice. Much would depend on the exact circumstances.0
-
I don't think so. Cameron might not be popular in Scotland but it comes down to whether Scots think they'd be better off independent. I can't believe such an important decision would come down to giving Cameron a bloody nose.MikeSmithson said:
Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.Stuart_Dickson said:
I disagree. A lot of English people care very much indeed about the outcome of the IndyRef. Certainly a lot more than your 0.5%.Easterross said:Stuart I don't think 99.5% of the population of England will give a toss if Scotland votes YES in September. They don't actually realise there is any difference between England and GB/UK. Even Dr David Starkey doesn't know the difference, given he was rabbiting on about English kings when referring to the descendants of James VI sitting on the combined thrones from 1625-1901. Equally I don't think it will affect their voting intentions in the slightest other than some of the loony far right will probably revert to Tory because they will credit David Cameron in their own eyes with getting rid of the sponging Scots.
What it will do is permanently deprive Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster which will suit the London Tory Party perfectly, though they will never admit it.Stuart_Dickson said:
If Scotland votes Yes in September, is it not more likely that David Cameron and his party will get a lot of the blame? Or do you think that English voters are more likely to blame Tony Blair and his party for implementing the devolution policy he had inherited from John Smith?Easterross said:I opted for 3-4. I think we may get one before the Euro elections and then pretty much level pegging. Once Scotland says YES in September I expect the Tory lead to be constant in English polls (as they effectively will be by then).
I've never been convinced by the argument that Scottish independence would boost the Tories in England. I think that losing the last of the colonies, and thus finally closing the British Empire chapter for good could be a nail in the coffin of Toryism. The movement grew and flourished because of Empire, but is it really fit for purpose in the post-Empire phase of England's history?
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
The depriving Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster thing is just a temporary setback to Miliband. The damage to Cameron will more than offset that.0 -
Everything Counts?TheScreamingEagles said:
Some of us are hoping we Just can't get enough Tory leads with ICM next year.Sunil_Prasannan said:On topic I went for zero ICM next year!
0 -
What! You actually want me to place a bet? For Money? You are mistaken, my man , if you think I would bet with a saddened man. Why if you lost you might cry and that would never do.saddened said:
Cool care to put 500 GBP on at evens? I'm happy to lodge the money with Mike or another site member to hold in advance.MikeK said:
Just for you, i'll add one more.saddened said:
Still believe that UKIP will get 23 seats?MikeK said:
Giving UKIP more supporters is a bonus, SeanT. Lat's hope they are voters as well.;)SeanT said:
I do occasionally poke the Telegraph demographic in the eye, as well. I did a blog implying UKIPpers are kinky ("suburban doggers") and got about 2,000 angry emails.SouthamObserver said:
The way you constantly challenge the beliefs of your Telegraph readers is hugely admirable (and brave).SeanT said:Heh. Just done blog saying all believers in climate change are literally insane.
Now I just need the ideal time to post it.0 -
''Cameron would be a much diminished figure on the world stage even if we were only losing 10% of our population and economy.''
That would be true of any prime minister who lost an independence vote, of whatever party.
It certainly would not mean Cameron could not win a domestic election in what remained.0 -
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?0 -
Don't be a child a simple yes or no would have done.MikeK said:
What! You actually want me to place a bet? For Money? You are mistaken, my man , if you think I would bet with a saddened man. Why if you lost you might cry and that would never do.saddened said:
Cool care to put 500 GBP on at evens? I'm happy to lodge the money with Mike or another site member to hold in advance.MikeK said:
Just for you, i'll add one more.saddened said:
Still believe that UKIP will get 23 seats?MikeK said:
Giving UKIP more supporters is a bonus, SeanT. Lat's hope they are voters as well.;)SeanT said:
I do occasionally poke the Telegraph demographic in the eye, as well. I did a blog implying UKIPpers are kinky ("suburban doggers") and got about 2,000 angry emails.SouthamObserver said:
The way you constantly challenge the beliefs of your Telegraph readers is hugely admirable (and brave).SeanT said:Heh. Just done blog saying all believers in climate change are literally insane.
Now I just need the ideal time to post it.0 -
Mr. T, that's similar to my view. If Yes wins then, electorally, it's springtime for Salmond and Cameron.
The negotiation over Scotland will be THE issue of the election, probably outweighing even the economy. Labour and the Lib Dems would have interests on both sides of the table (and Labour's devolution would've been designed to kill nationalism and delivered independence in the space of 17 years). The Scots will vote SNP and everyone else will vote Conservative.0 -
To you, maybe, but people will vote for a huge variety of reasons. National pride, economics, security, health, welfare etc are valid arguments for both sides. But don't ever forget that a large percentage of any population are just stupid and vote accordingly.FrankBooth said:I don't think so. Cameron might not be popular in Scotland but it comes down to whether Scots think they'd be better off independent. I can't believe such an important decision would come down to giving Cameron a bloody nose.
0 -
Blimey, even I don't think they will get 24 seats, not until 2020 at least although they will win closer to 240 seats then.MikeK said:
Just for you, i'll add one more.saddened said:
Still believe that UKIP will get 23 seats?MikeK said:
Giving UKIP more supporters is a bonus, SeanT. Lat's hope they are voters as well.;)SeanT said:
I do occasionally poke the Telegraph demographic in the eye, as well. I did a blog implying UKIPpers are kinky ("suburban doggers") and got about 2,000 angry emails.SouthamObserver said:
The way you constantly challenge the beliefs of your Telegraph readers is hugely admirable (and brave).SeanT said:Heh. Just done blog saying all believers in climate change are literally insane.
