politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON + LAB slump to record aggregate low in tonight’s Lord A
Comments
-
Gordon 1/7 SNP odds - biggest open secret that Salmond standing there?!0
-
It is huge amounts of different things:
-Numbers
-Donor culture and religion
-Support given to integration vs support given to non-integration
-Confidence and coherence of host culture that pulls immigrant toward aspiring to it (We haven't had American style self-confidence since when? Before I was born certainly)
-Education
And I'm sure many more that I can't bring to mind.0 -
Quite. And yet the whole debate is about Poles - who are a threat to no-one, who fought for us and a free Poland in WW2 and were then betrayed - and who come here to work rather than the Abu Qatada's of this world. We would do better to concentrate on deterring or getting rid of the latter and welcoming and appreciating the former.foxinsoxuk said:
It is easier to integrate 100 Polish hotel staff than 10 Jihadis.Cyclefree said:
Numbers are important but what they believe - in the widest sense - does matter, if it is so very different to and hostile to what we believe.isam said:
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demandCyclefree said:
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
0 -
Interesting comment, Nick. I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought his ministerial career was remarkably ineffective, possibly through no fault of his own - no one messes with Mrs May. Surely Steve Webb, Ed Davey, David Laws and Danny Alexander - and even Chris Huhne before his little difficult - have been far more effective, whether or not you agree with them.NickPalmer said:Sorry to see Norman Baker go - the most effective LibDem minister by a clear margin (yes, I said it several times when he was a Minister).
What do you think was effective about his time in office?0 -
I think this is where I hand you your metaphorical UKIP sign up forms and ask you to join Nigel's Barmy Army!Cyclefree said:
I think this is changing. I hope so, for my childrens' sake!Luckyguy1983 said:
Oh, I quite agree. But tolerate it we have. And continue to do so.Cyclefree said:Luckyguy1983 said:
And if they are profoundly ideologically opposed to the benefactor, they may choose to use their largesse and turn it against them. UKIP in the European Parliament being one example. A sharia supporting Muslim wanting to establish a caliphate in the UK being another. Whether this is right or wrong depends entirely on your point of view. The onus is on the benefactor to tolerate it or not.foxinsoxuk said:
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
I don't think it is a question of tolerance but of survival. No country can long survive if a significant body of its population shuns its laws for a competing system of law which is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of that country's beliefs and values. Sharia law is such a system and the growth of sharia courts covering family, divorce and, in some reported cases, criminal matters is a significant challenge to the sovereignty of English law. History shows us that this is untenable in the long term.
When in Rome ..... and all that.
Tolerance of an aggressive challenge to the very basis of our civilization and culture is not toleration but moral weakness and cowardice and will harm us. And I have no hesitation in saying - as I did at the time - that I thought the former of Archbishop of Canterbury was talking utter balls when he said that we ought to permit and welcome sharia law into our country. The idea that we ought to have different legal systems for British citizens based purely on their religion is hokum and dangerous with it.
0 -
Mr Baker 9/2 on favourite to hold Lewes with Ladbrokes if you fancy it. Personally, I don't expect him to have too many problems in holding it fairly comfortably.volcanopete said:Norman Baker has made me eat my words.In the next to leave the cabinet thread I said they enjoyed their perks too much.Norman Baker has I'm pleased to say proved me wrong.To go on evidence-based policy grounds is a superb bonus-must make him nailed-on to win Lewes as local hero.The man's got the street cred to know what's been happening on the mean streets of Lewes.
Well done Mr Baker.0 -
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.0 -
No, I am asking that religious institutions are funded without discrimination to the same level as other institutions or organisations.kle4 said:
And from those who are not. If people of religious conviction want the government to spend more on or offer relief to their particular faith they can vote accordingly if they think that isn't being done I guess, and if other people want no tax money being spent or relief offered to religious institutions they can vote accordingly as well, but the government has no obligation to spend a lot on things religious people of X would like just because that's where the money partly came from. They're free to do it, but they can choose to review that or be lobbied by others to review that with no problem, it's a free country.Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am quite happy for end.Ninoinoz said:
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to bral. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is far too easanisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.Ninoinoz said:
Really? Ever heard of charities?Richard_Tyndall said:
The point being that they d like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.Ninoinoz said:
I see this site has some aand vote?JohnLilburne said:
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.Socrates said:
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.NickPalmer said:Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
Apparently yes.
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
.
