politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week into the new year and the betting markets still very
Yesterday evening I was at the BBC offices next to parliament to record a discussion with Ipsos-MORI boss, Ben Page, about the coming election and what’s going to happen. This is due to go out on Radio 4’s “The Week in Westminster” programme at 11am on Saturday morning.
Comments
-
Première.0
-
If those numbers came true, we'd have a pretty weak government whatever happened, it seems.
I think the SNP may do better than suggested above, and UKIP/Labour a little worse.0 -
NOM a certainty. Everything else completely unpredictable.0
-
Mr. Punter, a great likelihood, but not a certainty. Still got a Greek election and potential eurowoe, the ongoing French situation (which may get worse) and any other black swan, as well as the debates, if they happen.
Edited extra bit: on the French situation, there's reportedly been an explosion in a kebab shop adjoining a mosque.0 -
I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.0
-
NOM nailed on.0
-
That still leaves them the option of returning immorally to government.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
0 -
Morals have nothing to do with FPTP elections.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
Bums on seats is the determining factor.
0 -
Not sure NOM a certainty. I still haven't discounted one of the two parties breaking out from the current stalemate. It would only take one or two events.Peter_the_Punter said:NOM a certainty. Everything else completely unpredictable.
Wouldn't take much to tip the current polling position into a Labour majority. And when you look at polls for seats like Southampton Itchen, Tory gains are not impossible either.
0 -
FPT
NickPalmer said:
To respond to False Flag, there are two different issues here. One, whether we should mock each others' beliefs, is a matter of taste, courtesy, context and individual judgment. The other, whether we should be physically attacked, even murdered, for whatever we decide, should not be open to debate. Of course we bloody shouldn't.
I remember when I was an MP someone had an exhibit in (I think) the ICA of Christ on a crucifix in a vase of urine. He was obviously trying to be provocative and upsetting, and he succeeded - I had lots of letters demanding that his exhibit should be banned. I made a distinction between what I thought about the exhibit (yuck) and what I thought about banning it (no). The same applies, 1000 times over, to murder, and I'd be surprised if anyone here really disagrees (but if they do, they're entitled to their opinions too).
Nick, I agree with you on this. What I have difficulty with is having such a position and then voting for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. That Act was an unacceptable restriction of free speech and one of the reasons at least some of the cartoons from the French publication are shown here in pixilated form is apprehension that showing them entire might well be an offence. The amendments to the Public Order Act included the following:
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.0 -
Morality goes out of the window when the egos of politicians come into play.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
0 -
fpt
A strikingly weak point. As Dr Johnson said, you can criticise a man for making a bad table though you couldn't make a better one yourself; it is not your business to make tables. Politicians and the press are making claims of leadership, fearlessness in the quest for truth, etc., which Socrates isn't. If they can't stand the heat even with the fortune spent on police protection for their homes (which would not be spent on Socrates' home if he acted as you propose), they are welcome to vacate the kitchen.SouthamObserver said:
Put your real name to those views and allow people to trace you to a work or home address and you may have a case for calling our ruling elite and media supine and pathetic. But someone accusing identifiable others of cowardice for not expressing certain views while posting anonymously on an internet message board could come across as a "chicken hawk".Socrates said:
Unbelievably pathetic. Our news media is supine and allows Muslim nutters to dictate what they will and will not publish, even items of legitimate public interest. And this all follows on from the refusal of our politicians to properly investigate Muslim rape gangs. It is a corrupt and decadent ruling elite that needs to be utterly replaced.AndyJS said:Post on the VoteUK discussion forum:
"The Guardian has a video of the policeman being shot on its website, but is apparently refusing to show the cartoon, on grounds of it being offensive."