Now I just need the ideal time to post it.
Next election my bet is they win 2-5 seats.0 -
FrankBooth said:
I don't think so. Cameron might not be popular in Scotland but it comes down to whether Scots think they'd be better off independent. I can't believe such an important decision would come down to giving Cameron a bloody nose.MikeSmithson said:
Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.Stuart_Dickson said:
I disagree. A lot of English people care very much indeed about the outcome of the IndyRef. Certainly a lot more than your 0.5%.Easterross said:Stuart I don't think 99.5% of the population of England will give a toss if Scotland votes YES in September. They don't actually realise there is any difference between England and GB/UK. Even Dr David Starkey doesn't know the difference, given he was rabbiting on about English kings when referring to the descendants of James VI sitting on the combined thrones from 1625-1901. Equally I don't think it will affect their voting intentions in the slightest other than some of the loony far right will probably revert to Tory because they will credit David Cameron in their own eyes with getting rid of the sponging Scots.
What it will do is permanently deprive Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster which will suit the London Tory Party perfectly, though they will never admit it.Stuart_Dickson said:
If Scotland votes Yes in September, is it not more likely that David Cameron and his party will get a lot of the blame? Or do you think that English voters are more likely to blame Tony Blair and his party for implementing the devolution policy he had inherited from John Smith?Easterross said:I opted for 3-4. I think we may get one before the Euro elections and then pretty much level pegging. Once Scotland says YES in September I expect the Tory lead to be constant in English polls (as they effectively will be by then).
I've never been convinced by the argument that Scottish independence would boost the Tories in England. I think that losing the last of the colonies, and thus finally closing the British Empire chapter for good could be a nail in the coffin of Toryism. The movement grew and flourished because of Empire, but is it really fit for purpose in the post-Empire phase of England's history?
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
The depriving Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster thing is just a temporary setback to Miliband. The damage to Cameron will more than offset that.0 -
F1: incidentally, there's an interesting piece on a not-much reported change to the F1 rules around braking here:
http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/analysis-2014-braking/
Basically, we may well see more locked brakes (and hence tyre damage) and perhaps issues with the Kinetic element of energy harvesting for the ERS. One suspects this'll affect the more aggressive chaps (Hamilton) more than some others. Actually, if I'm right, that'll be another advantage for Rosberg relative to his team mate.0 -
Dickson has mused that England winning her second World Cup would cause Scots to vote Yes.
Given the choice between the two , which would PBers prefer : A. The preservation of the Union. B. The World Cup .0 -
I do have the impression that a good part of the Nationalists' case is that a centre-right government is inherently illegitimate, insofar as it governs the Scots, and that independence is the only way of ensuring that Scotland has a permanently left-wing government.FrankBooth said:
I don't think so. Cameron might not be popular in Scotland but it comes down to whether Scots think they'd be better off independent. I can't believe such an important decision would come down to giving Cameron a bloody nose.MikeSmithson said:
Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.Stuart_Dickson said:
I disagree. A lot of English people care very much indeed about the outcome of the IndyRef. Certainly a lot more than your 0.5%.Easterross said:Stuart I don't
What it will do is permanently deprive Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster which will suit the London Tory Party perfectly, though they will never admit it.Stuart_Dickson said:
If Scotland votes Yes in September, is it not more likely that David Cameron and his party will get a lot of the blame? Or do you think that English voters are more likely to blame Tony Blair and his party for implementing the devolution policy he had inherited from John Smith?Easterross said:I opted for 3-4. I think we may get one before the Euro elections and then pretty much level pegging. Once Scotland says YES in September I expect the Tory lead to be constant in English polls (as they effectively will be by then).
I've never been convinced by the argument that Scottish independence would boost the Tories in England. I think that losing the last of the colonies, and thus finally closing the British Empire chapter for good could be a nail in the coffin of Toryism. The movement grew and flourished because of Empire, but is it really fit for purpose in the post-Empire phase of England's history?
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
The depriving Labour of 35-50 MPs from Westminster thing is just a temporary setback to Miliband. The damage to Cameron will more than offset that.
0 -
From a cultural marxist point of view getting rid of Scotland, Wales and NI would be a result as the long-term benefit would outweigh the short-term hit.SeanT said:
I'm not denying that - the overall blow to the UK, as a global player, would be significant. The date when we lose our UNSC seat (which is an inevitability anyway) would be hastened nearer by a decade.Sean_F said:Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
The loss of a major constituent part of the UK would a massive blow to this country's prestige, and that would certainly hit Cameron.
The loss of 40 Labour MPs would be pretty cold comfort.
But in terms of INTERNAL British politics, for the next few general elections, the damage of YES would be pretty much exclusively sustained by Labour. If the Welsh also decided to bugger off into some quasi Federal solution (e.g. not voting at Westminster) - which is likely - the process would only intensify.
England is more right wing and conservative than the Celtic fringes - it just is. An "independent" England would be a more conservative country than GB.
It would also be much more likely to quit the EU.
(I'm not saying there wouldn't be a short-term hit just that from a certain point of view it would be seen as worth it.)
0 -
I'm with SeanT on the impact - I think a Yes would be a mild short-term setback for Cameron but a strategic advantage (making up for no boundary changes), and a No vice versa. A Yes would shock people in England more than is now apparent, but they'd mostly attribute it to the Scots, not to Cameron. A No will be forgotten within days in England, but if anyone English benefits it will be Cameron.