The public treasury isn't a Guardianista slush fund, as those on the Left increasingly think.0 -
The crucial point missing there is that the 10 Jihadis are mutations from the mass immigration of millions of people that haven't integratedfoxinsoxuk said:
It is easier to integrate 100 Polish hotel staff than 10 Jihadis.Cyclefree said:
Numbers are important but what they believe - in the widest sense - does matter, if it is so very different to and hostile to what we believe.isam said:
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demandCyclefree said:
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe0 -
You seem to believe it is, only so long as your pet projects and institutions are funded instead. It only seems fair it apply the other way as well in that case. Personally I would rather the public treasury not be used in that fashion for either side, but if you are arguing for it for one side because you personally see it as important, that same logic applies to the other side as far as I can see.Ninoinoz said:
No, I am asking that religious institutions are funded without discrimination to the same level as other institutions or organisations.kle4 said:
AnNinoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am quite happy for end.Ninoinoz said:
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to bral. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is far too easanisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.Ninoinoz said:
Really? Ever heard of charities?Richard_Tyndall said:
The point being that they d like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.Ninoinoz said:
I see this site has some aand vote?JohnLilburne said:
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.Socrates said:
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.NickPalmer said:Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
Apparently yes.
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
.
The public treasury isn't a Guardianista slush fund, as though on the Left increasingly think.
The same justifications apply, you just disagree about where the money ends up. And while we permit that sort of spending and relief, for those justifications, for one side, I don't see why it should be disallowed for the other, and people can lobby to their heart's content to that effect.
And with that, good night all.
0 -
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.0 -
Norman Baker is in no danger in Lewes. Although the Conservative candidate Maria Caulfield is doing a sterling job, and is likely to cut his majority considerably, Norman has a very large personal vote and the seat is safe for the LibDems. If he were to retire it might be a realistic target.0
-
In response to Lucky Guy who said this:
"I think this is where I hand you your metaphorical UKIP sign up forms and ask you to join Nigel's Barmy Army!"
I don't think so. I'm a child of immigrants. UKIP strike me as the sort of party that wants to go back to the days when there was an "Aliens" channel at Dover or Folkestone when you got off the ferry for those of us not with a British passport. My mother hated having to explain to the supercilious passport officer why she was trying to come into the country.
But I do think that the penny is beginning to drop among some that there is a serious problem with the integration of a part (not all) of the Muslim community in this country and that if we don't deal with it sensibly it will continue to cause problems which will themselves worsen.
0 -
Is the inference ''allowed to break our laws''? I do not agree with that in the least.kle4 said:
A lot of sense being written tonight.foxinsoxuk said:
Cyclefree for PM! My thoughts precisely.Cyclefree said:
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
You do not have to be a Pakistani to be a criminal. There are lots of criminals who break our laws. If they have not been found guilty yet then thats not because they have been ''allowed to get away with it.0 -
Though it is much more about openness and willingness to mix than anything. Philipino Nurses integrate well and threaten no one.Cyclefree said:
Quite. And yet the whole debate is about Poles - who are a threat to no-one, who fought for us and a free Poland in WW2 and were then betrayed - and who come here to work rather than the Abu Qatada's of this world. We would do better to concentrate on deterring or getting rid of the latter and welcoming and appreciating the former.foxinsoxuk said:
It is easier to integrate 100 Polish hotel staff than 10 Jihadis.Cyclefree said:
Numbers are important but what they believe - in the widest sense - does matter, if it is so very different to and hostile to what we believe.isam said:
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demandCyclefree said:
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
0 -
A damning indictment of the Lib Dem front bench, most of whom have been anonymous or worse.Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting comment, Nick. I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought his ministerial career was remarkably ineffective, possibly through no fault of his own - no one messes with Mrs May. Surely Steve Webb, Ed Davey, David Laws and Danny Alexander - and even Chris Huhne before his little difficult - have been far more effective, whether or not you agree with them.NickPalmer said:Sorry to see Norman Baker go - the most effective LibDem minister by a clear margin (yes, I said it several times when he was a Minister).
What do you think was effective about his time in office?
0 -
The old fashioned way, Nino!Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.
0 -
Fair enough. All or none.kle4 said:
You seem to believe it is, only so long as your pet projects and institutions are funded instead. It only seems fair it apply the other way as well in that case. Personally I would rather the public treasury not be used in that fashion either way, but if you are arguing for it one sense because you personally see yours as important, that same logic applies to the other side.Ninoinoz said:
No, I am asking that religious institutions are funded without discrimination to the same level as other institutions or organisations.kle4 said:
AnNinoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am quite happy for end.Ninoinoz said:
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to bral. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is far too easanisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.Ninoinoz said:
Really? Ever heard of charities?Richard_Tyndall said:
The point being that they d like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.Ninoinoz said:
I see this site has some aand vote?JohnLilburne said:
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.Socrates said:
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.NickPalmer said:Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
Apparently yes.
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
.
The public treasury isn't a Guardianista slush fund, as though on the Left increasingly think.
But, I've a funny feeling that there will be more religious institutions than secular humanist ones.0 -
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.
