This does look more like a good Labour result rather than a poor SNP result, if you see what I mean. The fact that Labour managed to get almost as many votes as in 2011, on a turnout reduced from 47% to 38%, suggests a good ground operation and a high level of motivation.
In Gordon Brown's own backdoor.
"It will not come as any huge surprise to read that Labour won here in 2011, despite suffering a 5% swing from Lab to the SNP, when you hear that this seat is the same part of the country represented at Westminster by a certain Gordon Brown MP."
Are you seriously telling us that you expect anything less from a former Labour PM and one of the two biggest figures in Labour since 1997? I look forward to the next labour by-election at westminster in the safest of their seats where you will of course tell us that any increase in the labour vote suggests a good ground operation and a high level of motivation.
@Mick_Pork - I don't claim to be an expert on Scottish politics, but if I'm not much mistaken Cowdenbeath was in Gordon Brown's own backdoor in 2011 as well. What matters is the change from one election to another.
A dissappointing result for us YES supporters. Next indicator will be the EC elections, last time was MEP 2 Scottish National Party 29.1% 2 Labour 20.8% 1 Conservative 16.8% 1 Liberal Democrats 11.5% 0 Green Party 7.3% 0 UK Independence Party 5.2%
if the SNP can hold the top slot then, a YES vote maybe achieveable, but can they? The party in power usually suffers a drop but 2009 went against that trend.
The LD MEP seat looks a goner, but will it be taken by the Greens or a 3rd seat for the SNP? A 2nd seat for the Conservatives looks a long shot.
On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.
How many of the 75 do you expect the Cameroons to target? Less than the 20 he needs to win? I somehow doubt it.
Dear Mr Pork, have you noticed that your main rival is SLAB? Are you also aware that you need to attract SLAB votes to win the YES campaign? If yes to both questions, why do you expend so much energy on "PBTories", whoever they are?
A dissappointing result for us YES supporters. Next indicator will be the EC elections, last time was MEP 2 Scottish National Party 29.1% 2 Labour 20.8% 1 Conservative 16.8% 1 Liberal Democrats 11.5% 0 Green Party 7.3% 0 UK Independence Party 5.2%
if the SNP can hold the top slot then, a YES vote maybe achieveable, but can they? The party in power usually suffers a drop but 2009 went against that trend.
The LD MEP seat looks a goner, but will it be taken by the Greens or a 3rd seat for the SNP? A 2nd seat for the Conservatives looks a long shot.
Or a 1st seat for UKIP? (Unlikely you would think given UKIP's lack of pulling power in Scotland, but if they can improve 5% to just 8% ahead of the Greeens then it could happen)
@Mick_Pork - I don't claim to be an expert on Scottish politics, but if I'm not much mistaken Cowdenbeath was in Gordon Brown's own backdoor in 2011 as well. What matters is the change from one election to another.
2011 was an SNP landslide but that seat still didn't go to the SNP which tells you all you need to know about the seat and the local factors at play. It's a by-election so there will clearly be strong local factors yet the SNP vote still held up to 2007 levels when they won at Holyrood. We have the Holyrood polling anyway so we don't need to base every prediction on one extraordinarily safe labour by-election seat.
Mr. Jessop, on Joe Saward's blog he seems to think Michael (or anyone currently at McLaren) is unlikely to get the job. The reasoning is that it could be announced right now, and hasn't been, therefore it's someone already working with a contract elsewhere (which would also rule out Brawn, alas).
Eric Bouiller has left Lotus. Now I wonder what job options are open at the moment...
I love the Guardian report on the Argentina Crisis linked earlier.
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
A dissappointing result for us YES supporters. Next indicator will be the EC elections, last time was MEP 2 Scottish National Party 29.1% 2 Labour 20.8% 1 Conservative 16.8% 1 Liberal Democrats 11.5% 0 Green Party 7.3% 0 UK Independence Party 5.2%
if the SNP can hold the top slot then, a YES vote maybe achieveable, but can they? The party in power usually suffers a drop but 2009 went against that trend.
The LD MEP seat looks a goner, but will it be taken by the Greens or a 3rd seat for the SNP? A 2nd seat for the Conservatives looks a long shot.
Or a 1st seat for UKIP? (Unlikely you would think given UKIP's lack of pulling power in Scotland, but if they can improve 5% to just 8% ahead of the Greeens then it could happen)
On topic, one of the things we can learn from this result is that the SNP are pretty shit at expectations management. They made the same mistake when they hubristically claimed that they would take Glasgow City Council.
How many of the 75 do you expect the Cameroons to target? Less than the 20 he needs to win? I somehow doubt it.
Dear Mr Pork, have you noticed that your main rival is SLAB? Are you also aware that you need to attract SLAB votes to win the YES campaign? If yes to both questions, why do you expend so much energy on "PBTories", whoever they are?
Dear Mr TC. Have you noticed that anyone taking your "Yes supporter" particularly seriously would be about as gullible as a tory Eurosceptic believing Cameron's Cast Iron Pledges?
You have also somehow not noticed the massed ranks of PB tories hilariously cheering on a labour by-election hold in Gordon Brown's own backyard as they languish behind in the polls against little Ed.
Telling people they're better off and releasing a load of tractor stats to "prove" it?
Talk about an own goal.
It is difficult to see where the "better off" stats come from, on a personal basis. I don't feel better off, but then again, I don't feel any worse off, either. We don't get any benefits, apart from CB, and I have had a 2% pay rise over the last 4 years. The Mrs works in the private education sector, and she has only received around a 3% rise over the same timescale. My pension contribution has gone up considerably, so that's more than negated the pay rises. I guess the thing that has helped us most has been low mortgage rates. That has sort of balanced things out, but we certainly ain't better off.
