politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Generally the oldies are the key group for UKIP yet in the
Comments
-
Lawyer would bill you for the time served as well.state_go_away said:0 -
Using anything written by Iain Martin for an attack on UKIP is a sign of utter desperation. The man is a partisan fool who hasn't had an intelligent thought in a decade.TGOHF said:Iain Martin on a similar theme
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11182095/At-this-rate-the-rise-of-Ukip-will-keep-Britain-in-the-EU.html
"Consider also how difficult Ukip would be for the moderate better-off-outers to handle during a referendum. Sharing a platform with people who think the Ukip Calypso is just a bit of fun (its composer Mike Read has a lot of friends in the Caribbean) would not be possible.
Think what an undecided non-white British voter would make of a campaign that featured a large Ukip component. The risk for the Eurosceptics would be that the forces of Out would be divided, between sensible types on one side and shouters running their own separate campaign (splitters!) or discrediting the mainstream effort by trying to get involved."0 -
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
0 -
Which has nothing to do with your claim: "Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few", which is demonstrably false as idiots such as myself can traipse over vast tracts of it.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
"http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=430"
Your starter for ten, ignore most of the "changed climate" explanations, I worked out that was bullcrap shortly after I discovered motorbikes.
BTW, we have had this conversation before, and you seem not to have learned much since.
Your link also shows that most of the land clearance occurred well before our generation, going back as far as Neolithic times. I also asked for a 'reputable naturalist' who describes them in such a manner.
We're probably not too far apart on these issues: land has been misused in the past, and it is up to our generation to ensure that we leave precious areas of landscape in a better condition that we inherited them. This involves undoing a great deal of damage.
As such, planting coniferous woodland on pristine land is generally a bad idea, as is creating wind farms on such land. Replacing coniferous woodland with wind farms is not such a bad thing, and wind farms on arable land with lots of access is not particularly damaging.0 -
Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)0 -
This is interesting.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/22/chinas-coal-use-falls-for-first-time-this-century-analysis-suggests
It would be a bit embarrassing if China decarbonised before we did.0 -
"Consider also how difficult Ukip would be for the moderate better-off-outers to handle during a referendum. Sharing a platform with people who think the Ukip Calypso is just a bit of fun (its composer Mike Read has a lot of friends in the Caribbean) would not be possible."
It was this sort of idiocy that lost the LDs the AV referendum, getting too precious about who they were prepared to share the platform with. Then you could only speak in favour of AV if you were a right-on leftie or fellow camp follower, now IM is suggestion the same thing might happen to an EU referendum, history is doomed to repeat itself0 -
Boris to lead the in side.antifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
Outers should be led by someone from the Business community.0 -
Using anything written by Iain Martin for an attack on UKIP is a sign of utter desperation. The man is a partisan fool who hasn't had an intelligent thought in a decade.
Iain Martin, Tim Montgomerie, Matthew D'Ancona, Matthew Parris, Paul Goodman.
When is Fleet Street going to cull this dreary cohort of wobbling soft righters.0 -
BfB's approach has been to combine a labour head with a tory head.antifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
Seems to work pretty well.0 -
With all due respect to Vince, he isn't very motivational or inspiring, is he?antifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
For both sides it is a problem, one that is fixable with the insertion of the dream team for Yes, Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling as his deputy. No problem there, is there?
For No, Kate Hoey and William Hague
For Yes Ken Clarke and Vince Cable or Eddie Izzard0 -
Well, you can reasonably argue that someone guilty of attempted murder is less dangerous to the public than one guilty of murder - so the necessity of keeping them behind bars on the basis of public safety is less.Indigo said:
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.0 -
From an environmental point of view there are some notable benefits to offshore wind turbines, in that they create a zone that cannot be destructively dredged.JosiasJessop said:
Which has nothing to do with your claim: "Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few", which is demonstrably false as idiots such as myself can traipse over vast tracts of it.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
"http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=430"
Your starter for ten, ignore most of the "changed climate" explanations, I worked out that was bullcrap shortly after I discovered motorbikes.
BTW, we have had this conversation before, and you seem not to have learned much since.
Your link also shows that most of the land clearance occurred well before our generation, going back as far as Neolithic times. I also asked for a 'reputable naturalist' who describes them in such a manner.
We're probably not too far apart on these issues: land has been misused in the past, and it is up to our generation to ensure that we leave precious areas of landscape in a better condition that we inherited them. This involves undoing a great deal of damage.
As such, planting coniferous woodland on pristine land is generally a bad idea, as is creating wind farms on such land. Replacing coniferous woodland with wind farms is not such a bad thing, and wind farms on arable land with lots of access is not particularly damaging.0 -
Possibly because a sentence reflects both the actual crime and also the consequences of it? Obviously the consequences of an attempted murder are less than those of a murder.Indigo said:
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
If you look at drink driving , you will get a ban for a year if there are no consequences for anyone else but could be jailed for up to 14 years if you kill somebody drink driving0 -
Philip Hammond would be a good leader of the "out" campaign. Kate Hoey is another option.0
-
It's the result of Rotherham, not Strasbourg.
Trouble is, UKIP policies are promising to do things about Strasbourg, not Rotherham. Strasbourg, as recent polls show, is quite popular.
In truth, there isn't a party for doing anything about islam related issues, because the political classes won't allow it.
And so we have UKIP which is more like a political metaphor than a political party.0 -
They're planning to stand in at least 75% of constituencies, which would be a big increase from 2010.FattyBolger said:
Lovely. Lots of greens taking 500-1500 votes off Labour in each constituency. We want more!AndyJS said:More Green candidate selections, in Barnet:
http://www.barnetgreenparty.co.uk/barnet-greens-choose-three-strong-candidates/
Chipping Barnet: AM Poppy
Finchley & Golders Green: Adele Ward
Hendon: Ben Samuel0 -
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
UKIP 20/1 there is a betTheWatcher said:
Some kind of fantasy landslide victory on 30%.david_herdson said:
Exactly. Rochester and Strood is precisely the kind of seat that Labour should be fighting hard for if Ed is to stand a chance of securing a workable majority.TheWatcher said:'Labour actually have the best candidate but they aren't really fighting the seat, for wise tactical reasons.'
AKA They've abandoned the South.
Let's not forget that Bob Marshall Andrews held the seat for Labour, from 1997-2010.
Put another way, if they're not fighting it hard (in a by-election for goodness sake!), they they can't have any aspiration to win seats that would give them a majority of more than about 60. Bear in mind that in terms of that objective, the only thing that really matters is whether they win it or not, not who wins it if they don't: Labour needs 355 seats for that size majority so if they don't win ones they did in 2005, then to get a similar majority they'll have to win ones they didn't.