0 -
Interesting last few weeks on the financial markets, including today where the USDJPY ramp up over 114 failed to ignite the equity trade as it usually does. Now looking for a 2nd leg of the correction into mid-late November (around the time for Dirty Dicks) and then looking to reload long on US markets after that. Retail participation in this rally is still minimal, although I expect it to change over the next year into the great turning point of 1st October next year. Can the Dow get to 24k / 25k by then?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/03/24717/
No surprise the recent weakness in gold to crack below $1200. Would like to see $875-910 level offered around 1st October next year. Got late 2015 pinned as a major low in gold before it should rally to somewhere north of $5,000. Its going to be a great bull wave to surf when the time comes, but not yet, as a hedge against the upcoming global sovereign debt crisis.
0 -
TimB Some late Senate polls out tonight UK time
NH Senate WMUR/UNH Shaheen D 49 Brown R 48
NE College Shaheen 48 Brown 49
Quinnipiac Iowa Senate Ernst R 47 Braley D 47
Quinnipiac Colorado Senate Gardner R 45 Udall D 43
NC Senate Harper (R) Hagan D 44 Tillis R 46
Georgia Senate Survey USA Perdue R 47 Nunn D 44
Georgia Senate WSB-TV/Landmark Perdue 50 Nunn 46
Alaska Senate PPP Sullivan R 46 Begich D 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/
It is possible control could not be decided until January with run-offs in Louisiana and Georgia
0 -
Does the Church of England count as secular humanist these days? :-)Ninoinoz said:
Fair enough. All or none.kle4 said:
You seem to believe it is, only so long as your pet projects and institutions are funded instead. It only seems fair it apply the other way as well in that case. Personally I would rather the public treasury not be used in that fashion either way, but if you are arguing for it one sense because you personally see yours as important, that same logic applies to the other side.Ninoinoz said:
No, I am asking that religious institutions are funded without discrimination to the same level as other institutions or organisations.kle4 said:
AnNinoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am quite happy for end.Ninoinoz said:
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to bral. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.Richard_Tyndall said:
It is far too easanisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.Ninoinoz said:
Really? Ever heard of charities?Richard_Tyndall said:
The point being that they d like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.Ninoinoz said:
I see this site has some aand vote?JohnLilburne said:
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.Socrates said:
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.NickPalmer said:Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
Apparently yes.
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
.
The public treasury isn't a Guardianista slush fund, as though on the Left increasingly think.
But, I've a funny feeling that there will be more religious institutions than secular humanist ones.0 -
Steve Webb has been without doubt (whether you agree with everything he has done or not and I certainly dont) the best Pension Minister the UK has had in 20+ years (for as long as I remember Pension Ministers anyway).Grandiose said:
A damning indictment of the Lib Dem front bench, most of whom have been anonymous or worse.Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting comment, Nick. I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought his ministerial career was remarkably ineffective, possibly through no fault of his own - no one messes with Mrs May. Surely Steve Webb, Ed Davey, David Laws and Danny Alexander - and even Chris Huhne before his little difficult - have been far more effective, whether or not you agree with them.NickPalmer said:Sorry to see Norman Baker go - the most effective LibDem minister by a clear margin (yes, I said it several times when he was a Minister).
What do you think was effective about his time in office?
Like him or not one has to respect Danny Alexander's handling of the CST role and being part of the Quad after being unexpectedly flung into it.
Davey but particularly Huhne managed to get their agenda across at DECC in the face of great opposition from Government benches.
I dont know where Richard was going with the anonymous / dodgy Laws.
0 -
In April this year antifrank reported the SNP as being 11/8 with Ladbrokes to win Gordon ...... how things have changed since then!hunchman said:Gordon 1/7 SNP odds - biggest open secret that Salmond standing there?!
0 -
I should have been clearer that the bit that struck the biggest chord with me was this paragraph "too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women". I do sometimes think that not all cultural practices are equal, some are not acceptable or compatible with each other (and British cultural practice is not always going to be superior to other cultures of course, we can learn much from other cultures), and that it does appear, most regrettably and not referencing specific cultures here because I do not feel qualified to have that debate, there has been a tendency to ignore the darker aspects of our and other cultures that have enriched ours by coming here.Flightpath said:
Is the inference ''allowed to break our laws''? I do not agree with that in the least.kle4 said:
A lot of sense being written tonight.foxinsoxuk said:
Cyclefree for PM! My thoughts precisely.Cyclefree said:
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.taffys said:''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
You do not have to be a Pakistani to be a criminal. There are lots of criminals who break our laws. If they have not been found guilty yet then thats not because they have been ''allowed to get away with it.
Now I really must be off. Good debating all.