In Scotland, however, I'd have thought a No would put the SNP into difficulty for a while until they'd decided what to do next, so it might make both a Tory and a Labour majority more likely than before and a hung parliament correspondingly less likely.
What would be good for Britain, England and Scotland is of course another matter.0 -
Mr Dancer: thank you for your kind words a few threads back. I am sure you will be interested to know that my daughter has chosen to study Classical Civilisation next year - it has been a passion of hers for years.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, that's similar to my view. If Yes wins then, electorally, it's springtime for Salmond and Cameron.
The negotiation over Scotland will be THE issue of the election, probably outweighing even the economy. Labour and the Lib Dems would have interests on both sides of the table (and Labour's devolution would've been designed to kill nationalism and delivered independence in the space of 17 years). The Scots will vote SNP and everyone else will vote Conservative.
Occasionally I mention this to colleagues in the City. Eyebrows are raised until I point out that a study of hubris is probably the best training there could be for life in 21st C Britain (with or without Scotland).
0 -
How does it make a CON majority more likely ?NickPalmer said:I'm with SeanT on the impact - I think a Yes would be a mild short-term setback for Cameron but a strategic advantage (making up for no boundary changes), and a No vice versa. A Yes would shock people in England more than is now apparent, but they'd mostly attribute it to the Scots, not to Cameron. A No will be forgotten within days in England, but if anyone English benefits it will be Cameron.
In Scotland, however, I'd have thought a No would put the SNP into difficulty for a while until they'd decided what to do next, so it might make both a Tory and a Labour majority more likely than before and a hung parliament correspondingly less likely.
What would be good for Britain, England and Scotland is of course another matter.
I think it substantially increases the chance of No Overall Majority actually.
0 -
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?SeanT said:
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
0 -
Miss Cyclefree, you're welcome.
Perhaps unexpectedly (for readers here) I dropped classical civilisation at the first opportunity. Unfortunately I had to choose only one of three subjects I wanted to take/continue (that, German and Latin), whilst being forced to suffer geography and French.
I only really got back into classical stuff during university, when I read Theodore Dodge's history of Hannibal. There's been a rather horrid (and unmarked) tendency for abridged versions to pop up, so if you happen to buy one (whether Dodge's work on Hannibal, Caesar or Alexander) please ensure it's around 700-800 pages long, otherwise it's likely 50% of what was written. [I wasn't going to mention the abridging I didn't want you to end up buying a half-bookafter I said how good Hannibal was to read].
Anyway, I hope your daughter enjoys classical civilisation, and keeps reading it after formal education ends.0 -
Mr. T, can't recall the source but the demographic breakdown I saw for the US election indicated whites were the most divided. Minorities backed Obama by a massive margin.0
-
it's still common across much of the Continent. People who aren't very interested in international affairs will say frankly that they're not quite sure of the difference, and technically England is just easier to say in most languages than "Great Britain" or "The United Kingdom", phrases mainly used by the more pedantic. No slight to Scotland is implied by it.Sunil_Prasannan said:
'Stuart_Dickson said:
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
Not just Churchill, the Germans also used to refer to the UK as "England" or the "English".
0 -
SeanT said:
I think it could get quite nasty - IF white Americans feel that the country is being dragged down/socialised/turned into a failing Euro-style welfare state - by the new preponderance of "minority" votes. There is already evidence of this attitude with the rise of the Tea Party.Cyclefree said:
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?SeanT said:
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
Moreover, this turmoil might coincide with the now-almost-inevitable moment when China overtakes America as number 1 economy (sometime in the next decade or so).
That will be a double blow to white American pride.
My guess is they will probably shrug, and sigh, and go back to making money as best they can - but America has combusted before, on racial lines. And of course American living standards are now stagnating, and have been doing do for a while - not the case 100 years ago, when everyone could expect to get richer.0 -
Just as many Scots mean no insult to the Dutch when they refer to that country as Holland, and not the Netherlands - Not that Hollanders seem to worry about that any more than the English do about the use of "England" for the UK. Do those in Fryslân object to the usage?NickPalmer said:
it's still common across much of the Continent. People who aren't very interested in international affairs will say frankly that they're not quite sure of the difference, and technically England is just easier to say in most languages than "Great Britain" or "The United Kingdom", phrases mainly used by the more pedantic. No slight to Scotland is implied by it.Sunil_Prasannan said:
'Stuart_Dickson said:
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
Not just Churchill, the Germans also used to refer to the UK as "England" or the "English".0 -
Isn't it because for continentals language and nationality are almost the same ? Italians regard Austrians as German and always divide the Swiss according to language, German, French or Italian.NickPalmer said:
it's still common across much of the Continent. People who aren't very interested in international affairs will say frankly that they're not quite sure of the difference, and technically England is just easier to say in most languages than "Great Britain" or "The United Kingdom", phrases mainly used by the more pedantic. No slight to Scotland is implied by it.Sunil_Prasannan said:
'Stuart_Dickson said:
And the difference between England and GB/UK is much more widely understood now than it was back in the 70s, and much, much more so than the 40s (remember Churchill's "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other word. That word is England.")
Not just Churchill, the Germans also used to refer to the UK as "England" or the "English".
