politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On this day exactly two years ago YouGov had CON in the lea

isam said:

Why would someone constantly leave the site and come back under a different name?

Addiction?

anotherDave said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

HurstLlama said:

Once that idea becomes accepted no change is possible and democracy becomes meaningless.

Incidentally, one curious dog that hasn't yet barked in the night is UKIP's very stong support for fracking. I rather think all those Tory shire voters tempted to vote UKIP haven't cottoned on to that policy yet. (As it happens, I think UKIP are right on that particular point, but it's electorally pretty toxic amongst a good chunk of their target voters).

Roger Helmer devoted the majority of his speech at the last UKIP conference to assuaging public concerns about fracking.

http://youtu.be/mJx_TAZuYec

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-five-myths-about-fracking-(1).aspx

Good speech. Well worth watching.

TheWatcher said:

MaxPB said:

TheWatcher said:

MaxPB do you have a problem with people gaining employment through 'connections'?

Not so much that, but that certain positions in large British companies do require one to be part of the secret handshake club. I think introductions between friends or family are not really a big deal. It's the top level positions that draw from such a narrow pool of people I take issue with. Take a look at journalism, it draws from a very narrow background, mostly white public school educated people. It's tough to understand how that happens.

How is 'the secret handshake club' (if such a thing exists) any different from friends and family connections?

In my experience it only enhances one's career once one has reached the rank of Adeptus Demonic, or Ipsissimus.

Things to note

1) The England cricket team are doing quite well

2) Jade Dernbach isn't playing.

Just saying, sometimes correlation does equal causation.

isam said:

Why would someone constantly leave the site and come back under a different name?

Maybe it's a bit like that moronic Dr Who bollux, some people get board and want to be reborn. I fancy a bit of a flounce myself, maybe come back as someone a bit more exoctic!

MaxPB said:

TheWatcher said:

MaxPB do you have a problem with people gaining employment through 'connections'?

Not so much that, but that certain positions in large British companies do require one to be part of the secret handshake club. I think introductions between friends or family are not really a big deal. It's the top level positions that draw from such a narrow pool of people I take issue with. Take a look at journalism, it draws from a very narrow background, mostly white public school educated people. It's tough to understand how that happens.

Journalism is very nepotistic. The number of journalists on national titles whose parents were also journalists on national titles is astounding.

Another reason why journalism is so public school dominated these days is because so many ways in involve unpaid work and internships. In previous times there was a well-worn path from regional papers to the nationals, but there are far fewer of these now and those that are left employ far fewer journalists.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?

I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.

It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.

I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.

I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.

But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.

SouthamObserver said:

Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?

I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.

Personally I preferred the history side which was on offer to the history at GCSE, which was all WW2 stuff.

I'm just rubbish at languages generally. Didn't help that my German teacher was an absolute nutter of a woman.

AveryLP said:

@RichardNabavi

All sorted:


Love Britain. Vote UKIP.

Love Brighton. Vote Green.

Love Nobody. Vote BNP.

Love Scotland. Vote SNP.

Love Wales. Vote Plaid Cymru,

Love Cornwall. Vote Mebyon Kernow.

Love Europe. Vote Lib Dem.

Love Sussex. Vote Conservative.

Love Children. Vote Labour.

Love Ireland. Don't vote.

Ooh that's harsh on Labour... but quite funny!

anotherDave said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?

I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.

It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.

I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.

I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.

But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.

It's simpler in some ways. But it still has most of the same basic building blocks.

SouthamObserver said:

anotherDave said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Out of interest, how many posters on here who learned Latin to O/A/GCSE level at school speak a foreign language fluently?

I don't actually get this obsession with Latin. In a day that is already very full, why teach kids a dead language when you can teach them one that they actually have a chance of using? Obviously, if there is evidence that it is a springboard to multi-lingualism then that's great. But is there? Miriam Clegg said recently that she rarely met public school educated men who speak foreign languages, but presumably most of them must have done Latin.