0 -
Apart from Chris Huhne, all of the above have been fine ministers; and at least as goox as their Conservativd fellows or Labour Shadow cabinet.Grandiose said:
A damning indictment of the Lib Dem front bench, most of whom have been anonymous or worse.Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting comment, Nick. I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought his ministerial career was remarkably ineffective, possibly through no fault of his own - no one messes with Mrs May. Surely Steve Webb, Ed Davey, David Laws and Danny Alexander - and even Chris Huhne before his little difficult - have been far more effective, whether or not you agree with them.NickPalmer said:Sorry to see Norman Baker go - the most effective LibDem minister by a clear margin (yes, I said it several times when he was a Minister).
What do you think was effective about his time in office?
And (though I might have mentioned it once or twice) Liz Kendall is Labours ascending star of the new generation.0 -
peter_from_putney said:
In April this year antifrank reported the SNP as being 11/8 with Ladbrokes to win Gordon ...... how things have changed since then!hunchman said:Gordon 1/7 SNP odds - biggest open secret that Salmond standing there?!
That was before Malcolm Bruce announced his intention to step down though, which did change the whole equation rather radically!peter_from_putney said:
In April this year antifrank reported the SNP as being 11/8 with Ladbrokes to win Gordon ...... how things have changed since then!hunchman said:Gordon 1/7 SNP odds - biggest open secret that Salmond standing there?!
0 -
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.0 -
Don't even THINK of a runoff! It will be January 6 next year. LA is next month. If GA turns out to be the key seat the next 2 months will be unimaginable.HYUFD said:TimB Some late Senate polls out tonight UK time
NH Senate WMUR/UNH Shaheen D 49 Brown R 48
NE College Shaheen 48 Brown 49
Quinnipiac Iowa Senate Ernst R 47 Braley D 47
Quinnipiac Colorado Senate Gardner R 45 Udall D 43
NC Senate Harper (R) Hagan D 44 Tillis R 46
Georgia Senate Survey USA Perdue R 47 Nunn D 44
Georgia Senate WSB-TV/Landmark Perdue 50 Nunn 46
Alaska Senate PPP Sullivan R 46 Begich D 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/
It is possible control could not be decided until January with run-offs in Louisiana and Georgia
Campaign highlight - I went to a Perdue meeting and got to meet Mitt Romney. I suspect there is considerable buyer's remorse about 2012.
He is far and away the most requested campaigner in either party and has been to 27 states.
His big thing is that if the GOP get the Senate they have to start getting things done fast and have a coherent program.0 -
If celibate Catholic priests, brothers and nuns can get their hands on kids to teach I'm sure the gays can figure it out too, Nino.Ninoinoz said:
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.
0 -
OK, I have a special interest here. There are two issues on animal experiments which virtually everyone says they agree about but nothing ever gets done because of reluctance to bother to change. One is that it should be possible for the approved project licences to be published (with redaction of names and places and anything commercially confidential) so that we can have an informed debate on what should and shouldn't be licenced. The other is that animal testing of household products like loo cleaner should no longer be required, for the same reasons as for cosmetics (they're exactly the same tests with exactly the same replacements and actually less personal exposure than cosmetics).Richard_Nabavi said:
Interesting comment, Nick. I'm genuinely surprised. I'd have thought his ministerial career was remarkably ineffective, possibly through no fault of his own - no one messes with Mrs May. Surely Steve Webb, Ed Davey, David Laws and Danny Alexander - and even Chris Huhne before his little difficult - have been far more effective, whether or not you agree with them.NickPalmer said:Sorry to see Norman Baker go - the most effective LibDem minister by a clear margin (yes, I said it several times when he was a Minister).
What do you think was effective about his time in office?
Norman Baker, with his record on transparency and animal protection, insisted that both issues should be sorted out before the election, and got general consent to do so by simple affirmative committee procedure in the next four months. I've never seen a clearer case of Ministerial decision-making overcoming bureaucratic sluggishness. Whether either will now happen must be open to doubt.
0 -
Can't see much changing if Boehner stays there regardless of the result.Tim_B said:
Don't even THINK of a runoff! It will be January 6 next year. LA is next month. If GA turns out to be the key seat the next 2 months will be unimaginable.HYUFD said:TimB Some late Senate polls out tonight UK time
NH Senate WMUR/UNH Shaheen D 49 Brown R 48
NE College Shaheen 48 Brown 49
Quinnipiac Iowa Senate Ernst R 47 Braley D 47
Quinnipiac Colorado Senate Gardner R 45 Udall D 43
NC Senate Harper (R) Hagan D 44 Tillis R 46
Georgia Senate Survey USA Perdue R 47 Nunn D 44
Georgia Senate WSB-TV/Landmark Perdue 50 Nunn 46
Alaska Senate PPP Sullivan R 46 Begich D 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/
It is possible control could not be decided until January with run-offs in Louisiana and Georgia
Campaign highlight - I went to a Perdue meeting and got to meet Mitt Romney. I suspect there is considerable buyer's remorse about 2012.
He is far and away the most requested campaigner in either party and has been to 27 states.