0 -
To a slight extent the split of the US is beginning. Colorado has just had a series of votes in some counties wanting to split off and form another State (with mixed results) and there are State-splitting movements in several others - not least California. Not leaving the Union, as you rightly say, but realising that State boundaries don't necessarily fit the types of people living across them.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
That's only one example of the global realisation that smaller states are the way forward. The disintegration of the USSR and eastern europe, countries across Africa parting along tribal and religious lines; the Basques and the Catalans and the Scots all show this.
The time of enforced blocs like the EU and larger composite countries is coming to an end. Small states that fit the population they serve will be the future.
0 -
It's pretty much a given that Black American voters are, and always will be, overwhelmingly left-wing.SeanT said:
I think it could get quite nasty - IF white Americans feel that the country is being dragged down/socialised/turned into a failing Euro-style welfare state - by the new preponderance of "minority" votes. There is already evidence of this attitude with the rise of the Tea Party.Cyclefree said:
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?SeanT said:
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
Moreover, this turmoil might coincide with the now-almost-inevitable moment when China overtakes America as number 1 economy (sometime in the next decade or so).
That will be a double blow to white American pride.
My guess is they will probably shrug, and sigh, and go back to making money as best they can - but America has combusted before, on racial lines. And of course American living standards are now stagnating, and have been doing so for a while - not the case 100 years ago, when everyone could expect to get richer.
Other racial divides are less enduring. 50 years ago, White Italians, Poles, Irish etc. were mostly Democratic. Now, they aren't.
There's no reason to suppose that Latinos will be different. Indeed, Republicans do better among Latinos than they did in the 70s.
0 -
I think revolution is more likely in China than the USA.SeanT said:
I think it could get quite nasty - IF white Americans feel that the country is being dragged down/socialised/turned into a failing Euro-style welfare state - by the new preponderance of "minority" votes. There is already evidence of this attitude with the rise of the Tea Party.Cyclefree said:
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?SeanT said:
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
Moreover, this turmoil might coincide with the now-almost-inevitable moment when China overtakes America as number 1 economy (sometime in the next decade or so).
That will be a double blow to white American pride.
My guess is they will probably shrug, and sigh, and go back to making money as best they can - but America has combusted before, on racial lines. And of course American living standards are now stagnating, and have been doing so for a while - not the case 100 years ago, when everyone could expect to get richer.
0 -
The Welsh Conservatives I agree about but are you sure about the Northern Conservatives ?Sean_F said:Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
Some might be sorry to see Scotland leave but I expect many would be delighted.
Now it might be argued that Scotland leaving would make the country more London focussed which wouldn't go down well with Northern Conservatives.
But as Cameron couldn't be more London focussed how would that be different.
0 -
It is perhaps significant that the biggest rightwards shift among US voters has been amongst the poor whites of Appalachia.SeanT said:
I think it could get quite nasty - IF white Americans feel that the country is being dragged down/socialised/turned into a failing Euro-style welfare state - by the new preponderance of "minority" votes. There is already evidence of this attitude with the rise of the Tea Party.Cyclefree said:
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
Moreover, this turmoil might coincide with the now-almost-inevitable moment when China overtakes America as number 1 economy (sometime in the next decade or so).
That will be a double blow to white American pride.
My guess is they will probably shrug, and sigh, and go back to making money as best they can - but America has combusted before, on racial lines. And of course American living standards are now stagnating, and have been doing so for a while - not the case 100 years ago, when everyone could expect to get richer.
In 2000 it was a major shock when the Republicans narrowly won West Virginia, in 2012 they won every county in that state despite Mitt Romney being almost designed to be offputting to the electorate there.
The stagnation in living standards and increasingly inequality in wealth and opportunities will be the key driving force in the Western world over the next generation.
0 -
If California is any guide, the GOP has a veritable mountain to climb. I was there in November 2012 when one of the most Republican-leaning Congressional Districts, Palm Springs, saw a five-term GOP Congresswoman beaten by a first-time Democrat.Sean_F said:
It's pretty much a given that Black American voters are, and always will be, overwhelmingly left-wing.
Other racial divides are less enduring. 50 years ago, White Italians, Poles, Irish etc. were mostly Democratic. Now, they aren't.
There's no reason to suppose that Latinos will be different. Indeed, Republicans do better among Latinos than they did in the 70s.
On the substantive, there seems an emerging mind-set that people want to live in and be governed by people who think the way they do even if it means separating themselves from other places and other mind-sets. Some Conservatives look forward to an independent Scotland because they think they will live in an England that is forever Tory.
Some Americans would rather break up their Union than be ruled by people with views opposed to their own. In 1918 it was all about self-determination and in many ways it still is.
0 -
Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...0 -
I think any split would be states rights vs fedralism (though this was a major factor in starting the civil war). If Kansas seceeded from Obama care, followed by many other red states, could it leave a rump Obamacare on the coasts? There are a number of other issues that could lead to further calls for states rights, and I could see it becoming a Republican cause.SeanT said:
I think it could get quite nasty - IF white Americans feel that the country is being dragged down/socialised/turned into a failing Euro-style welfare state - by the new preponderance of "minority" votes. There is already evidence of this attitude with the rise of the Tea Party.Cyclefree said:
Except that it's not going to be long now for blacks and Hispanics to be the majority of US voters. How will white Americans react then, assuming they think of themselves as a bloc, which is by no means a given?SeanT said:
Actually, with the racial divide in America getting ever more stark and unignorable, I don't think such speculations are quite as fanciful as you say.Sean_F said:
It would be stupid. But, no more stupid than those Conservatives who long for the break up of their country for temporary partisan advantage.Scott_P said:
It would be one of the dumbest reasons imaginable. That's not to say it won't happen.MikeSmithson said:Kicking Cameron and the Tories would be a good reason to vote for change.