@Mick_Pork - I don't claim to be an expert on Scottish politics, but if I'm not much mistaken Cowdenbeath was in Gordon Brown's own backdoor in 2011 as well. What matters is the change from one election to another.
2011 was an SNP landslide but that seat still didn't go to the SNP which tells you all you need to know about the seat and the local factors at play. It's a by-election so there will clearly be strong local factors yet the SNP vote still held up to 2007 levels when they won at Holyrood. We have the Holyrood polling anyway so we don't need to base every prediction on one extraordinarily safe labour by-election seat.
Does the union resources that SLAB bring to bear in a by election distort the picture compared to a GE? What share of the registered Postals do SLAB have in the SNP VI figures?
"Of course they must flag up any deceit over the government's figures if they seem questionable. Already that is happening. Labour's shadow treasury minister Cathy Jamieson insists the cheery figures on pay have been massaged and draw attention away from matters such as cuts to tax credits and child benefit, both of which have impacted working families. She says that in fact real annual wages have fallen by £1,600 since 2010 and cites figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicating that "families are on average £891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes since 2010".
That is all well and good. But over and above any focus on the coalition's failings, Labour must have a coherent plan about how they will do better. The lack of that narrative is probably why Labour have so far failed to pull away in the polls and is now seeing its poll lead tighten."
If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.
Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.
Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.
You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.
I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.
Interesting.
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
Forget Cowdenbeath - the SNP needs to mobilise every able-bodied Scot* to go and fight the Canadian Customs authorities for the rights of every Canuck to drink themselves into a hyper-active frenzy on Irn Bru:
"Of course they must flag up any deceit over the government's figures if they seem questionable. Already that is happening. Labour's shadow treasury minister Cathy Jamieson insists the cheery figures on pay have been massaged and draw attention away from matters such as cuts to tax credits and child benefit, both of which have impacted working families. She says that in fact real annual wages have fallen by £1,600 since 2010 and cites figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicating that "families are on average £891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes since 2010".
That is all well and good. But over and above any focus on the coalition's failings, Labour must have a coherent plan about how they will do better. The lack of that narrative is probably why Labour have so far failed to pull away in the polls and is now seeing its poll lead tighten."
The final two paragraphs in that piece are the important ones. It's about real people, not statistics and the way in which they are spun. If enough voters start to feel better off financially then the Tories will probably win in 2015. If they don't, they probably won't.
The comment on the by-election in the main Scottish tabloid and by a journalist who does not have a reputation as being pro-SNP. It is interesting that the emphasis is actually on the LDs as the Labour win is seen as a 'do ursids defecate in wooded areas?' type question.
For all those who think London Property is expensive.
With emerging market currencies tanking, China slowing and sterling powering ahead, it suddenly don't look such a bad investment after all eh?
As overseas wealthy people know only too well.
Probably not. But my completion date for my sale is pencilled in for 17 February, and I feel comfortable selling now, having agonised about it for some time.
If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.
Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.
Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.
You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.
I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.
Interesting.
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
Isn't it a wonderful world, full of variety and fun??!! Different people see the same thing in different ways. Always have, always will. I believe that a level of wealth redistribution is in the best interests of me and my family, as well as those who have not been as lucky as we have been. In my view, the state is best placed to oversee this. So, yes, I do believe in its potential to be a powerful, positive, enabling force. We have not got it right in this country over a sustained period yet, but I look elsewhere and I know that it can be done.
and I feel comfortable selling now, having agonised about it for some time.
Actually AF, It wouldn't surprise me if some overseas investors cashed out to make up for losses at home - cooling London down somewhat. The prospect of a Miliband government may also be concentrating some minds.
''We have the Holyrood polling anyway so we don't need to base every prediction on one extraordinarily safe labour by-election seat.''
Mick: are you saying that if the odds on a 'yes' get bigger as a result of this unrepresentative result, its a chance to get on?
I made no comment about any betting implications because so many SNP posters had already pointed to just how 'priced in' this labour win was for weeks. I was also unaware that political betting was even a particularly favoured subject on here since of late it has been extraordinarily thin on the ground.
I somehow doubt an unsurprising safe labour hold will move things in either direction with any great alacrity. Feel free to place your bets as you wish with that rather obvious point in mind.
I see the coalition assault on Ed M's last economic 'Keep' - that is the cost of living crisis is now underway - this is a key battle and will be messy and I see Len and Chukka are manning the barricades but if they breach Ed's defence sufficiently, where does he retreat to?
If so surely one would expect it to be welcomed on all sides. Labour complains it fails to take into account changes to benefits confirming them as the party of benefits and not the party of work.
Indeed. Arguing that the government should give money it doesn't have to people who don't need it is not going to go down well with those who would have to make up the difference.
Obviously, it is a Tory comfort blanket to pretend that those affected by changes to the tax credit regime are all scroungers and layabouts, but the vast majority who have been affected and are in work know the reality and have votes. As I say below, your party needs to be careful Mr Herdson.
You are the only person using the language of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts'.
I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.
Interesting.
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
Isn't it a wonderful world, full of variety and fun??!! Different people see the same thing in different ways. Always have, always will. I believe that a level of wealth redistribution is in the best interests of me and my family, as well as those who have not been as lucky as we have been. In my view, the state is best placed to oversee this. So, yes, I do believe in its potential to be a powerful, positive, enabling force. We have not got it right in this country over a sustained period yet, but I look elsewhere and I know that it can be done.
Actually in this country we get it right more than we get it wrong. We spend far too much time beating ourselves up about it.
Wouldn't rather be in France or the US, espcially Texas.