His big thing is that if the GOP get the Senate they have to start getting things done fast and have a coherent program.
As for 2016 POTUS election, I'm looking out for the rise of a 3rd party - most likely IMHO at this present moment in time to be a forerunner to the Tea Party movement, with a disastrous Republican split allowing Hilary to get in on a very low % of the vote. Her husband managed it with 42 or 43% back in 1992 thanks to Ross Perot, history could be likely to repeat there.0 -
Sky Bet under 50% turnout in Rochester at 5/6 is a gift from the Gods0
-
Agreed. D-day-17 - can't wait.isam said:Sky Bet under 50% turnout in Rochester at 5/6 is a gift from the Gods
Defection watch seems to have gone quiet of recent times. What price a Tory defecting in the run up to Rochester rather than in the immediate aftermath? That would be brave, but surely value in the idea?
Meanwhile the chameleon is back!
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/camerons-lies-reach-point-of-no-return.html
Good night all0 -
Boehner runs the House and that's not the problem. The House has passed scads of bills. Harry Reid will not bring anything to the Senate floor for a vote. That's the problem.hunchman said:
Can't see much changing if Boehner stays there regardless of the result.Tim_B said:
Don't even THINK of a runoff! It will be January 6 next year. LA is next month. If GA turns out to be the key seat the next 2 months will be unimaginable.HYUFD said:TimB Some late Senate polls out tonight UK time
NH Senate WMUR/UNH Shaheen D 49 Brown R 48
NE College Shaheen 48 Brown 49
Quinnipiac Iowa Senate Ernst R 47 Braley D 47
Quinnipiac Colorado Senate Gardner R 45 Udall D 43
NC Senate Harper (R) Hagan D 44 Tillis R 46
Georgia Senate Survey USA Perdue R 47 Nunn D 44
Georgia Senate WSB-TV/Landmark Perdue 50 Nunn 46
Alaska Senate PPP Sullivan R 46 Begich D 45
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate/
It is possible control could not be decided until January with run-offs in Louisiana and Georgia
Campaign highlight - I went to a Perdue meeting and got to meet Mitt Romney. I suspect there is considerable buyer's remorse about 2012.
He is far and away the most requested campaigner in either party and has been to 27 states.
His big thing is that if the GOP get the Senate they have to start getting things done fast and have a coherent program.
As for 2016 POTUS election, I'm looking out for the rise of a 3rd party - most likely IMHO at this present moment in time to be a forerunner to the Tea Party movement, with a disastrous Republican split allowing Hilary to get in on a very low % of the vote. Her husband managed it with 42 or 43% back in 1992 thanks to Ross Perot, history could be likely to repeat there.0 -
TimB Interesting that you got to meet Mitt, a CNN poll I have previously posted showed he would beat Obama today (albeit Kerry also beat Bush in a rematch). Hillary would still Romney
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/cnn-poll-romney-tops-obama-but-loses-to-clinton/
I think with with a Libertarian candidate in Georgia and a Tea Party candidate in Louisiana both could well go to run-offs0 -
I've updated my Twitter links page for Labour candidates. Found personal Twitter pages for 473 candidates and a further 30 for the local party where there wasn't a personal page. (562 Labour candidates have been selected in total so far).
http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDR1NHZVS0ozZkpaYVlPV2d4WHR5ZXc&usp=drive_web#gid=00 -
Well, they have a church to provide them.Neil said:
If celibate Catholic priests, brothers and nuns can get their hands on kids to teach I'm sure the gays can figure it out too, Nino.Ninoinoz said:
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.
What do you have, apart from your usual dumbass answers?0 -
hunchman The Donald is making moves again to woo the Tea Party right, 'Donald Trump calls Obama Israel's greatest enemy' http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.624269
There could also be a challenge from the left from Sanders, he will at least challenge Hillary in the primaries0 -
My guess for turnout in Rochester is 45%.0
-
-
That sounds slightly complacent to me. A large number of protest votes which previously went to Baker could move to UKIP, sharply cutting his majority.Richard_Nabavi said:Norman Baker is in no danger in Lewes. Although the Conservative candidate Maria Caulfield is doing a sterling job, and is likely to cut his majority considerably, Norman has a very large personal vote and the seat is safe for the LibDems. If he were to retire it might be a realistic target.
0 -
Not on dvd yet, and I don't do streaming. It's now on my q.HYUFD said:0 -
Our God will provide, Nino. In the end we are all children of Adam and Steve so that pair of old queens did ok for themselves, didnt they?Ninoinoz said:
What do you have, apart from your usual dumbass answers?Neil said:
If celibate Catholic priests, brothers and nuns can get their hands on kids to teach I'm sure the gays can figure it out too, Nino.Ninoinoz said:
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.0 -
I sincerely hope not - it would be a shame if PBers were unable to discern his ARSE from my ELBOW...isam said:Is JackW really ill or something?