Could you imagine US Democrats wanting the South to secede, or Republicans wanting the North East to declare independence?
White America voted 59-39 for Romney - a huge, huge margin. Whites didn't want Obama, they didn't want Obamacare, they didn't want a Democrat president.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Yet that's what they got: Obama won thanks to non whites.
If Democrats continue to win presidential elections thanks to minority votes (quite conceivable) and white Americans NEVER get the president they vote for, is it impossible that America would begin to break down as a political unity?
This racial/political divide seems fundamentally unstable to me.
Perhaps a subject for one of your one blogs?
Moreover, this turmoil might coincide with the now-almost-inevitable moment when China overtakes America as number 1 economy (sometime in the next decade or so).
That will be a double blow to white American pride.
My guess is they will probably shrug, and sigh, and go back to making money as best they can - but America has combusted before, on racial lines. And of course American living standards are now stagnating, and have been doing so for a while - not the case 100 years ago, when everyone could expect to get richer.0 -
RodRodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
Do you have an actual list ?
IIRC at least two Lancashire Conservative MPs are Scottish.
0 -
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
0 -
I would consider it a major blow if the Scots decided to go their own way. Cameron is merely a steward of our party - though he has forgotten that.another_richard said:
The Welsh Conservatives I agree about but are you sure about the Northern Conservatives ?Sean_F said:Welsh Conservatives would certainly consider it a major blow, if Scotland were to vote Yes. So, I think, would many Northern Conservatives.
Some might be sorry to see Scotland leave but I expect many would be delighted.
Now it might be argued that Scotland leaving would make the country more London focussed which wouldn't go down well with Northern Conservatives.
But as Cameron couldn't be more London focussed how would that be different.
0 -
There was one, IIRC, 40 years ago. He lasted 12 months before being ousted by the SNP...MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
;-)
0 -
Yes, hadn't thought of that - you're probably right. (Not used to agreeing with you, feels vaguely sinful.)MonikerDiCanio said:
Isn't it because for continentals language and nationality are almost the same ? Italians regard Austrians as German and always divide the Swiss according to language, German, French or Italian.
I've thought for some time that the decline in country-conquering wars (as opposed to messy internal affairs) has meant that small countries are coming into their own in a way they never could before as someone would just occupy them. (So I'm agreeing with you too - does shape-sihfting have no limits?) At the same time, though, some problems are going global because of openings markets, so arguably what we'll see is more power to both big international confederations and small local governments, with larger countries splintering in the process?GeoffM said:
That's only one example of the global realisation that smaller states are the way forward. The disintegration of the USSR and eastern europe, countries across Africa parting along tribal and religious lines; the Basques and the Catalans and the Scots all show this.
The time of enforced blocs like the EU and larger composite countries is coming to an end. Small states that fit the population they serve will be the future.
0 -
No, but someone should draw one up. Eleanor Laing, James Gray, Lorraine Fullbrook are a few current Tories.another_richard said:
RodRodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
Do you have an actual list ?
IIRC at least two Lancashire Conservative MPs are Scottish.
In days of yore...
Iain Macleod (actually born in England, but Scots through and through)
Arthur Henderson (sat for five different English seats!)
Jennie Lee
0 -
One for SeanT
Chris Huhne writes
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay
The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case0 -
Tom Greaterex Rutherglen and Hamilton West was born in England and lived there till 2004. Of course, it depends on how you want to define people for them, instead of letting them define for themselves what they are. Gordon Banks, Ochil and South Perthshire, for example, was born in England though educated in Scotland.MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?
The SNP is the only party ever to have had an MSP who gave their nationality as English. and Christian Allard SNP MSP is a French citizen.
0 -
The biggest threat to the GOP returning to the White House are the demographic trends in swing states such as Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and to a lesser extent North Carolina, Florida and Arizona.
In most of these states the latino vote is accelerating significantly and at a ratio of 70/30 in favour of the Democrats.0 -
That's to revive the Auld Alliance in a post independence world?oldnat said:
Tom Greaterex Rutherglen and Hamilton West was born in England and lived there till 2004. Of course, it depends on how you want to define people for them, instead of letting them define for themselves what they are. Gordon Banks, Ochil and South Perthshire, for example, was born in England though educated in Scotland.MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?
The SNP is the only party ever to have had an MSP who gave their nationality as English. and Christian Allard SNP MSP is a French citizen.0 -
Nigel Farage finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Syria, if Have Your Say is to be believed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843
The Have Your Say public doesn't have much charity for Syrian asylum seekers.0 -
The novel "unintended consequences" has a mini US revolution, where citizens start assassinating federal employees. It starts with the ATF, and expands to FBI, and FAA.foxinsoxuk said:I think any split would be states rights vs fedralism (though this was a major factor in starting the civil war). If Kansas seceeded from Obama care, followed by many other red states, could it leave a rump Obamacare on the coasts? There are a number of other issues that could lead to further calls for states rights, and I could see it becoming a Republican cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_(novel)
0 -
If you go back 100 years + there were lots of Englishmen representing Scottish seats. Look at the Victorian MPs. That largely ceased when ordinary Scots got the vote.RodCrosby said:
There was one, IIRC, 40 years ago. He lasted 12 months before being ousted by the SNP...MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
;-)
Remember, Churchill used to be a Dundee MP, but he was widely despised in that city.0 -
I have a relation (by marriage) who is a English as they come, but has been re-elected twice to a quite large Scottish local authority.