I see the coalition assault on Ed M's last economic 'Keep' - that is the cost of living crisis is now underway - this is a key battle and will be messy and I see Len and Chukka are manning the barricades but if they breach Ed's defence sufficiently, where does he retreat to?
The cost of football on tv The cost of food The Costa Concordia ?
Actually I think he will focus on the "awful" benefit cuts for working people.
Forget Cowdenbeath - the SNP needs to mobilise every able-bodied Scot* to go and fight the Canadian Customs authorities for the rights of every Canuck to drink themselves into a hyper-active frenzy on Irn Bru:
I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.
Interesting.
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
Isn't it a wonderful world, full of variety and fun??!! Different people see the same thing in different ways. Always have, always will. I believe that a level of wealth redistribution is in the best interests of me and my family, as well as those who have not been as lucky as we have been. In my view, the state is best placed to oversee this. So, yes, I do believe in its potential to be a powerful, positive, enabling force. We have not got it right in this country over a sustained period yet, but I look elsewhere and I know that it can be done.
Whereas we take the position that since a business can only flourish in a stable society it's important to ensure that there is a positive contribution made to ensuring that all stakeholders and society as a whole gets to benefit from the success of the company.
But that this is better done by individuals and companies rather than expensively intermediated and sub-optimally redistributed by an over centralised state
Oops -David Cameron hails Hornby in his 'reshoring' speech, but they've just issued another stonker of a profit warning
OO gauge is inaccurate - the loco and carriage bodies are at 1:76 scale, but the track is designed for HO (1:87) gauge, more popular in America and on the Continent. So the wheels on OO gauge rolling stock are 2.4 mm (almost 1/10 of an inch) too close together.
Standard gauge actual size = 1435 mm (4ft 8.5 inches)
I am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickedness I never will be, I fear. It's why I could never be a Tory.
Interesting.
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
Isn't it a wonderful world, full of variety and fun??!! Different people see the same thing in different ways. Always have, always will. I believe that a level of wealth redistribution is in the best interests of me and my family, as well as those who have not been as lucky as we have been. In my view, the state is best placed to oversee this. So, yes, I do believe in its potential to be a powerful, positive, enabling force. We have not got it right in this country over a sustained period yet, but I look elsewhere and I know that it can be done.
Whereas we take the position that since a business can only flourish in a stable society it's important to ensure that there is a positive contribution made to ensuring that all stakeholders and society as a whole gets to benefit from the success of the company.
But that this is better done by individuals and companies rather than expensively intermediated and sub-optimally redistributed by an over centralised state
If companies and individuals did do it in practice I would agree with that. Unfortunately, they don't. We would not have guaranteed old age pensions, unemployment benefit, free at the point of access healthcare, a universal education system etc without the state. How do I know that? Because we didn't until the state made it happen.
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East 38 East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 35 Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South 35 Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 35 Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey 35 Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East 34 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 34
Anyone know offhand the longest UK constituency name?
In Scotland (and UK) - Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East In Wales - Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South In England - Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East In Norn Irn - Fermanagh & South Tyrone
Today's Populus Lab 40 Con 32 LD 11 UKIP 9 Others 8
Decent for the LDs given the weeks events - definitely not cutting through outside the village.
Likely so but the Rennard/Hancock debacle is severely damaging to the lib dems for internal and long lasting party reasons, not splash headlines or sudden VI shifts. Nor would any Cleggite spinner be wise to think that finishing below the kippers in scotland bodes remotely well for them. The kippers beating the lib dems is quite obviously the most telling and remarkable result from last night. Not they lost their deposit as that is pretty commonplace now for the lib dems. But getting beaten by the kippers in scotland?? Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Whereas we take the position that since a business can only flourish in a stable society it's important to ensure that there is a positive contribution made to ensuring that all stakeholders and society as a whole gets to benefit from the success of the company.
But that this is better done by individuals and companies rather than expensively intermediated and sub-optimally redistributed by an over centralised state
If companies and individuals did do it in practice I would agree with that. Unfortunately, they don't. We would not have guaranteed old age pensions, unemployment benefit, free at the point of access healthcare, a universal education system etc without the state. How do I know that? Because we didn't until the state made it happen.
If you look back in detail at history, provision of many of those things was far better than popular myth supposes. The NHS is perhaps the best known example.
More to the point, if you were to go through the current scope of the state there are many things where we would agree that the state has a meaningful role (either because of market failure, or to capture the positive externalities). But there are a huge number roles that the state has aggregated unto itself that would be better conducted by individuals and companies. Philanthrophic instincts have, all too often, been crowded out by the bureaucrats.
Anyone know offhand the longest UK constituency name?
In Scotland (and UK) - Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East In Wales - Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South In England - Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East In Norn Irn - Fermanagh & South Tyrone
Weirdly, or just random I guess - LD's are disproportionately represented amongst 'Short' Constituency names - holding 7 out of the 50 seats which are 6 letters or less (Bath, Lewes, Wells, Yeovil, Torbay, Redcar, Gordon). This is a ratio of 14% versus the 9% overall.
Today's Populus Lab 40 Con 32 LD 11 UKIP 9 Others 8
Decent for the LDs given the weeks events - definitely not cutting through outside the village.
Likely so but the Rennard/Hancock debacle is severely damaging to the lib dems for internal and long lasting party reasons, not splash headlines or sudden VI shifts.
@Jonathan - We may have been OK at redistribution at certain times, but we were never great. Those of us on the centre left would do well to admit that under Labour there has never been enough emphasis on managing expenditure. Throwing money at something was seen as in and of itself the answer. Not good enough. We can do much better - they maange it elsewhere.