It should be learned in addition to a language. Latin is useful as it allows kids to form connections in their minds between English and other languages. It also teaches subjects often have common foundations and can broaden the level of thinking. That, at least, is what I got from it. Seeing something like English being linked to something as old as Latin helped me put into context how the world is linked together. Later on after I had given up Latin I have no doubt that it helped me make the link between economics, politics, history and such.

I guess it's also one of those, "it didn't hurt in the past, so why stop", things. People may form a causal link between the decline in schooling in the nation and the lack of teaching of advanced subjects like Latin.

I think the biggest obstacle to foreign language learning in the UK is that we are not ever taught English grammar in a structured way. When I lived in Spain, the kids did specific classes in Spanish and Catalan grammar - they knew the names of the different tenses and when these tenses were used; they could tell an adjective, from a pronoun, from a noun, a first person singular from a second person plural; they knew why words went in a certain order and so on. That made learning other languages much easier as they saw instinctively that what they were being taught was a different way to structure what is essentially the same set of tools. Having spoken to people who grew up in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands it's the same story. When I was at school, the first time I ever heard the term "present tense" used was in my first French class at the age of 11.

But english doesn't require the same explanation of masculine/feminine and changing verb spellings. It's simpler.

It's simpler in some ways. But it still has most of the same basic building blocks.

English - simpler? Well, if you ignore the spelling, maybe...

JosiasJessop said:

smithersjones2013 said:

@Josiahjessop

But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.

All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for

Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?

And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.

I know which one I consider to be the less honest.

Innocent_Abroad said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Things to note

1) The England cricket team are doing quite well

2) Jade Dernbach isn't playing.

Just saying, sometimes correlation does equal causation.

Or:- because the team's got a black public schoolboy in it...

Nah, it's because we've got somebody of Pakistani descent in the team.

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

smithersjones2013 said:

@Josiahjessop

But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.

All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for

Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?

And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.

I know which one I consider to be the less honest.

Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.

Actually, looking at the 2010 manifesto (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/conservative-manifesto-2010.pdf), there's a lot they have done that has been in-line with their manifesto.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Things to note

1) The England cricket team are doing quite well

2) Jade Dernbach isn't playing.

Just saying, sometimes correlation does equal causation.

Or:- because the team's got a black public schoolboy in it...

Nah, it's because we've got somebody of Pakistani descent in the team.

A black fast bowler, an Asian with a big beard, and no white South Africans.. the perfect recipe!

Jeff Dujon commentating as well, love him. The West Indies commentators are great.. mind you I like pretty much all cricket comms

I had Latin literally beaten in to me at school,it was a Christian Brothers school,and known for its excessive brutality,I can still chant what we knew as "The Concordes",ante,apud,ad, adversus,circum,circa etc,and unto these if motion be intended,let in sub super be appended.
Did me sod all use in later life,but in those days entry to University needed O level latin.

Just back from the café via Ladbrokes where I got my picked up my Wythenshawe winnings.. had lost my ticket and turned out Id had twice as much on as I thought! Still a piddling amount mind!

Anyway, saw The Sun front page in café... surprised it hasn't been discussed more, it really is aggressively anti Labour

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Things to note

1) The England cricket team are doing quite well

2) Jade Dernbach isn't playing.

Just saying, sometimes correlation does equal causation.

Or:- because the team's got a black public schoolboy in it...

Nah, it's because we've got somebody of Pakistani descent in the team.

A black fast bowler, an Asian with a big beard, and no white South Africans.. the perfect recipe!

Jeff Dujon commentating as well, love him. The West Indies commentators are great.. mind you I like pretty much all cricket comms

Michael Lumb is playing today and he was born in South Africa.

Dammit I knew there'd be one!

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

smithersjones2013 said:

@Josiahjessop

But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.

All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for

Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?

And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.

I know which one I consider to be the less honest.

Two points:
1) The Conservatives went into coalition. I know some do not see that as an excuse, but there was no way the Lib Dems were going to agree to everything that was in it. And as I said earlier, I actually think the coalition's worked quite well through a difficult time.