As a Lib Dem, too. And the elections were all contested.
As you might expect he's involved with "Better Together".0 -
Well, there's Dr Brown - he famously refused to consider himself as Scottish in an interview, so presumably he is North British ...Stuart_Dickson said:
If you go back 100 years + there were lots of Englishmen representing Scottish seats. Look at the Victorian MPs. That largely ceased when ordinary Scots got the vote.RodCrosby said:
There was one, IIRC, 40 years ago. He lasted 12 months before being ousted by the SNP...MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
;-)
Remember, Churchill used to be a Dundee MP, but he was widely despised in that city.
0 -
Is that Chrus Huhne, ex-energy and climate change secretary, who after being released from prison got involved with an American biomass firm?TheScreamingEagles said:One for SeanT
Chris Huhne writes
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay
The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case
I wonder why he wants to stress the dangers of climate change so strongly?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/11/chris-huhne-us-energy-firm-release-prison
He should just retire to one of his many houses and stay out of politics. It's no wonder MPs (and even ex-MPs) have such a bed reputation ...0 -
Lib Dem councillors normally are.OldKingCole said:I have a relation (by marriage) who is a English as they come, but has been re-elected twice to a quite large Scottish local authority.
As a Lib Dem, too. And the elections were all contested.
As you might expect he's involved with "Better Together".0 -
Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.0
-
There are more English MSPs in the SNP - it's their largest ethnic minority (were they to worry about such things). Christine Grahame and Mike Russell for instance.oldnat said:
Tom Greaterex Rutherglen and Hamilton West was born in England and lived there till 2004. Of course, it depends on how you want to define people for them, instead of letting them define for themselves what they are. Gordon Banks, Ochil and South Perthshire, for example, was born in England though educated in Scotland.MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?
The SNP is the only party ever to have had an MSP who gave their nationality as English. and Christian Allard SNP MSP is a French citizen.
0 -
Winston to Clemmie on Queen's Hotel, Dundee and Kippers:Stuart_Dickson said:
If you go back 100 years + there were lots of Englishmen representing Scottish seats. Look at the Victorian MPs. That largely ceased when ordinary Scots got the vote.RodCrosby said:
There was one, IIRC, 40 years ago. He lasted 12 months before being ousted by the SNP...MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
;-)
Remember, Churchill used to be a Dundee MP, but he was widely despised in that city.
"My Darling, This hotel is a great trial to me. Yesterday morning I had half eaten a kipper when a huge maggot crept out & flashed his teeth at me! To-day I could find nothing nourishing for lunch but pancakes. Such are the trials wh great & good men endure in the service of their country!"
0 -
Let's hope that's not right. There are so many rumours flying around about his condition that it's hard to know what the truth is.Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
0 -
CARNYX
True, what I should have said was "given their nationality as English in an online biography".0 -
Mr Dancer's original link had it as not serious if I recall from upthread. I see the BBC now have it as "the injury is serious, but not life threatening."Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
Where have you seen "critical"? Let's hope that's some sport reporter's error and not really the case.
0 -
There was, of course, George Foulkes.Stuart_Dickson said:
If you go back 100 years + there were lots of Englishmen representing Scottish seats. Look at the Victorian MPs. That largely ceased when ordinary Scots got the vote.RodCrosby said:
There was one, IIRC, 40 years ago. He lasted 12 months before being ousted by the SNP...MonikerDiCanio said:
There are lots of Scots with English seats. Are there any English with Scottish seats ?RodCrosby said:Independence or no independence, no doubt we'll still have an endless line of Scots seeking Westminster seats in England...
Blair
Rifkind
Fox
IDS
Fallon
Gove
Ancram
Maclean
Galloway
Teddy Taylor
Lamont
Maxwell-Fyfe
Manny Shinwell
Ramsay MacDonald
Keir Hardie
to mention but a few...
;-)
Remember, Churchill used to be a Dundee MP, but he was widely despised in that city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock0 -
No, I beg your pardon, it's more fundamental than that: simply a matter of getting the government we vote for.Sean_F said:
I do have the impression that a good part of the Nationalists' case is that a centre-right government is inherently illegitimate, insofar as it governs the Scots, and that independence is the only way of ensuring that Scotland has a permanently left-wing government.
Yes, at the moment it is centre-ward of the Tory/Labour/LD cluster, but it can work perfectly well in the other direction. The conservatives (with a small c) are not negligible and once they dump the link with the London Unionists, with the ghastly albatrosses of Mrs Thatcher, and Messrs Rifkind, Forsyth and Johnson etc., they would do rather better.
A good question is whether this is also true of Scottish Labour, not to mention the LDs which are now in Scottish wildcat levels of population. It also depends if the Scottish parliament is reorganised to remove Labour's gerrymandering. It should not be forgotten that the SNP would have a much larger majority of MSPs with first past the post.
0 -
According to this he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and has been operated on ;GeoffM said:
Mr Dancer's original link had it as not serious if I recall from upthread. I see the BBC now have it as "the injury is serious, but not life threatening."Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
Where have you seen "critical"? Let's hope that's some sport reporter's error and not really the case.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Sport-Motori/Formula1/29-12-2013/schumacher-incidente-sci-ferrari-mercedes-f1-201937781569.shtml0 -
Really? Are we going to rehash this tedious old one again? Yippee! [/sarc]Carnyx said:
No, I beg your pardon, it's more fundamental than that: simply a matter of getting the government we vote for.Sean_F said:
I do have the impression that a good part of the Nationalists' case is that a centre-right government is inherently illegitimate, insofar as it governs the Scots, and that independence is the only way of ensuring that Scotland has a permanently left-wing government.
