politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond fighting a Westminster seat that voted overwh

Mr. Socrates, AQAP?

Mr. Socrates, cheers. On that basis, I second your concise assessment of the succession.

Pulpstar said:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/glasgow-east/winning-party

Pile into the 1-4 I reckon.

That might be a slightly dangerous strategy if the price-shortening reflects a belief that Alex Salmond might stand for this seat (I can't really see any other reason why it should be shortening more now). The SNP did take it at a by-election in the last Parliament, so it would be quite a good one for him to think about, if he was going to try for a seat in a Yes stronghold.

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.

Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.

To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps

http://tinyurl.com/kgea8ly

Here's Great Titchfield Street where your cafe is:

http://tinyurl.com/l7z2kca

The idea that you're walking around here without seeing people is nonsense.

As somebody who works 10 minutes from those locations and regularly walks through them during the week and weekends, I can assure you it is not nonsense at all.

AndyJS said:

According to Betfair exchange, the Tories are stuffed in Rochester & Strood:

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115707446&eventTypeId=2378961

Yes, I'm a bit mystified by this, Andy.

I was expecting a highly competitive market but it is looking as if the price is truly on a one way march down to 1.01. You have to think the 'internals' are pretty definitive or there are polls out there that just haven't been released.

___Bobajob___ said:

Socrates - you surprise me that you have clearly never walked around your own city. Sean and Ally are completely right. Seriously, you are wrong. Try it. No wonder you dislike your own city - you have never seen it

Please stop. I am cringeing so badly for you I think I am coming out in hives

Ed Miliband has lost Maureen Lipman's vote.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/with-prejudice-november-14-labour-lost-me-maureen-lipman-ed-miliband

The website keeps crashing for some reason. Must have been hard for her as a life-long socialist to take that money from BT after it was privatised.

___Bobajob___ said:

Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central
London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy

London is as busy or quiet as you make it I think, except tube commuters...

One thing when I was down there last, I knocked off the service charge that had been included in my bill and told them that the price of the two cokes was their tip.

volcanopete said:

Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here.
Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.

Did you watch the same QT as me. He looked as Salmondeque as normal with all his normal glib one-liners on show.

Socrates said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Sean

Indeed. Socrates would have a much better impression of his own city, were he to walk around it once in a while

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Socrates said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

I think you'd struggle to find places anywhere within five minutes of Oxford street where you could walk for five minutes without seeing multiple people.

Walk North of Oxford Street on a weekend towards the BT Tower, i think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Yo u might also stumble across the Riding House Cafe which does the best breakfast in London IMHO.

To take a random street round there, here's Cleveland street on Google maps

http://tinyurl.com/kgea8ly

Here's Great Titchfield Street where your cafe is:

http://tinyurl.com/l7z2kca

The idea that you're walking around here without seeing people is nonsense.

Here's Fitzroy Square, in the heart of Fitzrovia. Yes, pretty damn crowded. Barely room to swing a specially miniaturised cat.

http://www.londonrevolution.net/blog/blog_images/fitzroy_square.jpg

And here it is at a random moment taken by a Google street car, rather than a staged photograph:

http://tinyurl.com/krglagc

That was taken in August and, by the look of it, lunchtime.

Coming to London for peace and quiet is a bit like going to a brothel for a religious retreat.

Not everyone wants peace and quiet. Some see the bucolic charms of the countryside as the stability of the graveyard.

Bond_James_Bond said:

This is partly why I think climate aeromancy is nonsense - to forecast CO2 you need to know emissions, to know emissions you need to know fuel use, and to know fuel use you need to know fuel price 100 years into the future. In fact nobody knows it 100 minutes into the future.

Climate Scientists are not stupid and they do not claim to be able to predict future emissions - which will depend on our choices.

So they run the climate models several times with different scenarios of future emissions, which then illustrates what the future climate impact of our choices today will be.


See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_scenario

The other thing I noted about London was the ENOURMOUS building work that was going on near the Royal courts. Anyone know what that is about ?