That said, without a redistributive state I would not be where I am today and many millions of others would not be either. So many of us owe so much to the emergence of welfarism at the back end of the 19th century and during the early 20th century. We should never let the undoubted horror stories that are used to justify cuts cloud the fact that sharing the wealth that all have helped to create is hugely positive overall.
I love the Guardian report on the Argentina Crisis linked earlier.
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
In other words, Ed Miliband's manifesto.
I think the Guardian is having a bit of an off day. I've been looking at their listing of the 85 people who are as rich as half the world and instead of finding it's all greedy westerners I reckon about half the people on that list are from the developing world.
Anyone know offhand the longest UK constituency name?
In Scotland (and UK) - Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East In Wales - Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South In England - Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East In Norn Irn - Fermanagh & South Tyrone
Weirdly, or just random I guess - LD's are disproportionately represented amongst 'Short' Constituency names - holding 7 out of the 50 seats which are 6 letters or less (Bath, Lewes, Wells, Yeovil, Torbay, Redcar, Gordon). This is a ratio of 14% versus the 9% overall.
It leaves more room on the pamphlets for misleading graphs.
Oops -David Cameron hails Hornby in his 'reshoring' speech, but they've just issued another stonker of a profit warning
OO gauge is inaccurate - the loco and carriage bodies are at 1:76 scale, but the track is designed for HO (1:87) gauge, more popular in America and on the Continent. So the wheels on OO gauge rolling stock are 2.4 mm (almost 1/10 of an inch) too close together.
Standard gauge actual size = 1435 mm (4ft 8.5 inches)
1435/87 = 16.5 mm 1435/76 = 18.9 mm
A decision that has haunted generations of rivet-counting modellers. ;-)
I don't have anything to do with railways nowadays, either at N, OO, HO, O or 1:1 scales, but I do occasionally look at modelling websites. Some of the models people are making are stunning.
You seem to be a very happy man - or easily amused. Does everything everyone else says really generate 'tears of laughter'? And is everything anyone you don't like does 'comically inept'? Or are you actually a robot surreptitiously exposing the rest of us to some kind of Turing test?
I'm more than content to see the PB tory ignorance of polling and what a result actually means on here thanks. It is repeated for westminster after all.
Care to tell me what the tories have to cheer about with this?
If you don't know what the purple kipper line means for Cammie by now then you have no chance of understanding the EU elections or the tory panic that will precede and follow it.
Erm...I agree with you - Dave is toast and the Tories have little to look forward to electorally. I was merely having a go at your Stalin propaganda dept style of communicating that's all. I think you are an astute observer from the left and have good points to make but you do your self down all the retitive slogans and expressions. 'Tis all.
I love the Guardian report on the Argentina Crisis linked earlier.
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
In other words, Ed Miliband's manifesto.
I think the Guardian is having a bit of an off day. I've been looking at their listing of the 85 people who are as rich as half the world and instead of finding it's all greedy westerners I reckon about half the people on that list are from the developing world.
Plus no.2 is Bill Gates, philanthropist extraordinaire, and no.4 is Warren Buffett, who has pledged almost all his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. So no, not a good day.
I see the coalition assault on Ed M's last economic 'Keep' - that is the cost of living crisis is now underway - this is a key battle and will be messy and I see Len and Chukka are manning the barricades but if they breach Ed's defence sufficiently, where does he retreat to?
The Bedroom Tax. They will always have the Bedroom Tax...
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
I love the Guardian report on the Argentina Crisis linked earlier.
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
In other words, Ed Miliband's manifesto.
I think the Guardian is having a bit of an off day. I've been looking at their listing of the 85 people who are as rich as half the world and instead of finding it's all greedy westerners I reckon about half the people on that list are from the developing world.
Plus no.2 is Bill Gates, philanthropist extraordinaire, and no.4 is Warren Buffett, who has pledged almost all his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. So no, not a good day.
I love the Guardian report on the Argentina Crisis linked earlier.
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
In other words, Ed Miliband's manifesto.
I think the Guardian is having a bit of an off day. I've been looking at their listing of the 85 people who are as rich as half the world and instead of finding it's all greedy westerners I reckon about half the people on that list are from the developing world.
Plus no.2 is Bill Gates, philanthropist extraordinaire, and no.4 is Warren Buffett, who has pledged almost all his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. So no, not a good day.
That would be the Bill Gates who strongly advocates redistribution of wealth from the richest countries to the poorest countries through increased aid spending and the Warren Buffett who believes he should be paying more tax.
I see the coalition assault on Ed M's last economic 'Keep' - that is the cost of living crisis is now underway - this is a key battle and will be messy and I see Len and Chukka are manning the barricades but if they breach Ed's defence sufficiently, where does he retreat to?
The Bedroom Tax. They will always have the Bedroom Tax...
2015 is looking a somewhat thin manifesto though.
I think the mistake that is being made is to assume that the Tories talking about cost of living = the Tories winning the argument on cost of living.
@Jonathan - We may have been OK at redistribution at certain times, but we were never great. Those of us on the centre left would do well to admit that under Labour there has never been enough emphasis on managing expenditure. Throwing money at something was seen as in and of itself the answer. Not good enough. We can do much better - they maange it elsewhere.
That said, without a redistributive state I would not be where I am today and many millions of others would not be either. So many of us owe so much to the emergence of welfarism at the back end of the 19th century and during the early 20th century. We should never let the undoubted horror stories that are used to justify cuts cloud the fact that sharing the wealth that all have helped to create is hugely positive overall.
I suppose even more fundamentally we owe a lot to the impact of compounded growth in real incomes throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Without that, a welfare state could never have been created.
Today's Populus Lab 40 Con 32 LD 11 UKIP 9 Others 8
Decent for the LDs given the weeks events - definitely not cutting through outside the village.