0 -
AveryAveryLP said:
Did you comment on the ONS productivity stats for 2013Q3 released on Christmas Eve ?
As the ONS have numbers stretching back to 1959Q3 we can compare productivity growth over nine year periods:
1959-1968 +33%
1968-1977 +24%
1977-1986 +22%
1986-1995 +26%
1995-2004 +21%
2004-2013 +4%
Perhaps you could put this triumph of Cameronism into one of your yellow boxes.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=A4YM&dataset=prdy&table-id=1
Its noticable that productivity at present is lower than it was seven years ago.
Although unit labour costs have increased by 17% over that period:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=LNNL&dataset=prdy&table-id=2
0 -
Sky: AFP says Schumacher 'critical'...0
-
Well, I wouldn't call it an old problem. It wasn't a problem till the Scots Unionists merged with the London-based Conservatives and then committed electoral suicide.GeoffM said:
Really? Are we going to rehash this tedious old one again? Yippee! [/sarc]Carnyx said:
No, I beg your pardon, it's more fundamental than that: simply a matter of getting the government we vote for.Sean_F said:
I do have the impression that a good part of the Nationalists' case is that a centre-right government is inherently illegitimate, insofar as it governs the Scots, and that independence is the only way of ensuring that Scotland has a permanently left-wing government.0 -
Thank you. And I forgot to make it even clearer that I was using the term ethnic minority in an ironical one - but the point is an important one, that the SNP (and indy) is not inherently anti-English.oldnat said:CARNYX
True, what I should have said was "given their nationality as English in an online biography".0 -
Agreed. Huhne should sell 6 of his 7 houses and donate the money to those he perceives as victims.JosiasJessop said:
Is that Chrus Huhne, ex-energy and climate change secretary, who after being released from prison got involved with an American biomass firm?TheScreamingEagles said:One for SeanT
Chris Huhne writes
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay
The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case
I wonder why he wants to stress the dangers of climate change so strongly?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/11/chris-huhne-us-energy-firm-release-prison
He should just retire to one of his many houses and stay out of politics. It's no wonder MPs (and even ex-MPs) have such a bed reputation ...
0 -
Nasty. Many thanks for the update. Not good at all.MonikerDiCanio said:
According to this he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and has been operated on ;GeoffM said:
Mr Dancer's original link had it as not serious if I recall from upthread. I see the BBC now have it as "the injury is serious, but not life threatening."Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
Where have you seen "critical"? Let's hope that's some sport reporter's error and not really the case.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Sport-Motori/Formula1/29-12-2013/schumacher-incidente-sci-ferrari-mercedes-f1-201937781569.shtml
I was relying on the BBC for accurate news ... schoolboy error, I know.
0 -
How many "jobs" does Chris Huhne have with 'green energy' companies now ?TheScreamingEagles said:One for SeanT
Chris Huhne writes
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay
The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case0 -
The HYS "public" is as representative of the public as, say, ConHome is of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Farage is doing a good job of separating his criticism of immigration from any kind of general anti-foreigner stuff. He's quite right that we should do our share in helping people in obvious immediate danger, and if the HYS public don't like it they can emigrate to somewhere less civilised. Polls are consistently clear that most people don't mind taking a fair share of genuine refugees at extreme risk.antifrank said:Nigel Farage finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Syria, if Have Your Say is to be believed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843
The Have Your Say public doesn't have much charity for Syrian asylum seekers.
0 -
To be fair to the BBC (yes, I know), they are often fairly good at trying to report the known facts rather than the rumours and suppositions that other media channels rely on. At least on the website.GeoffM said:
Nasty. Many thanks for the update. Not good at all.MonikerDiCanio said:
According to this he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and has been operated on ;GeoffM said:
Mr Dancer's original link had it as not serious if I recall from upthread. I see the BBC now have it as "the injury is serious, but not life threatening."Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
Where have you seen "critical"? Let's hope that's some sport reporter's error and not really the case.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Sport-Motori/Formula1/29-12-2013/schumacher-incidente-sci-ferrari-mercedes-f1-201937781569.shtml
I was relying on the BBC for accurate news ... schoolboy error, I know.
Although BBC News's performance on the night of the theatre ceiling collapse was risible.
I hope Schumacher recovers fully and quickly.0 -
Really? Nick Palmer and me agreeing twice in one day?NickPalmer said:
The HYS "public" is as representative of the public as, say, ConHome is of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Farage is doing a good job of separating his criticism of immigration from any kind of general anti-foreigner stuff. He's quite right that we should do our share in helping people in obvious immediate danger, and if the HYS public don't like it they can emigrate to somewhere less civilised. Polls are consistently clear that most people don't mind taking a fair share of genuine refugees at extreme risk.antifrank said:Nigel Farage finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Syria, if Have Your Say is to be believed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843
The Have Your Say public doesn't have much charity for Syrian asylum seekers.
Blimey, the full moon comes round quickly.0 -
Nothing to be over-concerned about, ar.another_richard said:
AveryAveryLP said:
Did you comment on the ONS productivity stats for 2013Q3 released on Christmas Eve ?