Now, it may be that they think that there are enough further down the list where UKIP will damage the Tories so severely that they can come through the middle. That strikes me as optimistic given that UKIP hurt Labour too and it's a relative game: is there a reason to assume that UKIP is hitting (or will hit) Labour particularly badly in Rochester?
With the possibility of losses in Scotland and the risk of missed gains elsewhere, to not even target seats like Rochester looks as if Labour's not planning on a strategy to deliver a workable majority next year. Which begs the question as to what it is preparing for.
Morley and Outwood is now an ultra marginal - when will the message sink in?0 -
Is it the 21st or the 20th?isam said:
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
Yep !isam said:
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
Desperate Measures are sometimes called for:
"@Renzo_Soprano: The best job application letter ever! pic.twitter.com/4GFVUEs08e"
— rickie carroll (@rickiecarroll) October 23, 20140 -
Friday 21st.Charles said:
Is it the 21st or the 20th?isam said:
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
@JosiasJessop
Lots of naturalists describe tracts of the Highlands as MAMBO, what you see on your travels as untouched wilderness, is in fact overgrazed.
You can see this up on the hills where their are "deer mangers", constructed so that the sheep cant use them , only the deer. The deer population is kept artificially high using this method to the benefit of the estates, and the detriment of wildlife.
There are supposedly laws to curtail this practice, but only one Swedish owned estate obeyed the law, which resulted in all the estates surrounding complaining that "their" deer were migrating onto the Swedish estate for the improved shelter and grazing.
If native trees can't grow because of a change in climate, why are they on all the small island lochs, and places where sheep and deer find it hard to get to?
Next time you walk in those areas, open your eyes instead of concentrating on completing a "walk".0 -
Not a good analogy, as there is no intent to kill in your case, as there is - by definition - in attempted murder.state_go_away said:
Possibly because a sentence reflects both the actual crime and also the consequences of it? Obviously the consequences of an attempted murder are less than those of a murder.Indigo said:
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
If you look at drink driving , you will get a ban for a year if there are no consequences for anyone else but could be jailed for up to 14 years if you kill somebody drink driving0 -
well I think its a sound analogy - sentencing reflects not just the actual crime or intention but also the consequences across a whole range of offencesAnorak said:
Not a good analogy, as there is no intent to kill in your case.state_go_away said:
Possibly because a sentence reflects both the actual crime and also the consequences of it? Obviously the consequences of an attempted murder are less than those of a murder.Indigo said:
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
If you look at drink driving , you will get a ban for a year if there are no consequences for anyone else but could be jailed for up to 14 years if you kill somebody drink driving0 -
SeanT said:
"&c" - how quaint! I have this image of you drafting your articles/books with a quill.taffys said:It's the result of Rotherham, not Strasbourg.
Trouble is, UKIP policies are promising to do things about Strasbourg, not Rotherham. Strasbourg, as recent polls show, is quite popular.
In truth, there isn't a party for doing anything about islam related issues, because the political classes won't allow it.
And so we have UKIP which is more like a political metaphor than a political party.0 -
20th - I'm trying to weigh up taking my car vs taking the train right now.Charles said:
Is it the 21st or the 20th?isam said:
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:
Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
And profitability might not be one of them.OblitusSumMe said:
From an environmental point of view there are some notable benefits to offshore wind turbines, in that they create a zone that cannot be destructively dredged.JosiasJessop said:
Which has nothing to do with your claim: "Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few", which is demonstrably false as idiots such as myself can traipse over vast tracts of it.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
"http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewpost.php?id=430"
Your starter for ten, ignore most of the "changed climate" explanations, I worked out that was bullcrap shortly after I discovered motorbikes.
BTW, we have had this conversation before, and you seem not to have learned much since.
Your link also shows that most of the land clearance occurred well before our generation, going back as far as Neolithic times. I also asked for a 'reputable naturalist' who describes them in such a manner.
We're probably not too far apart on these issues: land has been misused in the past, and it is up to our generation to ensure that we leave precious areas of landscape in a better condition that we inherited them. This involves undoing a great deal of damage.
As such, planting coniferous woodland on pristine land is generally a bad idea, as is creating wind farms on such land. Replacing coniferous woodland with wind farms is not such a bad thing, and wind farms on arable land with lots of access is not particularly damaging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-297399810 -
Tricky one to estimate, but I think it's important to note the difference between a safe Tory seat, where there is a strong incentive for non-Tory voters to take part in the primary if they actually care who their MP is going to be, and less safe seats. In the extreme case of a seat which the Tories had no chance of winning, why should anyone take part?isam said:
Cheers.. Well the totnes primary return was 75% of Tory vote and gosport was 52% so ridiculously small sample but taking the average ish can't be the worst idea... We can use both to see extremes well as varying the turnout prediction... Will be interesting to see tonight's returnsantifrank said:
I'm all in favour of such ready reckoners. We have few precedents of all-postal primaries, so the assumptions are dangerous, but any assumptions are better than none and your suggestions look sensible to me.isam said:By the way my best guess as a ready reckoner of con vote based on primaries is to treble the percentage of returns
So 75,000 letters were sent
If 7,500 were returned id predict a score of 30% ish in the election
Using a turnout of 50% and that 66% of Tory voters will have bothered returning the form
Any views?
As in the "how many pianos in Chicago?" type of question, it is in any case likely that errors in the assumptions will tend to cancel each other out.
R + S is an intermediate case in that the Tories have a chance but are not favourites. I'd therefore expect the response to be lower than the (unfortunately small) sample of previous primaries.
0 -
Point taken. There are probably better ones, but I lack the inclination (or, given my hideous cold, the imagination) to think of it!state_go_away said:
well I think its a sound analogy - sentencing reflects not just the actual crime or intention but also the consequences across a whole range of offencesAnorak said:
Not a good analogy, as there is no intent to kill in your case.state_go_away said:
Possibly because a sentence reflects both the actual crime and also the consequences of it? Obviously the consequences of an attempted murder are less than those of a murder.Indigo said:
On a related issue why do we give a lesser sentence for "Attempted Murder" compared to "Murder"? Surely that is just rewarding incompetence. In both cases there was intention to kill with malice aforethought, but one through lack of planning or ability failed.TheWatcher said:A life is a life.
If the key is thrown away for Cop Killers, it should be the same for all murder victims. I don't see a difference.
If you look at drink driving , you will get a ban for a year if there are no consequences for anyone else but could be jailed for up to 14 years if you kill somebody drink driving0 -
UKIP have made a strategic error, IMHO, for short-term tactical success. That is, they've sacrificed the chances of building a popular movement for UK withdrawal from the EU (that has a good chance of success) to social conservative populism to maximise their votes and seats in the here and now. Mainly drawing those from the disenfranchised working class.TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also comes at a significant price. Namely, by tarnishing the cause of removing Britain from the EU.