Likely so but the Rennard/Hancock debacle is severely damaging to the lib dems for internal and long lasting party reasons, not splash headlines or sudden VI shifts.
Like plebgate did for the Cons ?
Like Falkirk did for little Ed. Both of which (Falkirk and Rennard) I said when they broke would have a lasting damage rather than sudden VI moves since not every scandal's effects are immediately apparent. Yet they are no less potent as they fester away and cause repeated severe internal damage when they eventually break to the surface again. If anything those scandals that refuse to die usually end up being the most damaging of all.
That said, without a redistributive state I would not be where I am today and many millions of others would not be either.
Hmm, I'm not sure that really stands up. Social mobility in the US, with a smaller and less crudely redistributive state than the UK, has not been worse, in fact has probably been better, than here. And small government (very low taxes and very low state spending) doesn't seem to have stopped the people of Singapore benefitting from improved health, wealth and education.
Oops -David Cameron hails Hornby in his 'reshoring' speech, but they've just issued another stonker of a profit warning
OO gauge is inaccurate - the loco and carriage bodies are at 1:76 scale, but the track is designed for HO (1:87) gauge, more popular in America and on the Continent. So the wheels on OO gauge rolling stock are 2.4 mm (almost 1/10 of an inch) too close together.
Standard gauge actual size = 1435 mm (4ft 8.5 inches)
1435/87 = 16.5 mm 1435/76 = 18.9 mm
A decision that has haunted generations of rivet-counting modellers. ;-)
I don't have anything to do with railways nowadays, either at N, OO, HO, O or 1:1 scales, but I do occasionally look at modelling websites. Some of the models people are making are stunning.
So many people do amazing things in so many areas of life that few people ever see ...
That's quite impressive!
Still, I look forward to the day when UK rolling stock is available at HO scale. I also bemoan that, apart from kits, there seems to be a lack of any availability of ready-to-roll London Underground stock.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
The reference to Ian Davidson MP in the headline of the Tweeted pic is because Mr Davidson wanted the MoD to pull out any orders from Glasgow in the event of a Yes vote - making his own constituents unemployed like himself. I can't see that this will help him retain his own employment at Westminster now, whatever happens with indy ...
That said, without a redistributive state I would not be where I am today and many millions of others would not be either.
Hmm, I'm not sure that really stands up. Social mobility in the US, with a smaller and less crudely redistributive state than the UK, has not been worse, in fact has probably been better, than here. And small government (very low taxes and very low state spending) doesn't seem to have stopped the people of Singapore benefitting from improved health, wealth and education.
It didn't happen here though. As I said to Charles below, ideally we would have the system he believes in. But we don't. The big advances in the UK have happened as a result of state intervention. And look what is happening in Singapore:
Oops -David Cameron hails Hornby in his 'reshoring' speech, but they've just issued another stonker of a profit warning
OO gauge is inaccurate - the loco and carriage bodies are at 1:76 scale, but the track is designed for HO (1:87) gauge, more popular in America and on the Continent. So the wheels on OO gauge rolling stock are 2.4 mm (almost 1/10 of an inch) too close together.
Standard gauge actual size = 1435 mm (4ft 8.5 inches)
1435/87 = 16.5 mm 1435/76 = 18.9 mm
A decision that has haunted generations of rivet-counting modellers. ;-)
I don't have anything to do with railways nowadays, either at N, OO, HO, O or 1:1 scales, but I do occasionally look at modelling websites. Some of the models people are making are stunning.
So many people do amazing things in so many areas of life that few people ever see ...
That's quite impressive!
Still, I look forward to the day when UK rolling stock is available at HO scale. I also bemoan that, apart from kits, there seems to be a lack of any availability of ready-to-roll London Underground stock.
It is indeed impressive. On a different scale (double pun intended ...) this caught my eye recently
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
New McLaren pics on Twitter. Consensus seems to be it's either like a new model cyberman, or has been inspired by a lady with an, er, exotic piece of face apparel.
Edited extra bit: unlike the Williams and McLaren, the Lotus has a double nose. It reminds me slightly of a device for removing staples.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
New McLaren pics on Twitter. Consensus seems to be it's either like a new model cyberman, or has been inspired by a lady with an, er, exotic piece of face apparel.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
When an obvious scare story gets shot down in flames it's not particularly wise to keep trying to get the thing to fly.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
If the Scots take independence and the MoD decide they can order warships from a foreign yard then it may not be good news for BAe. They would then have to fight off competition from European yards and, probably, those further afield.
Guido Fawkes@GuidoFawkes3m STAY TUNED: Only one quarter of funds raised by Gordon "I don't personally benefit" Brown goes to charity. #OpenNews
Thats a lot more than other fake charities like Oxfam and Greenpeace.
It's a private company though - I imagine Guido only need to splash out a fiver or similar and you can see the accounts at company house??? Company number is 07362179
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
If the Scots take independence and the MoD decide they can order warships from a foreign yard then it may not be good news for BAe. They would then have to fight off competition from European yards and, probably, those further afield.
Indeed. And the same is true of any notional Scottish MOD: they would not have to order ships built by BAE in Scotland.
BAE is in a fairly nasty position: political interference has led it to build overspecified ships that it cannot easily export, and has made it keep open shipyards that should long since have closed. It's understandable from the government's point of view, but still difficult for the company.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
Alistair Carmichael, Scottish(?) Sec. wants to move Scottish shipyard work to England, describing Portsmouth as a “well placed” contender.
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
When an obvious scare story gets shot down in flames it's not particularly wise to keep trying to get the thing to fly.
But by all means continue to keep trying as it is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset.