0 -
TimB Well when you do get round to watching it you should find it interesting, offered a real insight into the man and he came across quite well on the whole. Did you get to chat to him when you met him?0
-
Capitals are in the original. The final published headline figures include this adjustment, and so are not directly comparable with the figures that Sunil calculated from the table.OblitusSumMe said:
When you look at the tables it says this:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:
This is the first poll for years with all three under 30%Jonathan said:Appalling poll for Lab, Con and LD.
I hope they do something about it.
There is a rounding error in the headline numbers, it would seem.THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS
I did make an adjustment for Don't Know/Refused as per ICM.
I get:
Con 29.73
Lab 29.550 -
Piers Morgan sticks the knife into Obama in The Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819111/Piers-Morgan-Ten-reasons-bluffing-boring-blame-pointing-Obama-expect-deserved-shellacking-midterm-elections.html0 -
I did make an adjustment for Don't Know/Refused as per ICM.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Capitals are in the original. The final published headline figures include this adjustment, and so are not directly comparable with the figures that Sunil calculated from the table.OblitusSumMe said:
When you look at the tables it says this:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:
This is the first poll for years with all three under 30%Jonathan said:Appalling poll for Lab, Con and LD.
I hope they do something about it.
There is a rounding error in the headline numbers, it would seem.THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS
I get:
Con 29.73
Lab 29.55Ashcroft must make a different adjustment?0 -
One can dream.Easterross said:
However my prediction of Labour being 25-28% at the GE is starting to look good.
0 -
If anything could shore up his 2nd term and eventual reputation it has to be this.HYUFD said:Piers Morgan sticks the knife into Obama in The Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819111/Piers-Morgan-Ten-reasons-bluffing-boring-blame-pointing-Obama-expect-deserved-shellacking-midterm-elections.html
0 -
HYUFD said:
TimB Well when you do get round to watching it you should find it interesting, offered a real insight into the man and he came across quite well on the whole. Did you get to chat to him when you met him?
Only for a minute or two - as the only guy there with an English accent it gives me a certain oddity benefit. Plus I knew some folks.HYUFD said:TimB Well when you do get round to watching it you should find it interesting, offered a real insight into the man and he came across quite well on the whole. Did you get to chat to him when you met him?
He comes across as genuine and honest and wholesome.
It was the same when I met Bill Clinton for the first time. He came to Augusta when running for the first time and I got to meet him.
A decade later I was living near Harrogate and attending a function when he was speaking at a Yorkshire Forward conference. He was playing golf at the same location and then worked the crowd. When he got to me we shook hands and then he asked if we had met before. I was impressed. Wouldn't vote for him though.0 -
It looks like dumbass answers is all you have.Neil said:
Our God will provide, Nino. In the end we are all children of Adam and Steve so that pair of old queens did ok for themselves, didnt they?Ninoinoz said:
What do you have, apart from your usual dumbass answers?Neil said:
If celibate Catholic priests, brothers and nuns can get their hands on kids to teach I'm sure the gays can figure it out too, Nino.Ninoinoz said:
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.0 -
I'm not a Piers fan but the article is quite accurate. People are already talking of a failed presidency. Yes, it's that bad.Neil said:
If anything could shore up his 2nd term and eventual reputation it has to be this.HYUFD said:Piers Morgan sticks the knife into Obama in The Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819111/Piers-Morgan-Ten-reasons-bluffing-boring-blame-pointing-Obama-expect-deserved-shellacking-midterm-elections.html
Remember the Washington Post awarded him Liar of the Year for 20130 -
Was Norman Baker's resignation planned a year ago?
Do the Lib Dems have a master plan which amonst other things was to plant Norman Baker at the Home Office and get him to resign on the drugs issue at the best time to make their point against May and Conservatives?
What else might be in such a master plan?0 -
Ashcroft must make a different adjustment?OblitusSumMe said:
I did make an adjustment for Don't Know/Refused as per ICM.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Capitals are in the original. The final published headline figures include this adjustment, and so are not directly comparable with the figures that Sunil calculated from the table.OblitusSumMe said:
When you look at the tables it says this:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:
This is the first poll for years with all three under 30%Jonathan said:Appalling poll for Lab, Con and LD.
I hope they do something about it.
There is a rounding error in the headline numbers, it would seem.THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS
I get:
Con 29.73
Lab 29.55
OK let me double check. I think I might have used "would not vote" instead of "Don't know" by mistake - it happens!