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
Prior to this year, whilst the Left threw accusations of racism at them, no one in the middle ground really took it seriously. They just thought UKIP eccentric, some even ultra-libertarian. But most weren't sure. I think the 2014 Euro election campaign settled the answer to that, and was a mistake.
Farage decided to fight hard and in-yer-face on immigration. With a dog whistle or two, here and there. The 'whose jobs are they after? YOURS." poster made me feel uncomfortable. I still voted UKIP in the euros, but with hesitation. The effect of the whole period was to toxify the party. Farage didn't do enough to counter it credibly.
It is now difficult to make a respectable case for EU withdrawal now. Farage may have increased his chances of getting up to 20-25% of the vote, and the seats that go with it. But he may have permanently confined himself within that box, now, for good.
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.0 -
Alvin Stardust was the act which launched the career of New Labour fundraising supremo and Tony's crony (and tennis partner) Lord Levy, who revealed it was not actually Alvin Stardust who sang My Coo-Ca-Choo.Patrick said:
My father owned Alvin Stardust once upon a time.MarqueeMark said:RIP Alvin Stardust.
(His name, his act and all his material belonged to a company that went into receivership and my father was the receiver - I remember him well one evening telling me he'd 'sold Alvin Stardust today').
0 -
Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.0 -
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
0 -
I think we can be sure that people with concerns like this wont be sent on ethnicity and diversity courses under UKIPSeanT said:
Not sure that's true. UKIP are the only party that have even discussed banning the burqa (though their actual policy is confused). They are also the only party with a seriously small net immigration target (impossible to meet while we remain in the EU, meaning they will have to stop virtually all non-EU migration).taffys said:It's the result of Rotherham, not Strasbourg.
Trouble is, UKIP policies are promising to do things about Strasbourg, not Rotherham. Strasbourg, as recent polls show, is quite popular.
In truth, there isn't a party for doing anything about islam related issues, because the political classes won't allow it.
And so we have UKIP which is more like a political metaphor than a political party.
They are generally anti-multi-culti, &c.
More importantly UKIP are *perceived* as being ethnocentric and hard right, even if their policies, in fact, are not, therefore they reap the gains of that, because right now British public opinion on "cultural and immigration issues" is several light years to the right of David Cameron.
Paradoxically, the more the Left brands UKIP as racist, anti-immigrant or Islamophobic the more frustrated voters will quietly think "ooh, they sound like the party for me".
"One Home Office researcher, attempting to raise concerns with senior police officers in 2002 over the level of abuse, was told not to do so again, and was subsequently suspended and sidelined.[29] The researcher told BBC Panorama that:
...she had been accused of being insensitive when she told one official that most of the perpetrators were from Rotherham's Pakistani community. A female colleague talked to her about the incident. "She said you must never refer to that again – you must never refer to Asian men. "And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues."[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
0 -
21st - don't be booking train tickets for the wrong day!Pulpstar said:
20th - I'm trying to weigh up taking my car vs taking the train right now.Charles said:
Is it the 21st or the 20th?isam said:
I think so, yourself?Pulpstar said:
All very exciting isn't it !isam said:
Cool!OblitusSumMe said:
I think that's very fair.isam said:
That's ok, I am eager to learn!OblitusSumMe said:
Yeah, sorry, jargon sticks in the mind as it makes thinking about complicated things simpler.isam said:
You've lost me a bit!OblitusSumMe said:Sounds very reasonable as a central estimate, but what would the error bounds be?
I think you quoted figures of 50-75% for previous postal primaries, so assuming the same turnout, and using those return figures as bounds, then the multiplication factor would have bounds of (2.67, 4) [NB. not uniformly distributed in multiplication factor space].
Basically I intend to use those figures as a best guess and then re do the sums using 50% and 75% as the percentage of primary returns relative to Tory votes, and see where we are
Sorry I am not a mathematician so don't understand the terminology that well.
But in laymans terms if there are 7500 primaries returned (10%) then I would double that to take into account 50% turnout, and then multiply by 1.33 to give the worst case and 2 for the best case which would mean the Tories min is 26 and max is 40.. big spread.. midpoint 33 is bad for Tories
I'd say this means they are unlikely to win
But 10,000 returns and they are neck and neck
We get the same results for the bounds, but I wouldn't say that 33 is the midpoint. I'd say that was 32 (based on 62.5% as the midpoint of Tory voters postal primary returns), but I don't know how to explain why without drawing a picture.
Oh sorry yeah I used 66 as the midpoint, probably my mistake
I think if less than 7500 primaries are returned it is almost impossible for Tories to win. Is that fair?
If they get more than 10,000 returns they should probably be favourite
Ooh I 've never been so excited about a primary postal vote return!!!
Will you be at Dirty Dick's on the 20th ?0 -
So when Tories such as David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke call UKIP members, candidates and/or voters racist does that mean they are lefties?0
-
Paradoxically, the more the Left brands UKIP as racist, anti-immigrant or Islamophobic the more frustrated voters will quietly think "ooh, they sound like the party for me".
The connection between UKIP and the voters is subliminal. There are no plans to target islamic immigration specifically, or change our attitude to the muslim community in Britain. In fact Farage goes out of his way to avoid this area.
And yet there he is, in the pub, the one place in Britain the muslim community never go.
0 -
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.0 -
I do keep my eyes open when I walk everywhere, yet alone in the Highlands, otherwise I wouldn't get very far before falling over. ;-)Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
Lots of naturalists describe tracts of the Highlands as MAMBO, what you see on your travels as untouched wilderness, is in fact overgrazed.
You can see this up on the hills where their are "deer mangers", constructed so that the sheep cant use them , only the deer. The deer population is kept artificially high using this method to the benefit of the estates, and the detriment of wildlife.
There are supposedly laws to curtail this practice, but only one Swedish owned estate obeyed the law, which resulted in all the estates surrounding complaining that "their" deer were migrating onto the Swedish estate for the improved shelter and grazing.
If native trees can't grow because of a change in climate, why are they on all the small island lochs, and places where sheep and deer find it hard to get to?
Next time you walk in those areas, open your eyes instead of concentrating on completing a "walk".
Perhaps you should try to look outside your narrow class-warfare viewpoint once in a while ...