I've read your link, and it doesn't "prove" anything (Nicola Sturgeon's comment was fine, but the bit her spokesman added was garbage).
As with all these things, the rUK government gets to choose how it spends its money. (I'm ignoring EU law on procurement as I can't be arsed to look up the details, so HurstLlama may be correct for all I know)
I would be surprised if they terminated the existing contracts, but equally I would be surprised if they didn't direct future contracts (and possibly parts of current contracts if it is being built in stages that can be moved around easily) to rUK based facilities (assuming that appropriate facilities exist or can be built economically).
You seem to be working on the assumption that the rUK government would rather send profitable business to a foreign country vs. keep that wealth creation and employment at home. I don't think politicians are as generous as you seem to believe
If the Scots take independence and the MoD decide they can order warships from a foreign yard then it may not be good news for BAe. They would then have to fight off competition from European yards and, probably, those further afield.
That is an excellent point, and it's that sort of issue that would prompt BAE to shift work to England. They do not want the genie to get out of the bottle.
Guido Fawkes@GuidoFawkes3m STAY TUNED: Only one quarter of funds raised by Gordon "I don't personally benefit" Brown goes to charity. #OpenNews
Thats a lot more than other fake charities like Oxfam and Greenpeace.
It's a private company though - I imagine Guido only need to splash out a fiver or similar and you can see the accounts at company house??? Company number is 07362179
Brown's learnt from Mandeson and Blair, and redefined redistribution.
I've read your link, and it doesn't "prove" anything (Nicola Sturgeon's comment was fine, but the bit her spokesman added was garbage).
As with all these things, the rUK government gets to choose how it spends its money. (I'm ignoring EU law on procurement as I can't be arsed to look up the details, so HurstLlama may be correct for all I know)
I would be surprised if they terminated the existing contracts, but equally I would be surprised if they didn't direct future contracts (and possibly parts of current contracts if it is being built in stages that can be moved around easily) to rUK based facilities (assuming that appropriate facilities exist or can be built economically).
You seem to be working on the assumption that the rUK government would rather send profitable business to a foreign country vs. keep that wealth creation and employment at home. I don't think politicians are as generous as you seem to believe
I'm assuming nothing. I'm taking the BAE system chief's words on the matter far more seriously than the inept spin of either 'better together' or the PB tories. If you didn't understand that this was a clear slap in the fact to the idiots who were trying to run about shrieking that a Yes vote would inevitably result in more massive job losses, then I'm afraid you are beyond reason.
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
His words speak for themselves and are a pretty clear F*** off to those who were trying to posture on scare story that had very little credence to begin with. You and the 'better together' spinners can posit as many scaremongering hypotheticals as you like but BAE seem to have a somewhat firmer grasp of their own business interests and what is and is not possible in the event of a democratic vote for Independence.
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
I think we've found a new limitless energy resource:
Attach 'Better Together' spinners to one end of a shaft, and the 'Yes' spinners to another, and put a generator in the middle (gearing will be needed as the spins are in different directions).
Add in some thermoeletric generators to produce power from all of the hot air in the debate, and you'll produce enough electricity to deep-fry at least 1 gazillion Mars Bars and stop all Europe's reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Even better: as the spinners feed off each other, they'll keep operating with only occasional fuelling by polls and election results.
“If Scotland becomes independent…then we will have to have a discussion with our customer, the Westminster Government, about how they would like to deal with that".
Rather different from "deal with it". It seems like it's the Scottish nationalists who are the inept spinners.
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
There's hope for everyone (well, maybe not PB Tories )
12 weeks ago:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP Nov 6 See the Nat bullies are out, but the fact is, if there is an independent Scotland: no yard, no ships. Not a threat, it is law of the land
Today:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP 1 hr As for shipbuilding, we will have to see what happens after the referendum. I hope we don't see a loss of jobs and will be fighting for them
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
His words speak for themselves and are a pretty clear F*** off to those who were trying to posture on scare story that had very little credence to begin with. You and the 'better together' spinners can posit as many scaremongering hypotheticals as you like but BAE seem to have a somewhat firmer grasp of their own business interests and what is and is not possible in the event of a democratic vote for Independence.
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
At the moment, Scotland is part of the UK and MoD spending is directed to Scottish locations. therefore BAe allocates resources accordingly. They don't have a contingency plan because there is no certainty that (a) Scotland will vote for independence or (b) that if Scotland does then MoD will immediately alter its spending patterns. That explains the situation as it is today, not the situation in, say, 2026 (I day plus 10 years).
Let's turn the question around: assuming an independent Scotland, why do you think rUK would favour a Scottish location vs an rUK site for a new defence contract?
Comments
"It will not come as any huge surprise to read that Labour won here in 2011, despite suffering a 5% swing from Lab to the SNP, when you hear that this seat is the same part of the country represented at Westminster by a certain Gordon Brown MP."
Are you seriously telling us that you expect anything less from a former Labour PM and one of the two biggest figures in Labour since 1997? I look forward to the next labour by-election at westminster in the safest of their seats where you will of course tell us that any increase in the labour vote suggests a good ground operation and a high level of motivation.
Or not.
MEP
2 Scottish National Party 29.1%
2 Labour 20.8%
1 Conservative 16.8%
1 Liberal Democrats 11.5%
0 Green Party 7.3%
0 UK Independence Party 5.2%
if the SNP can hold the top slot then, a YES vote maybe achieveable, but can they? The party in power usually suffers a drop but 2009 went against that trend.
The LD MEP seat looks a goner, but will it be taken by the Greens or a 3rd seat for the SNP?
A 2nd seat for the Conservatives looks a long shot.
Dear Mr Pork, have you noticed that your main rival is SLAB? Are you also aware that you need to attract SLAB votes to win the YES campaign?