I used the sample 516 as the "base"
Lab 153
Con 151
UKIP 85
LD 48
2010 Don't knows:
Lab 8 (50% = 4)
Con 17 (50% = 9 rounded up)
LD 15 (50% = 8 rounded up)
running totals:
base = 516 + 4+ 9 + 8 = 537
Lab = 153 + 4 = 157
Con = 151 + 9 = 160
UKIP = 85
LD = 48 + 8 = 56
2010 refuseds:
Lab 2 (50% = 1)
Con 4 (50% = 2)
LD 3 (50% = 2 rounded up)
final totals:
base = 537 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 542
Lab = 157 + 1 = 158
Con = 160 + 2 = 162
UKIP = 85
LD = 56 + 2 = 58
Lab % = 158/542 *100 = 29.15
Con % = 162/542 * 100 = 29.89
UKIP% = 85/542 * 100 = 15.68
LD% =58/542 * 100 = 10.70
Con 29.89
Lab 29.15
UKIP 15.68
LD 10.70
So rounding up, Con is 30%, but as you can see above, they have to be rounded UP. Both Lab and Con actually sub-30%. Oh and LDs should really be rounded up to 11%.
0 -
Fox News is reporting that the White House knew the location of James Foley and the other ISIS hostages in May but the WH wouldn't OK the rescue mission until July.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/03/was-foley-rescue-delayed-administration-had-strong-intelligence-on-hostages/0 -
PPP Final Senate polls have a tight race in almost all, narrow leads for Perdue in GA, Hagan in NC, Shaheen in NH, Orman in Kansas and Ernst in Iowa
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/toss-ups-abound-in-ga-nc-nh-ks-ia.html0 -
Is that the same Piers Morgan who knew absolutely nothing about phone hacking that never happened at the Mirror - or another Piers Morgan?Neil said:
If anything could shore up his 2nd term and eventual reputation it has to be this.HYUFD said:Piers Morgan sticks the knife into Obama in The Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819111/Piers-Morgan-Ten-reasons-bluffing-boring-blame-pointing-Obama-expect-deserved-shellacking-midterm-elections.html
Perhaps its another one, with better powers of observation?
0 -
That and a huge crush on you, Nino. Tell me you're coming to Dirty Dicks, I love the ones who play hard to get.Ninoinoz said:
It looks like dumbass answers is all you have.Neil said:
Our God will provide, Nino. In the end we are all children of Adam and Steve so that pair of old queens did ok for themselves, didnt they?Ninoinoz said:
What do you have, apart from your usual dumbass answers?Neil said:
If celibate Catholic priests, brothers and nuns can get their hands on kids to teach I'm sure the gays can figure it out too, Nino.Ninoinoz said:
Where will you get the kids to start with to get the track record? You'll need five years worth before the first GCSEs are sat.kle4 said:
Eh, if the teaching standards in general are good enough, people will overlook other aspects to get their kids in there. Lot of pressure on places at good schools after all.Ninoinoz said:
Go right ahead, Neil.Neil said:
How about a school run by the gays that teaches kids that god created Adam and Steve? Wide enough for you?Ninoinoz said:
A narrow construction, Neil.Neil said:
And some gays...Ninoinoz said:
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
I do wonder where you are going to get the kids from, though.0 -
TimBNeil Piers also had praise for Trump who is again making noises about a bid0
-
TimB Yes, some politicians have extremely good memories, Clinton being one and it makes a difference. I have met Farage twice and he remembered me from the first occasion, it does impress0
-
I am not a Piers fan at all - all I'm saying is that single article is fairly accurate. Maybe he just lucked out. Whether or not he is a fan of The Donald (really?) I could care less.HYUFD said:TimBNeil Piers also had praise for Trump who is again making noises about a bid
Trump always makes noises about running. Any man whose private plane is a Boeing 767 has an ego the size of a small galaxy. Even Jack Nicklaus only (!) has a Gulfstream 40 -
So I've updated the PB poll database thinggybob to include the greens (thanks to the legend who posted them on the wiki page!!):
http://goo.gl/9RfFdf
0 -
Neil Maybe not, but we should allow him his dreams.
TimB As a billionaire one thing Trump does have is the money to run, so he cannot be totally dismissed0 -
I was at the game as I'm a Palace season ticket holder.AndyJS said:Well done to Sunderland for winning against the odds tonight vs Crystal Palace.
Betting tip: wang some on Palace to go down.
0 -
If they were really capable of such joined-up thinking, they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.David_Evershed said:Was Norman Baker's resignation planned a year ago?
Do the Lib Dems have a master plan which amonst other things was to plant Norman Baker at the Home Office and get him to resign on the drugs issue at the best time to make their point against May and Conservatives?
What else might be in such a master plan?