Alistair said:

volcanopete said:

Good post.Salmond looked a beaten man on QT for the simple reason he genuinely believed he would win because he was badly advised at the time.He should have listened to one of those defiled BBC public servants,John Curtice, who came out on top in assessment of the outcome-and a few here.
Salmond may still be badly advised and may still be in recovery from the devastation of a life's work.

Did you watch the same QT as me. He looked as Salmondeque as normal with all his normal glib one-liners on show.

Ye Salmond seemed to be on good form on the show, didn't look a beaten man at all. I think the Indy Ref defeat has hit him hard on a personal, not just political basis - it was his big dream that he came very close to delivering, but he will bounce back. I expect him to contest a winnable seat for the SNP (Gordon fits for all sorts of reasons) and win !

Anyone else on Neil Findlay,he is in the race for SLAB leader.Like any ante-post sort of bet with a double-figure price to get there means you've got the early value.Otherwise,trust the Red Paper Collective and shout him home.Henry G's Christmas box!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/neil-findlay-enters-race-for-scottish-labour-leader.1414586502

Current approx. odds .Murphy 8/13 Findlay 13/8 Boyak 13-2.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheWatcher said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Ask Reggie you weirdo.

My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?

No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.

Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?

Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.

Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.

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

Nae overly keen on taking my orders from tories-

Apparently I've got to fix 2 p/w now.

1.6 Euro on the home team within minutes...

Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.

Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.

The hockey stick was a creation of mathematical alchemy, which leaves them with what?

And yes, temperatures have risen. Or fallen. Or stayed the same. Anyone can cherrypick the starting point on a graph. Most recently, they're flat, directly contrary to the predictions of those who believe in global warming.

It smacks of panic over SARS. Only this brand of politico-science gets politicians a bulletproof excuse to charge people more in taxes. It's added a small fortune to energy bills, and the dogma has imperilled our energy supplies due to true believers like Miliband and Davey being Energy Secretary (in fairness to Davey, he's not as bad as Miliband).

Well I didn't manage to do that.

If someone links the Url I might.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheWatcher said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Ask Reggie you weirdo.

My view is that no mainstream party values votes more than the lives of children and I would never accuse them of it. You?

No one could could look at the number of abused children, and how long their accusations were ignored, and not wonder if that was the case.

Something was clearly up, unless you consider what happened in Rotherham to be normal. Do you?

Child abuse has been endemic in the UK for centuries. And children have always been ignored when they claim it has happened to them. That is how paedophiles in schools, in the churches and now in the inner cities have always flourished. The reasons for turning a blind eye have varied. In Rotherham and elsewhere race was undoubtedly a factor. But the idea that prior to 1997 paedophilia was less common or that wickedly abused children were given more of a hearing when they made complaints is laughable.

Name me one time before 1997 where 1400 kids got raped in one town in just a decade.

I would say that in every year prior to 1997 more than that number of kids were being raped year in and year out in cities across the UK. Sadly, we do not know for certain because then - as now - most cases are not reported. This is what happened in Rotherham. I see no reason to believe it did not happen elsewhere. I also believe that the abuse there and elsewhere may well have been going on and ignored long before 1997.

I worked in London 15 years ago for a few months and I have extensive family there so visit often and I can't say I really see much of a difference.

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central
London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy

"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.

Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.

In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:

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

Even in Europe it does not make the top 40:

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

Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!

Manila and Delhi aren't in Europe. London does not make the top 40 in Europe.

Morris_Dancer said:

And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.

He said snow would become rarer, which it did, and then when it did come it would be more severe - which it was.

Charles said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

___Bobajob___ said:

James Bond "pure evil" - oh dear. Quite ridiculous
AllyPally I replied to you on the PT
Sunil I replied to you on the PT
Socrates - indeed - shades of "if you've got nothing to hide..."

The London space challenge sounds quite fun. You are of course right. Walk 5 minutes from the likes of Oxford Street/Covent Garden/British Museum and you are wandering up streets on your own.

My only 'avoid like the plague' spot is Camden on a Sunday, a horrific experience!

You should add Portobello on a Saturday to that list.