As an aside, from Wiki:
" An examination of the earliest maps of Scotland suggests that the extent of the Caledonian Forest remnants has changed little since 1600 AD."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Forest0 -
Are you the "andyajs" who has compiled a list of Green vote shares in order on an excel spreadsheet? I'm looking to give proper credit to the compiler on my next post.AndyJS said:
They're planning to stand in at least 75% of constituencies, which would be a big increase from 2010.FattyBolger said:
Lovely. Lots of greens taking 500-1500 votes off Labour in each constituency. We want more!AndyJS said:More Green candidate selections, in Barnet:
http://www.barnetgreenparty.co.uk/barnet-greens-choose-three-strong-candidates/
Chipping Barnet: AM Poppy
Finchley & Golders Green: Adele Ward
Hendon: Ben Samuel0 -
Yes, I did the same thing for the other parties.antifrank said:
Are you the "andyajs" who has compiled a list of Green vote shares in order on an excel spreadsheet? I'm looking to give proper credit to the compiler on my next post.AndyJS said:
They're planning to stand in at least 75% of constituencies, which would be a big increase from 2010.FattyBolger said:
Lovely. Lots of greens taking 500-1500 votes off Labour in each constituency. We want more!AndyJS said:More Green candidate selections, in Barnet:
http://www.barnetgreenparty.co.uk/barnet-greens-choose-three-strong-candidates/
Chipping Barnet: AM Poppy
Finchley & Golders Green: Adele Ward
Hendon: Ben Samuel0 -
But that's what I'm saying, it depends upon what they want to achieve, what their priorities are.SeanT said:
Silly analysis.Casino_Royale said:
Prior to this year, whilst the Left threw accusations of racism at them, no one in the middle ground really took it seriously. They just thought UKIP eccentric, some even ultra-libertarian. But most weren't sure. I think the 2014 Euro election campaign settled the answer to that, and was a mistake.TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
Farage decided to fight hard and in-yer-face on immigration. With a dog whistle or two, here and there. The 'whose jobs are they after? YOURS." poster made me feel uncomfortable. I still voted UKIP in the euros, but with hesitation. The effect of the whole period was to toxify the party. Farage didn't do enough to counter it credibly.
It is now difficult to make a respectable case for EU withdrawal now. Farage may have increased his chances of getting up to 20-25% of the vote, and the seats that go with it. But he may have permanently confined himself within that box, now, for good.
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.
25% is the maximum vote conceivable for a rightwing, populist, anti-immigration party. A truly libertarian, purely eurosceptic party would get about 10%, tops. We see the same pattern across Europe.
That is to say: UKIP have realised there is more political opportunity in their anti-migrant, anti-multiculti, socially conservative stance, and that people care more about this stuff, than they do about Europe. Their shift is sensible politics (even if you dislike the opinions)
Moreover, if they get 25% of the Vote in any GE it will be an amazing achievement and it will ensure a Tory-UKIP Coalition fairly swiftly afterwards.
If they want to be a socially conservative power block, that's fine. If they want to maximise the chances of the UK withdrawing from the EU, then it isn't sensible politics.
The latter is the reason they were set up. It is also the reason I have (in the past) voted for them. If they are perceived to be too toxic, no one will do a coalition with them.0 -
Ken Clarke certainly is. I suspect David Cameron doesn't have any deeply held values at all.SouthamObserver said:So when Tories such as David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke call UKIP members, candidates and/or voters racist does that mean they are lefties?
0 -
For the first time I'm starting to wonder whether the Greens might actually poll more votes than the LDs at GE2015.0
-
At least they are putting it out there. I'd also like to see more politicians in the centre ground but not in the Tory party laying into Ukip. The oh so clever tactical game of allowing Ukip a free run on the basis they are bound to do more damage to the Tories is in danger of backfiring. The LDs in particular are in danger of losing a significant section of their remaining centrist voters either through direct defection to Ukip or because they might deem it safe to back the Tories against Ukip particularly now some of the more swivel eyed of the Tory right are defecting to Ukip.SouthamObserver said:So when Tories such as David Cameron and Ken Clarke call UKIP members and voters racist does that mean they are lefties?
0 -
Is it the 21st or the 20th?Friday 21st.OblitusSumMe said:
I think so, yourself?
That's what I had, but @Pulpstar & @isam think it's the 20th.
Can someone confirm?0 -
Fantastic - that was particularly helpful. Not many people seem to have been thinking about the Greens, and that was a rare resource.AndyJS said:
Yes, I did the same thing for the other parties.antifrank said:
Are you the "andyajs" who has compiled a list of Green vote shares in order on an excel spreadsheet? I'm looking to give proper credit to the compiler on my next post.AndyJS said:
They're planning to stand in at least 75% of constituencies, which would be a big increase from 2010.FattyBolger said:
Lovely. Lots of greens taking 500-1500 votes off Labour in each constituency. We want more!AndyJS said:More Green candidate selections, in Barnet:
http://www.barnetgreenparty.co.uk/barnet-greens-choose-three-strong-candidates/
Chipping Barnet: AM Poppy
Finchley & Golders Green: Adele Ward
Hendon: Ben Samuel0 -
@JosiasJessop
You may have to close an annoying overlay advert on this page, but it does give lie to your nonsense. This is not about class warfare it is about basic ecology.
"Since then, botanical surveys and fixed-point photography have shown how these trees and other plants have regenerated successfully in the absence of pressure from browsing deer.
Alan Watson Featherstone, Executive Director of Trees for Life, said: "The Coille Ruigh site, which has been left to regenerate naturally with no tree planting, is playing a crucial role in the restoration of Scotland's ecological heritage."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/197297-caledonian-forest-thriving-thanks-to-deer-management-scheme/
If you can't understand the basic concepts, feel free to witter on about my political views instead.0 -
How do you define leftie? I would not categorise Clarke as one by any stretch of the imagination.Socrates said:
Ken Clarke certainly is. I suspect David Cameron doesn't have any deeply held values at all.SouthamObserver said:So when Tories such as David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke call UKIP members, candidates and/or voters racist does that mean they are lefties?
0 -
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?0 -
Friday 21st.Charles said:
Is it the 21st or the 20th?OblitusSumMe said:
I think so, yourself?
That's what I had, but @Pulpstar & @isam think it's the 20th.
Can someone confirm?
Friday the 21st.
I'll be there wearing those shoes.0 -
The differing sentences for murder and "Attempted murder" baffle me.. if a brilliant surgeon saves the life of someone you attempted to kill, why should you receive a lesser sentence than someone whose victim wasn't so lucky?Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
If a court decides you intended to murder someone you should be sentenced as though you were successful, in my book
The sentences for drunk driving and death by drunk driving should also be closer0 -
Yay, UKIP detoxifying the Tories.RobC said:
At least they are putting it out there. I'd also like to see more politicians in the centre ground but not in the Tory party laying into Ukip. The oh so clever tactical game of allowing Ukip a free run on the basis they are bound to do more damage to the Tories is in danger of backfiring. The LDs in particular are in danger of losing a significant section of their remaining centrist voters either through direct defection to Ukip or because they might deem it safe to back the Tories against Ukip particularly now some of the more swivel eyed of the Tory right are defecting to Ukip.SouthamObserver said:So when Tories such as David Cameron and Ken Clarke call UKIP members and voters racist does that mean they are lefties?