2) The UKIP manifesto was so bad that the party's current leader - who ISTR put his name to it - has described it as 'drivel'. Train liveries, ffs. Instead of attacking people who bring up that inconvenient truth, it might be best to admit it for what it was: a big mistake.

But it still leaves the core problem: what does UKIP stand for outside of the Europe issue? The website seems to think 'Fishing' is worthy of second place on their policy forum, below energy and above 'Health tourism'. 'Fishing'and ;Health tourism' are issues, but are tiny compared to the big ones.

Having said that, in the past I've flagged up issues with all the main parties' websites, including things like accessibility issues. None are perfect. For instance, on Labour's front page (or at least past their splash page is the following rubbish: "A transformative process for a Party which in turn aspires to transform the country"

SouthamObserver said:

@TSE - Latinus isus easyus, whateverus theus wordus inus Englishus isus, addus "us" tous theus endus ofus itus, andus inus aboutus 75%* ofus occasionsus youus'veus gotus theus Latinus wordus forus itus.

*Mayus notus beus 75% ofus occasionsus, maybeus lowerus.

Hmmm(us)

Or, as every child who was taught Latin knows:

Caesar ad sum jam forte
Brutus aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Brutus sic in at

Now Boys and Girls, a good translation please for the following, please:

semper ubi sub ubi

Theuniondivvie said:

AveryLP said:

@RichardNabavi

All sorted:


Love Britain. Vote UKIP.

Love Brighton. Vote Green.

Love Nobody. Vote BNP.

Love Scotland. Vote SNP.

Love Wales. Vote Plaid Cymru,

Love Cornwall. Vote Mebyon Kernow.

Love Europe. Vote Lib Dem.

Love Sussex. Vote Conservative.

Love Children. Vote Labour.

Love Ireland. Don't vote.

No 'Love UK' Avery?
You'll be getting stiff letters from Alistair Darling and David Bowie (airmail from the US in the latter case of course).

MacDivvie

You think it would be better together with the rest?

AveryLP said:

SouthamObserver said:

@TSE - Latinus isus easyus, whateverus theus wordus inus Englishus isus, addus "us" tous theus endus ofus itus, andus inus aboutus 75%* ofus occasionsus youus'veus gotus theus Latinus wordus forus itus.

*Mayus notus beus 75% ofus occasionsus, maybeus lowerus.

Hmmm(us)

Or, as every child who was taught Latin knows:

Caesar ad sum jam forte
Brutus aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Brutus sic in at

Now Boys and Girls, a good translation please for the following, please:

semper ubi sub ubi

Always wear underwear.

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

smithersjones2013 said:

@Josiahjessop

.


http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for

Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?

Two points:
1) The Conservatives went into coalition. I know some do not see that as an excuse, but there was no way the Lib Dems were going to agree to everything that was in it. And as I said earlier, I actually think the coalition's worked quite well through a difficult time.

2) The UKIP manifesto was so bad that the party's current leader - who ISTR put his name to it - has described it as 'drivel'. Train liveries, ffs. Instead of attacking people who bring up that inconvenient truth, it might be best to admit it for what it was: a big mistake.

But it still leaves the core problem: what does UKIP stand for outside of the Europe issue? The website seems to think 'Fishing' is worthy of second place on their policy forum, below energy and above 'Health tourism'. 'Fishing'and ;Health tourism' are issues, but are tiny compared to the big ones.

Having said that, in the past I've flagged up issues with all the main parties' websites, including things like accessibility issues. None are perfect. For instance, on Labour's front page (or at least past their splash page is the following rubbish: "A transformative process for a Party which in turn aspires to transform the country"

To the first part I would say you have a good point. The coalition is like a marriage where booth sides have to give and take.. the Tories are the man complaining about having to go shopping and watch soaps, the Lib Dems are women having to put up with football and farting.

Its easy for Labour and UKIP as "singeltons" to point out all the things they wouldn't have done, and to accuse them of compromising

On your second point, Farage would say he signed a 16 page doc that he broadly agreed with, that had 500 pages off bumph that he hadn't read, he wasn't leader at the time, and the new policies are going to be announced after the May elections.