Good shout, and although its really obvious I'll add Notting Hill Carnival to that list. Potentially the worst Sunday I have ever experienced in London.

From Guido: even the luvvies are abandoning Ed:
http://order-order.com/2014/10/29/lipman-leaves-labour/

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Socrates said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Socrates - there are huge swathes of very central
London that are routinely quiet and serene. It amazes me that you have the tourist's view of your own city. Talk a walk. Enjoy

"Quiet and serene" are relative terms. Serene relative to Picadilly Circus? Sure. Compared to towns in Surrey and Buckinghamshire? Not even close.

Walk around the City at the weekend. It's certainly a lot quieter than most towns in Surrey and Bucks. The centre of London is a lot less crowded than it used ot be when people lived there as well as worked there.

In fact, London does not make the top 50 of most densely populated cities:

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

Even in Europe it does not make the top 40:

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

Firstly, that's permanent residents, not including all the workers and tourists. Secondly, it's absurd to compare population densities over tiny areas compared to massive ones like London. Thirdly, we're doing well relative to Manila and Delhi? What a high bar!

Manila and Delhi aren't in Europe. London does not make the top 40 in Europe.

How many of those cities have 661* railway stations like London does? That's more than one station per sq. mile of administrative territory (607 sq. miles in Greater London's case).



*according to Sunil on Sunday criteria, which are slightly different from "official" sources

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Me, are you sure? The IPCC got its predictions unequivocally wrong, then increased their confidence in their own forecasts (I believe) from 90% to 95%.

Hard to take them seriously amidst the hubris and track record of just being wrong. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, claimed that at the end of this century Antarctica would be the only habitable landmass. And then there was that joyous Independent article by one of the dubious fellows from East Anglia, who reckoned snow would become a rarity that children would almost never see. A few years later we had two arctic-style winters.

The hockey stick was a creation of mathematical alchemy, which leaves them with what?

And yes, temperatures have risen. Or fallen. Or stayed the same. Anyone can cherrypick the starting point on a graph. Most recently, they're flat, directly contrary to the predictions of those who believe in global warming.

It smacks of panic over SARS. Only this brand of politico-science gets politicians a bulletproof excuse to charge people more in taxes. It's added a small fortune to energy bills, and the dogma has imperilled our energy supplies due to true believers like Miliband and Davey being Energy Secretary (in fairness to Davey, he's not as bad as Miliband).

Mr Dancer, we've been over all these things on here a number of times before and suffice it to say that there is not the room in this comment box to do our disagreement justice. In person, when one could draw some diagrams, it would perhaps be different.

However, everything you say has nothing to do with the point in question - that climate scientists do not claim to be able to predict future carbon dioxide concentrations, and so produce a range of predictions of future climate for a range of possible future carbon dioxide concentrations. Thus Mr Bond's objection to climate science on that basis was wholly erroneous.

Flightpath said:

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

Socrates said:

Flightpath said:

Mr T's point about the oil price is well made. Reports seem to be saying its going to stay like this for some time and go lower. I am sure its what many of us thought but the media seem shy of ramming it home to the SNP. For this reason alone it makes voting for them one of the most stupid things any Scotsman could think of doing since it has exposed the SNP for a huge set of bluffers and their prospectus as totally bogus.
So why are Labour seen as being in trouble?

The oil price drop is also going to have huge ramifications for international politics. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Nigeria are entirely dependent on revenue from oil & gas for their basic functioning. The advantages of democracy over authoritarian regimes will become clear shortly.

Saudi Arabia can withstand falling oil prices more than any other oil producing nation on earth.

It puts the hurt on their competitor nations, in fact the fact that OPEC hasn't cut production is interesting in of itself. My guess would be they are happy to squeeze Russia with it's vast, but more expensive to get at reserves.