This is all about Baker's ego and strange personal beliefs. It is not strategic.0 -
TimB I doubt he would get elected, but he could win some Tea Party votes and he would love the attention, he could be the Perot of 2016. I also think Sanders may run from the left0
-
Good old Bernie! He's about as electable as Trump. I doubt he has a 767 being a socialist. The interior of Trump's plane is almost unbelievable - luxurious. It was featured on Mighty Planes.HYUFD said:TimB I doubt he would get elected, but he could win some Tea Party votes and he would love the attention, he could be the Perot of 2016. I also think Sanders may run from the left
0 -
Sgt Tahmooressi freed from a Mexican jail today. Obama did nothing to help.
Yet he freed several from Gitmo to get back Bo Bergdahl, who had apparently deserted. His platoon do not want anything to do with him and have nothing good to say about him.0 -
Norman Baker was complaining about the lack of interest in evidence based policy at the Home Office unlike the Dept of Transport where he was previously. Evidence based policy is no doubt a strange concept to many politiciansoxfordsimon said:
If they were really capable of such joined-up thinking, they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.David_Evershed said:Was Norman Baker's resignation planned a year ago?
Do the Lib Dems have a master plan which amonst other things was to plant Norman Baker at the Home Office and get him to resign on the drugs issue at the best time to make their point against May and Conservatives?
What else might be in such a master plan?
This is all about Baker's ego and strange personal beliefs. It is not strategic.
0 -
TimB Well, Trump is the only President for whom Air Force One would be a downgrade. The contest I want to see is Clinton v Christie v Trump v Sanders, that would be a spectator sport!0
-
What about The Donald for veep? Now THAT would be worth watching. He would be the new Joe Biden :-)HYUFD said:TimB Well, Trump is the only President for whom Air Force One would be a downgrade. The contest I want to see is Clinton v Christie v Trump v Sanders, that would be a spectator sport!
- he wouldn't even need to plagiarise0 -
TimB Interesting idea, but I can't imagine The Donald ever agreeing to be anyone's Vice President, night on this midterms' eve!0
-
Fox News saying a new poll puts Ernst up by 7 in Iowa. Don't have details.
edit: Des Moines Register poll 51-44
Maybe Harkin saying she's as attractive as Taylor Swift and as nice as Mr Rodgers has had an effect. Can't believe Harkin knew who Taylor Swift was0 -
TimB LBJ Was not a billionaire. The Des Moines poll was out yesterday, Quinnipiac today has it tied in Iowa, PPP tonight Ernst +1, yougov over the weekend Braley +1. We will see tomorrow, night!0
-
The Democrats have lost this. There could well be a constitutional crisis should a spot on the SCOTUS emerge. Given recent form the GOP will ignore convention and block whoever is nominated.HYUFD said:PPP Final Senate polls have a tight race in almost all, narrow leads for Perdue in GA, Hagan in NC, Shaheen in NH, Orman in Kansas and Ernst in Iowa
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/11/toss-ups-abound-in-ga-nc-nh-ks-ia.html0 -
Socrates The Dems have lost it, but the GOP are not yet certain of an outright majority, particularly if Orman wins Kansas and LA and GA go to run-offs as looks likely, it may not be decided tomorrow. Night!0
-
Most of them prefer policy based evidence.....David_Evershed said:
Norman Baker was complaining about the lack of interest in evidence based policy at the Home Office unlike the Dept of Transport where he was previously. Evidence based policy is no doubt a strange concept to many politiciansoxfordsimon said:
If they were really capable of such joined-up thinking, they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.David_Evershed said:Was Norman Baker's resignation planned a year ago?
Do the Lib Dems have a master plan which amonst other things was to plant Norman Baker at the Home Office and get him to resign on the drugs issue at the best time to make their point against May and Conservatives?
What else might be in such a master plan?
This is all about Baker's ego and strange personal beliefs. It is not strategic.
0 -
Looking ahead, does Norman Baker's resignation make him an interesting bet for next leader? I know Tories recoil from him but they don't get to vote. A leftish former minister who fell out with Theresa May over liberalisation sounds quite an attractive deal for a LibDem voter.0
-
Obamacare alert - it's open enrollment. Spent an hour with my wife going though our options, which are many. Next year's plan has to meet Obamacare requirements.
Net result is that coverage is not quite as good - copays and deductibles up - and it's about 20% more expensive overall, working through our doctor visits and drugs this year so far under old and new plans.
The sort of decisions you need to make - you can get asthma medications free, but then your deductible for a doctor's visit goes up substantially by about $60. There are many others.
Price increase the last couple of (non-Obamacare) years was 4-6%.0 -
Obamacare alert - it's open enrollment. Spent an hour with my wife going though our options, which are many. Next year's plan has to meet Obamacare requirements.
Net result is that coverage is not quite as good - copays and deductibles up - and it's about 20% more expensive overall, working through our doctor visits and drugs this year so far under old and new plans.
The sort of decisions you need to make - you can get asthma medications free, but then your deductible for a doctor's visit goes up substantially by about $60. There are many others.
Price increase the last couple of (non-Obamacare) years was 4-6%.0