It really isn't worth your while to keep asking Kippers on PB about manifestos that are obsolete or haven't been published, as no one knows the answer

But attacking Kippers on fine detail of past manifestos isn't fertile territory for their critics.. its a case of Hedgehogs and Foxes. Kippers think people that try and score points by quoting tiny dancing on pinhead type things are idiots.. that's why they are kippers!

Theuniondivvie said:

AveryLP said:

@RichardNabavi

All sorted:


Love Britain. Vote UKIP.

Love Brighton. Vote Green.

Love Nobody. Vote BNP.

Love Scotland. Vote SNP.

Love Wales. Vote Plaid Cymru,

Love Cornwall. Vote Mebyon Kernow.

Love Europe. Vote Lib Dem.

Love Sussex. Vote Conservative.

Love Children. Vote Labour.

Love Ireland. Don't vote.

No 'Love UK' Avery?
You'll be getting stiff letters from Alistair Darling and David Bowie (airmail from the US in the latter case of course).

Will that be on the same plane as the letter from that staunch YES supporter Sean Connery?

SouthamObserver said:

AveryLP said:

Theuniondivvie said:

AveryLP said:

@RichardNabavi

All sorted:


Love Britain. Vote UKIP.

Love Brighton. Vote Green.

Love Nobody. Vote BNP.

Love Scotland. Vote SNP.

Love Wales. Vote Plaid Cymru,

Love Cornwall. Vote Mebyon Kernow.

Love Europe. Vote Lib Dem.

Love Sussex. Vote Conservative.

Love Children. Vote Labour.

Love Ireland. Don't vote.

No 'Love UK' Avery?
You'll be getting stiff letters from Alistair Darling and David Bowie (airmail from the US in the latter case of course).

MacDivvie

You think it would be better together with the rest?

Avery - you're on fire today.

We are no match for your untamed wit.

Though some of the lefty flouncers seem to be back within a week

Michel Thomas's language tapes for Spanish, Italian, German and French are apparently the best on the market, although he sadly died in 2005 at the age of 90.

A truly amazing character - astonishing that he isn't better known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Thomas

His Spanish course, for example, is still getting five star reviews:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spanish-Michel-Thomas-Complete-Course-Set/dp/0340780673/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/277-4102564-7243602

Hatchet job on Harman from a number of years ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1998/may/31/labour.labour1997to99

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.

What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?

I believe UKIP loves Scotland in the same way paedophiles love children...

[JOKE!]

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Does UKIP love Britain? England, for sure; maybe Wales. But I don't see much evidence of any affection for Scotland.

What sort of evidence do you need for them to have sufficient "affection for Scotland"?

I believe UKIP loves Scotland in the same way paedophiles love children...

[JOKE!]

In the sense that it's unrequited?

I was interested to see two Chinese people talking to each other in a English on a flight from Hong Kong to Dubai the other day.

Presumably one was a Cantonese speaker, the other Mandarin, and they found it easier to speak English to each other.

isam said:

Bring back Jade!!!

Steady. But an absolute hammering over these last 20 overs after such a good start. Is this really the team Ireland ran so close?

isam said:

DavidL said:

isam said:

Bring back Jade!!!

Steady. But an absolute hammering over these last 20 overs after such a good start. Is this really the team Ireland ran so close?

I find the Windies are a good team to back as rags and a good team to oppose when big favs

Without Morgan I think this is at least 30 runs too much for England, maybe more.

I wonder if George Eaton reads PB.com:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/labour-majority-far-more-likely-most-think

MikeSmithson said:

Fagage says he'll quit if UKIP fails to win any seats at GE2015 (via @PickardJE)

As Richard Tyndall never ceases to remind us, Fagage is excess bagage to UKIP.

Without looking, I assume the Populus poll shows Labour still ahead seeing as it has been given the full squirrel treatment on here.