0 -
I'm going via the train.Charles said:
The return leg has already been booked.
If I do drive to London, I park up at Stanmore and tube it in0 -
Greens saved just 7 deposits in 2010:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDgyLXhteG1UZWpNQ1BQOGt0amIweEE&usp=sheets_web#gid=00 -
Good afternoon all. Thinking about much of the debate over the last few days, I have just written a blog post reflecting on tribalism in British politics. I don't write enough on my blog but any comments there or here, including re-tweets if you think it is interesting would be welcome. http://thesceptredisle.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/reflections-on-tribalism-in-british-politics/ and @thesceptredisle0
-
Agree on drunk driving, but not in murder and attempted murder. The intent may have been the same, but the consequences are different. Part of the punishment must reflect the outcome of the crime. Attempted murderers are lucky, just like their intended victims.isam said:
The differing sentences for murder and "Attempted murder" baffle me.. if a brilliant surgeon saves the life of someone you attempted to kill, why should you receive a lesser sentence than someone whose victim wasn't so lucky?Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
If a court decides you intended to murder someone you should be sentenced as though you were successful, in my book
The sentences for drunk driving and death by drunk driving should also be closer0 -
And he's left at the perfect time, taking the hit personally for the Indy-Ref failure, but allowing the SNP to grow beyond him - as it was threatening to become the cult of Salmond.SeanT said:
I'm not saying they've abandoned their euroscepticism, I'm saying they are, sensibly, adopting a gradualist approach, taking on other issues to add to their support, instead of simply and ceaselessly banging the referendum drum and boring everyone to death.Casino_Royale said:
But that's what I'm saying, it depends upon what they want to achieve, what their priorities are.SeanT said:
Silly analysis.Casino_Royale said:TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.
If they want to be a socially conservative power block, that's fine. If they want to maximise the chances of the UK withdrawing from the EU, then it isn't sensible politics.
The latter is the reason they were set up. It is also the reason I have (in the past) voted for them. If they are perceived to be too toxic, no one will do a coalition with them.
This is precisely what Alex Salmond did - he gradually edged nearer to power, then nearly achieved the impossible - a sudden referendum win.
UKIP-Farage are like the SNP 5 years ago or so.0 -
What like forming an alliance with a party of holocaust deniers ?SeanT said:Casino_Royale said:
But that's what I'm saying, it depends upon what they want to achieve, what their priorities are.SeanT said:
Silly analysis.Casino_Royale said:TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.
If they want to be a socially conservative power block, that's fine. If they want to maximise the chances of the UK withdrawing from the EU, then it isn't sensible politics.
The latter is the reason they were set up. It is also the reason I have (in the past) voted for them. If they are perceived to be too toxic, no one will do a coalition with them.
Unless UKIP go seriously BNPish (very unlikely)
That ship may have sailed..
0 -
In some ways the sentencing guidelines don't view it like that. They mostly factor whether it was planned or not and the long term physical and psychological damage caused.SouthamObserver said:
Agree on drunk driving, but not in murder and attempted murder. The intent may have been the same, but the consequences are different. Part of the punishment must reflect the outcome of the crime. Attempted murderers are lucky, just like their intended victims.isam said:
The differing sentences for murder and "Attempted murder" baffle me.. if a brilliant surgeon saves the life of someone you attempted to kill, why should you receive a lesser sentence than someone whose victim wasn't so lucky?Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
If a court decides you intended to murder someone you should be sentenced as though you were successful, in my book
The sentences for drunk driving and death by drunk driving should also be closer
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Attempted_Murder_-_Definitive_Guideline_(web)accessible.pdf0 -
I understand the basic concepts perfectly well: it's your interpretation of them that I disagree with. In addition, the Caledonian Forest is just a small but important part of the story.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
You may have to close an annoying overlay advert on this page, but it does give lie to your nonsense. This is not about class warfare it is about basic ecology.
"Since then, botanical surveys and fixed-point photography have shown how these trees and other plants have regenerated successfully in the absence of pressure from browsing deer.
Alan Watson Featherstone, Executive Director of Trees for Life, said: "The Coille Ruigh site, which has been left to regenerate naturally with no tree planting, is playing a crucial role in the restoration of Scotland's ecological heritage."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/197297-caledonian-forest-thriving-thanks-to-deer-management-scheme/
If you can't understand the basic concepts, feel free to witter on about my political views instead.
You still cannot back up claims like "Most of the Highlands are nothing more than a playground for the privileged few" or that most of the Highlands is described by naturalists as "miles and miles of of blooming nothing".
You should also read up on land management, and that even something as quintessentially timeless as wildflower meadows (which are still sadly disappearing) are previous, yet managed, landscapes. I can recommend Polly Devlin's book, "A year in an English meadow", which details the work needed to keep the meadow a meadow instead of first-generation scrub woodland.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Year-Life-English-Meadow/dp/07112272250 -
Interesting, Southam, but tricky.SouthamObserver said:
Agree on drunk driving, but not in murder and attempted murder. The intent may have been the same, but the consequences are different. Part of the punishment must reflect the outcome of the crime. Attempted murderers are lucky, just like their intended victims.isam said:
The differing sentences for murder and "Attempted murder" baffle me.. if a brilliant surgeon saves the life of someone you attempted to kill, why should you receive a lesser sentence than someone whose victim wasn't so lucky?Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
If a court decides you intended to murder someone you should be sentenced as though you were successful, in my book
The sentences for drunk driving and death by drunk driving should also be closer
In the rather less contentious area of soccer refereeing, I once sent off a player for taking a swing at another. When got the standard three match ban he objected on the grounds that he had missed.
The appeal failed.0 -
It's partly to do with the belief that many police hold that they're somehow 'superior' to the average joe.Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never understood that argument. If a tough sentence deters murder, why on earth would you not want to deter murder of children, grannies, or even lawyers, just as much as you'd want to deter murder of policemen?antifrank said:It's not a question of greater worth, it's about a great crime against society. Killing a police officer is not just killing an upright member of society, it's an attack on the entire system of law and order in the country. We need to deter it as strongly as possible.
The referral to 'civilians' (when they are such themselves), lawbreaking such as speeding and ignoring parking regulations etc
Not to mention tipping off the media, and selling information.0 -
I agree they haven't abandoned their euroscepticism. I am saying they may no longer be capable of that gradualist approach, as their support may now 'cap out' at 25%.SeanT said:
I'm not saying they've abandoned their euroscepticism, I'm saying they are, sensibly, adopting a gradualist approach, taking on other issues to add to their support, instead of simply and ceaselessly banging the referendum drum and boring everyone to death.Casino_Royale said:
But that's what I'm saying, it depends upon what they want to achieve, what their priorities are.SeanT said:
Silly analysis.Casino_Royale said:TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.