If yes to both questions, why do you expend so much energy on "PBTories", whoever they are?
Lopez has replaced Boullier as team principal of Lotus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25877832
The article suggests Boullier could be off to McLaren.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/biggest-liberal-super-pac-to-fund-possible-clinton-bid.html?hp&_r=0
Without a trace of irony it lists the reasons for the latest economic catastrophe perpetrated by the socialist government there as increased business regulation, nationalisation of some companies and social programmes.
In other words, Ed Miliband's manifesto.
Mick: are you saying that if the odds on a 'yes' get bigger as a result of this unrepresentative result, its a chance to get on?
They are saying wages are increasing faster than inflation., but that's not the same thing.
If yes to both questions, why do you expend so much energy on "PBTories", whoever they are?
Dear Mr TC. Have you noticed that anyone taking your "Yes supporter" particularly seriously would be about as gullible as a tory Eurosceptic believing Cameron's Cast Iron Pledges?
You have also somehow not noticed the massed ranks of PB tories hilariously cheering on a labour by-election hold in Gordon Brown's own backyard as they languish behind in the polls against little Ed.
We don't get any benefits, apart from CB, and I have had a 2% pay rise over the last 4 years. The Mrs works in the private education sector, and she has only received around a 3% rise over the same timescale. My pension contribution has gone up considerably, so that's more than negated the pay rises.
I guess the thing that has helped us most has been low mortgage rates. That has sort of balanced things out, but we certainly ain't better off.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/24/all-eyes-ed-miliband-economic-plan-david-cameron-cost-of-living
"Of course they must flag up any deceit over the government's figures if they seem questionable. Already that is happening. Labour's shadow treasury minister Cathy Jamieson insists the cheery figures on pay have been massaged and draw attention away from matters such as cuts to tax credits and child benefit, both of which have impacted working families. She says that in fact real annual wages have fallen by £1,600 since 2010 and cites figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicating that "families are on average £891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes since 2010".
That is all well and good. But over and above any focus on the coalition's failings, Labour must have a coherent plan about how they will do better. The lack of that narrative is probably why Labour have so far failed to pull away in the polls and is now seeing its poll lead tighten."
So because you are 'nasty, brutish, and short' you need to rely on strict rule by a powerful state who will take your money and reallocate it as various politicians see fit. Surely relying on menaces from a third party is no moral progression at all?
While I, too, am a terrible person who wishes he could be better, but because of an innate lack of moral fibre and a general propensity to wickness I fear that I never will be. And yet the struggle to be a better person is a virtue in itself, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
That's what makes me a Tory (albeit a fairly Whiggish Tory)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10594217/Canada-bans-sale-of-Irn-Bru-Marmite-and-Ovaltine.html
*I accept that there may be limited numbers of such people....
Just as the conservatives have to be careful to overplay the good news, so Labour have to be careful not to overplay complaining about it.
Who knows the public may learn the truth. Labour doesn't mind economic failure.
Tweet from Sun Political Editor.
Oops -David Cameron hails Hornby in his 'reshoring' speech, but they've just issued another stonker of a profit warning
With emerging market currencies tanking, China slowing and sterling powering ahead, it suddenly don't look such a bad investment after all eh?
As overseas wealthy people know only too well.
The comment on the by-election in the main Scottish tabloid and by a journalist who does not have a reputation as being pro-SNP. It is interesting that the emphasis is actually on the LDs as the Labour win is seen as a 'do ursids defecate in wooded areas?' type question.
Actually AF, It wouldn't surprise me if some overseas investors cashed out to make up for losses at home - cooling London down somewhat. The prospect of a Miliband government may also be concentrating some minds.
I somehow doubt an unsurprising safe labour hold will move things in either direction with any great alacrity. Feel free to place your bets as you wish with that rather obvious point in mind.
Wouldn't rather be in France or the US, espcially Texas.
The cost of food
The Costa Concordia ?
Actually I think he will focus on the "awful" benefit cuts for working people.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PxuFQCDis
But that this is better done by individuals and companies rather than expensively intermediated and sub-optimally redistributed by an over centralised state
Standard gauge actual size = 1435 mm (4ft 8.5 inches)
1435/87 = 16.5 mm
1435/76 = 18.9 mm
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
?
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East 38
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow 35
Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South 35
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale 35
Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey 35
Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East 34
Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 34
...
Bath 4
Hove 4
In Wales - Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South
In England - Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East
In Norn Irn - Fermanagh & South Tyrone
Anyone know what the longest Council name is?
It might reduce some price pressures....
More to the point, if you were to go through the current scope of the state there are many things where we would agree that the state has a meaningful role (either because of market failure, or to capture the positive externalities). But there are a huge number roles that the state has aggregated unto itself that would be better conducted by individuals and companies. Philanthrophic instincts have, all too often, been crowded out by the bureaucrats.
Dungannon and South Tyrone?
Bath and North East Somerset?
That said, without a redistributive state I would not be where I am today and many millions of others would not be either. So many of us owe so much to the emergence of welfarism at the back end of the 19th century and during the early 20th century. We should never let the undoubted horror stories that are used to justify cuts cloud the fact that sharing the wealth that all have helped to create is hugely positive overall.
Worst headline IMHO from The Times - Hornby Profit Warning Is The Pits.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2014/jan/24/who-are-the-worlds-richest-85
I don't have anything to do with railways nowadays, either at N, OO, HO, O or 1:1 scales, but I do occasionally look at modelling websites. Some of the models people are making are stunning.
For instance, this model of Manchester Central and surrounding area:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/28293-manchester-central-clc-gn-warehouses-castlefield-viaducts/page-38
So many people do amazing things in so many areas of life that few people ever see ...