I know our friends north of the border don't all hold him in the highest esteem.....but the Staggers comes out for Carmichael:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/why-alistair-carmichael-could-be-next-lib-dem-leader

AndyJS said:

"Ukraine crisis live: Russia admits its troops are moving in Crimea

Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-Russia-admits-its-troops-are-moving-in-Crimea.html

We should pull all Western reporters out of the Ukraine, maintain radio silence and leave Russia to its own devices.

It is a western myth that ordinary Russians automatically support the military adventures of their leaders. Engagement in Chechnya became deeply unpopular as casualties mounted. And Russian military commander have never placed troop protection high on their list of priorities.

Given that most Russians see Ukrainians (unlike Chechens) as slavic brothers, Putin would find it difficult to sell a contested invasion to a wary Russian public.

A bit like Alex Salmond in Scotland, Putin needs the foreign powers of the auld enemy to help him secure domestic support for his policies. Obama and various less identifiable EU bods telling Putin not to intervene in the Ukraine militarily is just what Putin needs.

Unfortunately we have idle western journalists sunning themselves in the Crimea taking photographs of dubious looking soldiers in unmarked camouflage and beaming the images back to our 24 hour news channels. This is just giving Putin what he wants: the equivalent of Salmond getting Osborne to open the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

The best way to get Putin to sweat is to STFU.

CarlottaVance said:

I know our friends north of the border don't all hold him in the highest esteem.....but the Staggers comes out for Carmichael:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/why-alistair-carmichael-could-be-next-lib-dem-leader

That genuinely surprises me as I was under the impression he had made known his wish to retire from politics after the next GE, and as he did not do well in his last public debate with Ms Sturgeon. Given that he's in the LD penal battalions, I think someone's putting him above the parapet to see where the snipers [edit: on his own side, for promotion to company commander] are shooting from.

Here's something for you, from north of the border:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/

compouter2 said:

Without looking, I assume the Populus poll shows Labour still ahead seeing as it has been given the full squirrel treatment on here.

Tory tide coming in, Lab on the turn, compouter.

Don't worry though. If your goalposts are made of wood, they'll float and ease your burden.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

smithersjones2013 said:

@Josiahjessop

But that's a problem with UKIP: aside from getting out of Europe, what are its views? The mess over its 2010 manifesto shows that aside from Europe it has few beliefs as a party. Whilst all parties have to be broad churches to appeal, UKIP appears more like Miliband's blank sheet of paper. Or more accurately, a piece of paper that a five year-old has scribbled over during a sugar rush.

All that demonstrates is your inability to look at the UKIP site or listen to what Farage and other senior members of UKIP have been saying. You are just peddling the same disingenuous spin that Gordon Brown did about the Tories in 2007.

http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for

Well, how do we know that what they're saying now won't be ripped up like the 'drivel' 2010 manifesto?

And whilst on the UKIP website, searching for 'UKIP railways' in Google produces a first link that is 404ed, just as it was when I pointed it out a few months ago:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf

Of course the main difference between UKIP and the Tories is that the former ripped up their manifesto after failing to win seats in Parliament whilst the latter ripped up their manifesto after they they won power.

I know which one I consider to be the less honest.

Although, to be fair, the Conservatives didn't win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

And I don't remember Cameron referring to his 2010 manifesto as 'drivel'. And given the primary policy of the Conservative Party in their manifesto was tackling the deficit ('debt' is mentioned three times in the introductory page), they have at least remained true to that.

Actually, looking at the 2010 manifesto (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/conservative-manifesto-2010.pdf), there's a lot they have done that has been in-line with their manifesto.

There is also plenty they have failed to do in spite of the fact some of it was supported by the Lib Dems so they can hardly claim it was because they were in coalition.

Yes, like reform of HoL, 600 seat HoC, etc. etc. etc.

On the positive side, Blue+Yellow has been less Green than their manifestos would have suggested, which at least indicates that might be trying evidence based policy making.

I would add to that the important point of recall for MPs. There was absolutely no reason why this could not be achieved and it was a pure political calculation by Cameron that saw it dropped.