If they want to be a socially conservative power block, that's fine. If they want to maximise the chances of the UK withdrawing from the EU, then it isn't sensible politics.
The latter is the reason they were set up. It is also the reason I have (in the past) voted for them. If they are perceived to be too toxic, no one will do a coalition with them.
This is precisely what Alex Salmond did - he gradually edged nearer to power, then nearly achieved the impossible - a sudden referendum win.
UKIP are copying this, in my opinion, and it makes total sense
The SNP is a useful comparison. They gradually built up to 44% vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections through a civic nationalist approach, campaigning on a wide range of issues. Always with 'Scotland' in it, but always inclusive.
UKIP have gone for just a nationalist approach, campaigning heavily on immigration and social conservatism, and I think that may have now boxed them in from following a similar path. I have voted for them, as I say, but I am in the middle class (and now feel unsure about doing so in future) so if there are others like me, perhaps that is instructive in that. They need both.
I could see a future Tory party shunning them, and preferring grand coalitions or arrangements with Liberals. It isn't written in stone that they'll prefer solid right-wing government to opposition.0 -
The conservatives have already formed an alliance with those that celebrate the SS.TGOHF said:
What like forming an alliance with a party of holocaust deniers ?SeanT said:Casino_Royale said:
But that's what I'm saying, it depends upon what they want to achieve, what their priorities are.SeanT said:
Silly analysis.Casino_Royale said:TGOHF said:Alex Massie on EU in/out (namechecks OGH)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/the-ukip-effect-killing-the-thing-you-love/
"That is, all the attention paid to UKIP at present is all very well and good in the sense it helps boost their poll ratings but it also
Associations matter. Many people have had a chance to take a proper look at UKIP and, frankly, they don’t much care for what they see. Many people, you see, are fairly sensible. They have no desire to be associated with a party of dyspeptic misanthropes."
He has little chance of getting up to 30-35%, or forming sensible governing coalitions to pull Britain out, or campaign in the warm, optimistic and internationalist way (as Hannan has said) that would be needed to a win a referendum on UK EU withdrawal.
If they want to be a socially conservative power block, that's fine. If they want to maximise the chances of the UK withdrawing from the EU, then it isn't sensible politics.
The latter is the reason they were set up. It is also the reason I have (in the past) voted for them. If they are perceived to be too toxic, no one will do a coalition with them.
Unless UKIP go seriously BNPish (very unlikely)
That ship may have sailed..
0 -
Cameron getting desperate or has he just got a lot of money to waste?
@cgi247 @Tom_Fowdy @MichaelLCrick Now that's not only desperation but goes a long way to explain, why CONS have over spent budget.
— malcolm campbell pic.twitter.com/1BlFs83Ytg
October 23, 2014
0 -
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?0 -
ExactlySeanT said:
Unless UKIP go seriously BNPish (very unlikely) they will remain legitimate Coalition partners, and if they get 25% of the vote the Tories will HAVE to cut a deal with them or remain in Opposition forever.
"Government is fame and glory and importance
and big offices and chauffeurs
and being interviewed by Terry Wogan.
Opposition is impotence and insignificance
and people at parties asking you
if you know Robin Day." (YPM 2/5)
Given the choice between holding the nose and forming a government with a future UKIP, or sitting in opposition, there aren't very many politicians that would think about it for more than four or five seconds.
0 -
@JosiasJessop
If you don't want to stop digging, these people would be glad of your assistance.
http://rackspace-web2.rspb.org.uk/news/367847-pioneering-project-to-expand-and-restore-scotlands-native-caledonian-pine-forest-gets-underway
Give it over? you are fighting a lost cause. Large parts of the Highlands are overgrazed, and mainly by the sporting estates, and even some of them are now realising the insanity.0 -
Chris Irvine @cgi247 2h2 hours ago
Strood resident just been in our shop to show us the 18 letters his household has received from PM @MichaelLCrick0 -
15:52 NGG Depart, 12:02 (Saturday) KGX would suit me best I think. Would you be interested in car sharing at all (I warn you mine is a tip so you may want to go in yours :P )bigjohnowls said:
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?
I'm stopping in London overnight at some backpacking hostel atm.
0 -
That's brilliant info - thanx - I saw the Humax boxes on Tesco's website and wondered if they were worth the extra for sensible software! Clearly yes :^ )Gadfly said:
If you are going for Freesat, then buy a recorder rather than a simple box.Plato said:
I gather I need to buy a FreeSat box.
Any suggestions for brands to check out or things to be watching for?Gadfly said:
My youngest son has just purchased a Moto G 5" and absolutely loves its performance. He bought it unlocked through Amazon for £145.Plato said:OT I'm about to buy a new mobile and wondered what you'd recommend - not bothered about the brand at all. I want one with GPS/good camera with a flash - do they all have them now? It's been a long time since I upgraded.
He has now moved his number across to Asda Mobile (EE) to take advantage of their pricing and bundles. GiffGaff (O2) are another virtual mobile network that appears to be worth looking at.
The phone and networks are reviewed here... http://kenstechtips.com/
We have a budget 320GB Bush Freesat HD Recorder, which we use when caravanning. It serves that purpose, but the software is clunky and leaves a lot to be desired. I certainly wouldn't want live with it on a full time basis. It appears to have been superseded with a slimmer 500GB model, which I can see on ebay for £129.
As and when my Sky Recorder box packs in I intend to replace it with Humax model. They always had a better reputation and searching Amazon for Freesat Recorder will lead you to lots of reviews.0 -
If that's their promise, they are simply lying. Anyone who knows anything about the EU knows that negotiations not started in October 2014 will not be completed by 2017. Or 2018. There isn't yet a consensus that negotiations on a revised Treaty should take place.Charles said:
Unless they've changed their promise and I missed it, then that is NOT what they have promised.
What they have promised is to have completed the negotiation and have a referendum on the result by the end of 2017.
Now, that may not be practically possible, in which case Cameron will have to find a way to elide his promise (perhaps a delay of a year or some such). But I would be very surprised if he has not *started* negotiations by 2017.
Cameron can certainly set out demands and put them forward at a European Council in 2015. The members will listen politely and consider over the following 6 months whether to open negotiations or not. Possibly, by late 2016, serious discussions might begin. A reasonable guess for when they might conclude with broad agreement, IF the joint will is there, is 2019.
I've suggested before that in this situation, Cameron could and indeed should say "It's taking a bit longer than I thought, I'll get back to you when the negotiations are complete." But IIRC David Herdson and others have said that this would result in massive open revolt in the Tory party and it's got to be 2017 Or Else.