"Saudi Arabia's most high-profile billionaire and foreign investor, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, has.... described the idea of the kingdom tolerating lower prices below $100 per barrel as potentially "catastrophic" for the economy of Saudi Arabia"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/11162744/Saudi-Prince-Alwaleed-says-falling-oil-prices-catastrophic.html

Now here I must disagree with Mr T. If Saudi can increase prodiuction then it limts the downside to lower prices. It seems to me that the country that is well and truly rucked (after an independent Scotland) is Russia as per the explanation.
Oil reserves have expanded, supply is up demand is down.
I am reminded of the scene in The Master Blackmailer where a rather annoyed victim simply fills Charles Augustius Milverton full of lead and walks off with the incriminating evidence. Putin's attempted national policy of blackmail risks going the same way. Shame for all his kipper friends left crying in their beer.

Falling oil prices and a declining, aging (drunken) population will do for Putin's mad dreams
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-13/oil-prices-are-hurting-russias-economy

Venezuela is the country that's going to be the most immediately hurt as they are already an economic basket case. Russia has a bit of a buffer (as in cash reserves not ability to continue at this price point) before things start to bite.

Any chance of a link to back this claim up?

Don't take my word for it. These vile accusations are from....er......labour politicians....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739367/Labour-accused-turning-blind-eye-abuse-Three-senior-figures-say-politically-correct-brigade-ignored-warnings-fear-inflaming-community-tensions.html

taffys said:

Any chance of a link to back this claim up?

Don't take my word for it. These vile accusations are from....er......labour politicians....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2739367/Labour-accused-turning-blind-eye-abuse-Three-senior-figures-say-politically-correct-brigade-ignored-warnings-fear-inflaming-community-tensions.html

You have fallen into the old trap of telling a broad truth but allowing yourself to get into an argument on a technicality...

I took this shot of the City from the South Bank near Tower Bridge a couple of months back. How different it must have looked just 10 years ago!

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/498257341863964672

Mr. Alistair, 2009-10, and 2010-11 were both immensely cold, and that's disregarding milder but still snowy winters.

Or, twice enormously wrong, to be more concise.

The idea children will have no idea about snow, which was what the article suggested (it included mention of children using a simulation to feel 'real cold') is nonsense, and has been proven to be so.

Edited extra bit: Dr. Spyn, well quite.

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, really?

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Bottom of the article

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."

So he went with 20 years when the correct answer was 10.

The CRU? I guess they will just doctor their results if, as has been so far, their prediction is wrong.

@Socrates - Well we can start here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/more-children-than-ever-working-as-prostitutes-on-britains-streets-1168361.html

70 under-age kids - mostly from children's homes - working as prostitutes on the streets of Nottingham in 1998. As a snapshot that is around the same as what was found in Rotherham - the 1,400 kids over 10 years being an extrapolation of that.

"A leading expert in prostitution said yesterday that the study showed that there may be two or three times more child sex workers in Britain than previously thought."
"He added that the problem had been "massively" underestimated and attacked the authorities for ignoring the proven links between children's homes and prostitution."

There's also this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/child-abuse-scandal--the-bryn-estyn-home-wasnt-fit-for-children--it--has-made-my-life-since-leaving-a-complete-misery-1306165.html

The longer the issue has been ignored the more flagrant and heinous the crimes have become.

Dr. Prasannan, it's a great picture.

Not fond of properly cold winters, not least because the path outside the front door turns into a bloody ice rink.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Alistair, we've had very cold winters in the past, through all human history. Magically attributing any notably unusual weather to man's activities is as human-centric as the old Church view that the sun orbits Earth because we're so tremendously important.

dr_spyn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, really?

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I must have imagined myself falling on a snow covered pavement in 2010, and the four months recovery time from the fracture to an arm.

Where there's a blame ^_~

taffys said:

Teachers, priests, celebrities...

Indeed. We could dispute who or what renders or rendered the above groups 'untouchable' in the eyes of the law.

In the case of Pakistani muslims, however, the answer is clear. It was labour policy.

Then how come the Oxford cases occurred, when the relevant children's services were run by a Conservative council?

Socrates said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

his ratings are as bad as any President has been.

This is demonstrably untrue. You only need to go back one president.

Well yes fair enough...not exactly a glowing endorsement, being marginally more popular than George Bush Jnr.