As the ONS have numbers stretching back to 1959Q3 we can compare productivity growth over nine year periods:
1959-1968 +33%
1968-1977 +24%
1977-1986 +22%
1986-1995 +26%
1995-2004 +21%
2004-2013 +4%
Perhaps you could put this triumph of Cameronism into one of your yellow boxes.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=A4YM&dataset=prdy&table-id=1
Its noticable that productivity at present is lower than it was seven years ago.
Although unit labour costs have increased by 17% over that period:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=LNNL&dataset=prdy&table-id=2
Productivity is a lagging indicator, accentuated in periods of rapid economic change, i.e. the falls into and initial climbs out of recession.
Over the last year - a period when exit from recession has achieved escape velocity - employment (whether measured by head, job or hours worked) has increased at above the rates of output. This will depress productivity in the short term.
As for your banding of years, the massive drops in productivity come at the beginning of recessions, as orders and output falls and firms hold on to employees until it is clear whether there is going to be a sustained recession or temporary blip. So comparing 2004-2013 to earlier decades won't make any sense until the effects of the deepest recession since the 1930s are offset by full recovery.
0 -
@NickPalmer The Syrian refugee problem is not going to be solved by Britain taking 500 or even 500,000 asylum seekers. Nor does Britain have any particular connection with them. Given how many rebels are radical Islamists, I doubt the public is ready for a new batch of Abu Qatadas.
On this I'm in sympathy with the HYSers. Better to offer financial and practical aid in situ.
What do you consider Britain's fair share of 9 million displaced persons?0 -
I broadly agree with Nick here.NickPalmer said:
The HYS "public" is as representative of the public as, say, ConHome is of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Farage is doing a good job of separating his criticism of immigration from any kind of general anti-foreigner stuff. He's quite right that we should do our share in helping people in obvious immediate danger, and if the HYS public don't like it they can emigrate to somewhere less civilised. Polls are consistently clear that most people don't mind taking a fair share of genuine refugees at extreme risk.antifrank said:Nigel Farage finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion over Syria, if Have Your Say is to be believed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843
The Have Your Say public doesn't have much charity for Syrian asylum seekers.
Jesus was a refugee for the first years of his life - today's Gospel for you agnostics and atheists.
However, we need to allow refugees to work and support themselves in this country rather than adopt the policies that we did with e.g. Somali refugees which still see them languishing at the bottom of the pile - and worse - becoming radicalised.0 -
Sky: Schumacher "in a coma"....0
-
Jesus was also the world's first Marxist - today's Gospel for you right-wing Toriestory_up_north said:
I broadly agree with Nick here.
Jesus was a refugee for the first years of his life - today's Gospel for you agnostics and atheists.
0 -
Hooray!slade said:
I thought the question was going to pass unanswered.
[C.B. Fry] stood (unsuccessfully) as a Liberal candidate for parliament for the Brighton constituency in 1922. Fry's presence certainly brought some welcome glamour and excitement to the election, and his campaign was given extra colour by the appearance, at an election meeting, of Dame Clara Butt, the opera singer (and a close personal friend of the Frys). He won 22,059 votes, 4,785 fewer than the Conservative victor.
0 -
It's Chris Huhne the criminal. I'd keep a low profile in his position.JosiasJessop said:
Is that Chrus Huhne, ex-energy and climate change secretary, who after being released from prison got involved with an American biomass firm?TheScreamingEagles said:One for SeanT
Chris Huhne writes
It won't be long before the victims of climate change make the west pay
The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/poorer-countries-climate-change-case
I wonder why he wants to stress the dangers of climate change so strongly?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/11/chris-huhne-us-energy-firm-release-prison
He should just retire to one of his many houses and stay out of politics. It's no wonder MPs (and even ex-MPs) have such a bed reputation ...
0 -
Sorry, was watching the brutal murder of one of my favourite Christie books.GeoffM said:
Mr Dancer's original link had it as not serious if I recall from upthread. I see the BBC now have it as "the injury is serious, but not life threatening."Carola said:Morris around? Schumacher in a critical condition according to reports.
Where have you seen "critical"? Let's hope that's some sport reporter's error and not really the case.
A friend - who thinks I'm still into F1 even though I keep telling (and telling) him I stopped watching it the day Senna died - texted me. Now hit the news though I see.0 -
Interesting. If you wanted to carve out a permanently, hard- line, right-wing country, you'd merge Switzerland, Bavaria, the Tyrol, Lombardy, Venezia, and Provence.stodge said:
If California is any guide, the GOP has a veritable mountain to climb. I was there in November 2012 when one of the most Republican-leaning Congressional Districts, Palm Springs, saw a five-term GOP Congresswoman beaten by a first-time Democrat.Sean_F said:
It's pretty much a given that Black American voters are, and always will be, overwhelmingly left-wing.
Other racial divides are less enduring. 50 years ago, White Italians, Poles, Irish etc. were mostly Democratic. Now, they aren't.
There's no reason to suppose that Latinos will be different. Indeed, Republicans do better among Latinos than they did in the 70s.
On the substantive, there seems an emerging mind-set that people want to live in and be governed by people who think the way they do even if it means separating themselves from other places and other mind-sets. Some Conservatives look forward to an independent Scotland because they think they will live in an England that is forever Tory.
Some Americans would rather break up their Union than be ruled by people with views opposed to their own. In 1918 it was all about self-determination and in many ways it still is.
0