We can perhaps agree that there are two possible policies: "Referendum in 2017 on the current position even if negotiations are not complete" or "Referendum after negotiations are complete, whenever that is". I think Tory policy is the first. You think, as I understand your post, that it's the second. Perhaps there is a third policy like "Referendum by 2020, or whenever negotiations are complete, whichever happens first." It would be useful to the discussion if we knew.0 -
ComRes recent "who would you seriously consider voting for" poll put UKIP's current ceiling at 34%.Casino_Royale said:
I agree they haven't abandoned their euroscepticism. I am saying they may no longer be capable of that gradualist approach, as their support may now 'cap out' at 25%.
The SNP is a useful comparison. They gradually built up to 44% vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections through a civic nationalist approach, campaigning on a wide range of issues. Always with 'Scotland' in it, but always inclusive.
UKIP have gone for just a nationalist approach, campaigning heavily on immigration and social conservatism, and I think that may have now boxed them in from following a similar path. I have voted for them, as I say, but I am in the middle class (and now feel unsure about doing so in future) so if there are others like me, perhaps that is instructive in that. They need both.
I could see a future Tory party shunning them, and preferring grand coalitions or arrangements with Liberals. It isn't written in stone that they'll prefer solid right-wing government to opposition.
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-poll.htm
But that's not carved in stone. They may be able to increase it, or they may flop.
0 -
@bigjohnowls
Check your vanilla inbox - since the convo could start including personal/work addresses/mobiles and stuff best we carry it on in private.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Seems many think Caterham may not even make the next race. The sale seems something of a farce. I feel sorry for the engineers working for the team.0 -
Now surely that makes Mr @OblitusSumMe the perfect husband material. What more could a girl wish for? It's SO romantic!state_go_away said:
Bingo!! You have finally found a way to tell everyone you made your wife's wedding dress!! Great linkage thatOblitusSumMe said:
I knew that there were import duties of ~4% on imports of wool. The yarn I used for my wife's wedding dress was manufactured in the US from Peruvian wool, and the EU import duties added all of £2.60 to the cost.Socrates said:Did people know that the EU puts a 10% tariff on importing cars, a 13% tariff on importing wheat and a 30% tariff on importing wine?
Think about how much cheaper you could buy it next time you make those sorts of purchases.0 -
I cant stay over I am afraid so cant car share if you are staying over i am coming back to newark friday night probably on 23.30 from kingsx.Pulpstar said:
15:52 NGG Depart, 12:02 (Saturday) KGX would suit me best I think. Would you be interested in car sharing at all (I warn you mine is a tip so you may want to go in yours :P )bigjohnowls said:
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?
I'm stopping in London overnight at some backpacking hostel atm.
I
If you wanted to come back on same train happy to car share to newark i think you are less than 10 miles from me. I agree 15.52 looks good going down0 -
I thought so too, others disagreed. What their European manifesto says isNickPalmer said:
If that's their promise, they are simply lying....
It would be useful to the discussion if we knew.
"That’s why, if I am Prime Minister
after the election, I will negotiate
a new settlement for Britain in
Europe, and then ask the British
people: do you wish to stay in the
EU on this basis, or leave? I will
hold that in-out referendum before
the end of 2017, and respect the
decision."
0 -
I concur - it's a visceral thing.SeanT said:
I don't think the rise of UKIP has anything to do with a sudden, urgent desire to leave the EU. It's driven by fear of immigrants and quite fierce dislike of Islam, in particular.
It's the result of Rotherham, not Strasbourg.
In which case it is quite possible UKIP will continue to grow, and become a mainstream governing party, even as their main policy objective recedes further from their grasp.0 -
MikeK said:
Cameron getting desperate or has he just got a lot of money to waste?
@cgi247 @Tom_Fowdy @MichaelLCrick Now that's not only desperation but goes a long way to explain, why CONS have over spent budget.
— malcolm campbell pic.twitter.com/1BlFs83Ytg
October 23, 2014
How many people have registered at that address?
0 -
I'm not digging at all. You just cannot back up your original statements, and are trying to change the argument.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
If you don't want to stop digging, these people would be glad of your assistance.
http://rackspace-web2.rspb.org.uk/news/367847-pioneering-project-to-expand-and-restore-scotlands-native-caledonian-pine-forest-gets-underway
Give it over? you are fighting a lost cause. Large parts of the Highlands are overgrazed, and mainly by the sporting estates, and even some of them are now realising the insanity.
But there is an interesting (to me at least) issue here: what is the true landscape? If an area was sparse woodland up to 1,000 BC, then moorland, then low-quality cultivated land, then sheep grazing, and finally monoculture forest, which is the one we should be trying to preserve?0 -
Very sad news. I'd like to think there'd be a buyer, but who'd buy into it when the current and previous owner are locked into such a dispute?Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Seems many think Caterham may not even make the next race. The sale seems something of a farce. I feel sorry for the engineers working for the team.0 -
Eddie Izzard - for a sure bet on a losing position... a low, but cruelly true observation.philiph said:
With all due respect to Vince, he isn't very motivational or inspiring, is he?antifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
For both sides it is a problem, one that is fixable with the insertion of the dream team for Yes, Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling as his deputy. No problem there, is there?
For No, Kate Hoey and William Hague
For Yes Ken Clarke and Vince Cable or Eddie Izzard0 -
Well I'm not a fan of rushing round to KGX at near midnight, hence booking a bed for the night (I may also be over the limit...). I'll meet you at Newark station for the 15:52 train in all likelihood then :O)bigjohnowls said:
I cant stay over I am afraid so cant car share if you are staying over i am coming back to newark friday night probably on 23.30 from kingsx.Pulpstar said:
15:52 NGG Depart, 12:02 (Saturday) KGX would suit me best I think. Would you be interested in car sharing at all (I warn you mine is a tip so you may want to go in yours :P )bigjohnowls said:
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?
I'm stopping in London overnight at some backpacking hostel atm.
I
If you wanted to come back on same train happy to car share to newark i think you are less than 10 miles from me. I agree 15.52 looks good going down0 -
F1: man in charge of team with worst engine suggests breaking the pre-season agreement limiting engine development would be a good idea:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9528732/f1s-smaller-teams-need-an-engine-unfreeze-to-aid-hopes-says-ferraris-marco-mattiacci0 -
Mr Senior spent much of the 2005 parliament arguing that the local election results would be indicative of the LD general election vote share. He was right.SeanT said:BTW for the purposes of clarity I'm not saying UKIP WILL get 25% of the vote in 2015. Think that's incredibly unlikely.
I can see them reaching 15% which is already seismic enough.
25% in 2020? perhaps.....
The UKIP local election vote share was 2013: 22%, 2014: 18%.0 -
Mr. Jessop, it's a mess, and a peculiar one.