2015 is looking a somewhat thin manifesto though.
'No plans for naval yard KO after indy
A shipbuilding boss has insisted he has no proposals to shift production out of Scottish yards if voters back independence. BAE Systems chief Ian King said the firm "had no contingency plans" to alter working patterns at Govan and Scotsoun if a split goes ahead. And he warned that the Ministry of Defence will have to "deal with" a Yes referendum victory.'
http://tinyurl.com/pndhr3x
"An estimate of the contribution promised by the first 40 donors, based on their aggregate wealth as at August 2010, was at least $125 billion."
This wealth thing ain't all black and white, you know.
Is that the same Bill Gates who recently said there will be no poor countries at all by 2030 under the current evil capitalist system??
Still, I look forward to the day when UK rolling stock is available at HO scale. I also bemoan that, apart from kits, there seems to be a lack of any availability of ready-to-roll London Underground stock.
http://www.strategicriskindex.com/pdf/Singapore shift to welfare shows government is listening 29 Aug 2013.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRRUSCH4jd8
The incompetent lib dem buffoon Carmichael will really enjoy that next time he has to face anyone in debate. Assuming he ever will considering the lib dem 'leadership bruiser' was slaughtered the last time by Nicola Sturgeon.
Edited extra bit: unlike the Williams and McLaren, the Lotus has a double nose. It reminds me slightly of a device for removing staples.
Guido Fawkes@GuidoFawkes3m
STAY TUNED: Only one quarter of funds raised by Gordon "I don't personally benefit" Brown goes to charity. #OpenNews
Of course BAe has no contingency plans - why would they.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/9131070/McLaren-Unveil-A-Sleek-Silver-MP4-29
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12473/9131109/lotus-in-surprise-e22-reveal-just-hours-after-eric-boulliers-departure-announced
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
When an obvious scare story gets shot down in flames it's not particularly wise to keep trying to get the thing to fly.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/faster-than-we-can-write/
But by all means continue to keep trying as it is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset.
That said, *if* the rUK MoD decides to spend more of its budget at home post independence then BAe will redeploy its resources sharpish. Until A and B are known events then there is no point in wasting time and effort planning. That said, if Scotland chooses independence, I am sure that BAe would develop contingency plans for what to do if the MoD emphasises domestic spending post partition PDQ.
If the Scots take independence and the MoD decide they can order warships from a foreign yard then it may not be good news for BAe. They would then have to fight off competition from European yards and, probably, those further afield.
Indeed. And the same is true of any notional Scottish MOD: they would not have to order ships built by BAE in Scotland.
BAE is in a fairly nasty position: political interference has led it to build overspecified ships that it cannot easily export, and has made it keep open shipyards that should long since have closed. It's understandable from the government's point of view, but still difficult for the company.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/faster-than-we-can-write/
But by all means continue to keep trying as it is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset.
I've read your link, and it doesn't "prove" anything (Nicola Sturgeon's comment was fine, but the bit her spokesman added was garbage).
As with all these things, the rUK government gets to choose how it spends its money. (I'm ignoring EU law on procurement as I can't be arsed to look up the details, so HurstLlama may be correct for all I know)
I would be surprised if they terminated the existing contracts, but equally I would be surprised if they didn't direct future contracts (and possibly parts of current contracts if it is being built in stages that can be moved around easily) to rUK based facilities (assuming that appropriate facilities exist or can be built economically).
You seem to be working on the assumption that the rUK government would rather send profitable business to a foreign country vs. keep that wealth creation and employment at home. I don't think politicians are as generous as you seem to believe
His words speak for themselves and are a pretty clear F*** off to those who were trying to posture on scare story that had very little credence to begin with. You and the 'better together' spinners can posit as many scaremongering hypotheticals as you like but BAE seem to have a somewhat firmer grasp of their own business interests and what is and is not possible in the event of a democratic vote for Independence.
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
Thirty years ago today, the Apple Mac was launched.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/24/thirty_years_of_the_apple_macintosh_p1/
Attach 'Better Together' spinners to one end of a shaft, and the 'Yes' spinners to another, and put a generator in the middle (gearing will be needed as the spins are in different directions).
Add in some thermoeletric generators to produce power from all of the hot air in the debate, and you'll produce enough electricity to deep-fry at least 1 gazillion Mars Bars and stop all Europe's reliance on Middle Eastern oil.
Even better: as the spinners feed off each other, they'll keep operating with only occasional fuelling by polls and election results.
“If Scotland becomes independent…then we will have to have a discussion with our customer, the Westminster Government, about how they would like to deal with that".
Rather different from "deal with it". It seems like it's the Scottish nationalists who are the inept spinners.
12 weeks ago:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP Nov 6
See the Nat bullies are out, but the fact is, if there is an independent Scotland: no yard, no ships. Not a threat, it is law of the land
Today:
John Robertson @JohnRobertsonMP 1 hr
As for shipbuilding, we will have to see what happens after the referendum. I hope we don't see a loss of jobs and will be fighting for them
Like I said, trying to keep this dud of a scarestory going is most instructive as to the PB tory mindset. Or to put it even more succinctly, the PB tories are always wrong, the PB tories never learn.
At the moment, Scotland is part of the UK and MoD spending is directed to Scottish locations. therefore BAe allocates resources accordingly. They don't have a contingency plan because there is no certainty that (a) Scotland will vote for independence or (b) that if Scotland does then MoD will immediately alter its spending patterns. That explains the situation as it is today, not the situation in, say, 2026 (I day plus 10 years).
Let's turn the question around: assuming an independent Scotland, why do you think rUK would favour a Scottish location vs an rUK site for a new defence contract?