Buying a team can be a lot cheaper than setting up a whole new one, hence Jaguar becoming Red Bull (I think) rather than the latter entering as a whole new team. Likewise Benetton, Renault and then Lotus all being the same time with varying names.0 -
Well, there it becomes a bit controversial and interesting. Take willow coppicing. Do we think that willow, forest wildflowers, and the insects reliant on them, evolved to create a perfect ecological niche in response to human coppicing over a period of just a few thousand years?JosiasJessop said:You should also read up on land management, and that even something as quintessentially timeless as wildflower meadows (which are still sadly disappearing) are previous, yet managed, landscapes.
Or is it that some large megafauna that we have now removed from the landscape used to perform the role now performed by humans "managing" the landscape? There's a lot of interesting work being done on how important top predators - such as wolves - and large disturbing herbivores - such as elephants - are for the maintenance of many landscapes that we think of as being human managed.
A lot of disagreement too, but that's why it is so interesting.0 -
@SeanT
The thing is that all these terms - "socially conservative", "libertarian", "inclusive", "tough-minded" - aren't aspects that any party needs to be black and white on. You can be inclusive towards ethnic minorities while being tough-minded on immigration. You can be libertarian on gay rights while being socially conservative on multiculturalism. A successful political party is one that understands that, picks and chooses in order to appeal to a wider share of the electorate as possible, while weaving it into a coherent party platform. Thatcher and Blair both managed to do that, while Cameron has utterly failed. There was nothing wrong with him reaching out to liberal metropolitan types - he just should have done it in a way that didn't put two fingers up to traditional conservatives and eurosceptics.0 -
Just booked 15.52 going and 23.30 coming back. Total cost was even less £20 for print at home. If you change your mind about staying over happy to give you a lift. Otherwise see you on 21stPulpstar said:
Well I'm not a fan of rushing round to KGX at near midnight, hence booking a bed for the night (I may also be over the limit...). I'll meet you at Newark station for the 15:52 train in all likelihood then :O)bigjohnowls said:
I cant stay over I am afraid so cant car share if you are staying over i am coming back to newark friday night probably on 23.30 from kingsx.Pulpstar said:
15:52 NGG Depart, 12:02 (Saturday) KGX would suit me best I think. Would you be interested in car sharing at all (I warn you mine is a tip so you may want to go in yours :P )bigjohnowls said:
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?
I'm stopping in London overnight at some backpacking hostel atm.
I
If you wanted to come back on same train happy to car share to newark i think you are less than 10 miles from me. I agree 15.52 looks good going down
0 -
@JosiasJessop
Stop digging?
http://www.reforestingscotland.org/what-we-do/influencing-policy/the-impact-and-management-of-deer-in-scotland/
The loss of the forest over vast areas results in less bio diversity, I repeat, what you percieve as "wilderness" is actually a man made desert. and is one of the reasons the "Great Glen Cattle Ranch failed. When the highlands used to export beef on a large scale, the valleys were open forest, which is far more productive than a windswept bog. The trees acted like natural wind pumps removing moisture from the soil.
I am not trying to change the argument, you are trying to defend a logically indefensible position that treeless moorland is preferable to natural open forest.
I can only assume you are doing this to defend the idiot landowners who only visit their estates in the autumn. (in several cases, not even then)
I bet you, that you think grouse moors are "natural"?
0 -
Nigel Farage will lead the Out Campantifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
Ed Miliband could lead the In Camp
Eddie Izzard is just plain camp
0 -
Another Ukip gag about to backfire? There's something very mealy-mouthed about the use of the expression "his household".MikeK said:Chris Irvine @cgi247 2h2 hours ago
Strood resident just been in our shop to show us the 18 letters his household has received from PM @MichaelLCrick
0 -
Agree. I read a good book about this last year, but can;t for the life of me remember the title. :-(OblitusSumMe said:
Well, there it becomes a bit controversial and interesting. Take willow coppicing. Do we think that willow, forest wildflowers, and the insects reliant on them, evolved to create a perfect ecological niche in response to human coppicing over a period of just a few thousand years?JosiasJessop said:You should also read up on land management, and that even something as quintessentially timeless as wildflower meadows (which are still sadly disappearing) are previous, yet managed, landscapes.
Or is it that some large megafauna that we have now removed from the landscape used to perform the role now performed by humans "managing" the landscape? There's a lot of interesting work being done on how important top predators - such as wolves - and large disturbing herbivores - such as elephants - are for the maintenance of many landscapes that we think of as being human managed.
A lot of disagreement too, but that's why it is so interesting.0 -
Which website did you go through ? Cheapest I can see for your option is £22.50.bigjohnowls said:
Just booked 15.52 going and 23.30 coming back. Total cost was even less £20 for print at home. If you change your mind about staying over happy to give you a lift. Otherwise see you on 21stPulpstar said:
Well I'm not a fan of rushing round to KGX at near midnight, hence booking a bed for the night (I may also be over the limit...). I'll meet you at Newark station for the 15:52 train in all likelihood then :O)bigjohnowls said:
I cant stay over I am afraid so cant car share if you are staying over i am coming back to newark friday night probably on 23.30 from kingsx.Pulpstar said:
15:52 NGG Depart, 12:02 (Saturday) KGX would suit me best I think. Would you be interested in car sharing at all (I warn you mine is a tip so you may want to go in yours :P )bigjohnowls said:
Think so. I was just looking at the Newark option and trying to decide what time going and coming back.Pulpstar said:
Driving to Newark and getting the train from there looks like a superb compromise. And probably the cheapest option.bigjohnowls said:
£59 you could get cheaper tickets if you were prepared to go from newark £22.5 or £55 first class returnPulpstar said:Lets see - train = £59
Car = 166 miles*2 @ 45 mpg say =~ 7.5 gallons =~ 35 litres ~= £45
+ Congestion charge = £11.50
+ Parking
So the train looks like it'll be the best bet.
Are you heading down ?
£22.50 return is amazing isnt it?
I'm stopping in London overnight at some backpacking hostel atm.
I
If you wanted to come back on same train happy to car share to newark i think you are less than 10 miles from me. I agree 15.52 looks good going down0 -
What about the shake it all about camp?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Nigel Farage will lead the Out Campantifrank said:Iain Martin is thinking about the same question as I posed yesterday: who would lead the Out campaign (and for that matter who would lead the In campaign)?
A UKIP figure like Nigel Farage would be a poor choice to lead the Out campaign for the reasons that Iain Martin gives. But who outside UKIP would be able to reach to the undecided?
Likewise, who on the In side could keep together all strands of In-ness from the grumpily resigned Conservatives to the fervently Europhile sandalistas and the Labourites who are social Europe-minded, while making the case for business? (One last job for Vince Cable perhaps?)
Ed Miliband could lead the In Camp
Eddie Izzard is just plain camp0