At this point I have lost all sympathy with protecting Muslim sympathies. Muhammad was a child molesting war criminal. The facts about his appalling nature need to be made clear to all and sundry so people who choose to follow his brutal religion and politics do so fully knowing who they are endorsing.
law.scu.edu/wp-content/uploads/hightech/Wild,%20Joff.pdf0 -
Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.0 -
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
0 -
It's called democracy, what has a warped sense of 'morality' got to do with it? - If the electorate return a sufficient number of LibDem MPs at the GE2015 to form a coalition government, then so be it.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
0 -
I completely agree that this is the most unpredictable election I can recall. This far out in 2010 most would have expected a small Tory majority. In the event they fell just short but they were comfortably the largest party.
This time around even that is uncertain although I personally think that Labour are fairly strong favourites and become more so with every tied or MoE poll that comes out. If it wasn't for Scotland they would be fairly nailed on, possibly even for a majority.0 -
You're such a tease, Mr Smithson.0
-
Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....0
-
Not only that, that act is used by apologists to justify their action, it isn't of course justification, but why are we even giving them the opportunity to use it. It results in this sort of crap:DavidL said:This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
"If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising incitement & hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?"
Which he has since been pedalling in America as a "counterpoint"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
0 -
Sell Tory, Labour and LD a 5880
-
If it were a system based on morality then the 2010 resultSimonStClare said:
It's called democracy, what has a warped sense of 'morality' got to do with it? - If the electorate return a sufficient number of LibDem MPs at the GE2015 to form a coalition government, then so be it.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
C 32%, 306 seats,
LD 22%, 57 seats
wouldn't have been allowed to happen.0 -
Anyway, I got fed up of rummaging through bookmarks and googling inefficiently, so I've put together a page of links that I use frequently when investigating my bets. I'll try to update this from time to time:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/political-betting-resources.html
0 -
DavidL - there is to my mind another distinction here, between mocking someone's religion (a matter of taste, as I suggested on the previous thread) and inciting to hatred of its followers. The government has a right to try to prevent civil disorder, and stirring up hatred is clearly undesirable.
To move it to a less emotive area, I've no problem with someone saying that he thinks all Labour policies are ridiculous, but I would think it dubious if someone said that anyone who was Labour was a traitor who should be treated accordingly. In practice, this sort of thing mainly arises in the racial and religious area, which is why the Act is limited to those.
But I'll leave it there - need to do some work. On topic, I don't think PtP is right that NOM is nailed on - the Tory and Labour voting shares are pretty stable, but it's still hard to predict what will happen to the others.0 -
Any value in a 2nd election this year?0
-
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.0 -
Never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but, judging from our media last night and this morning, I will say it now for the first time: I think the French have more balls than the British.0
-
One final passing point - the renegotiation package seems to have been published:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/uk-report-short-shrift-sceptics-310993?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=490b60977d-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-490b60977d-245514803
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!0 -
Agreed. After the disgraceful Tony Barber article I hoped to wake up with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on front page of every UK paper. So far I have seen none.Casino_Royale said:Never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but, judging from our media last night and this morning, I will say it now for the first time: I think the French have more balls than the British.
0 -
More to the point, why does gaining or losing matter?SimonStClare said:
It's called democracy, what has a warped sense of 'morality' got to do with it? - If the electorate return a sufficient number of LibDem MPs at the GE2015 to form a coalition government, then so be it.OldKingCole said:I can’t see how, if the LDs lose 50% of their seats, how they can, morally, return to Government.
You've got X number of seats which indicates x amount of support (albeit via FPTP). The last election doesn't count anymore.
0 -
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
I'm sticking with my prediction of a hung hung parliament (where non two parties, apart from Lab+Con, could form a majority).
Two elections in 2015 looking interesting.0 -
I think plenty of Labour politicians and supporters are traitors. But if I said 'string 'em up' (don't think I ever have) i wouldn't actually mean that. The problem is that the act and its boundaries are so vague that people err on the side of caution, and just say nothing at all. I fail to see why longstanding public order acts against inciting general violence and criminal behaviour was insufficient. If I say, 'I hate Islam and think any decent human being should too, as its inhuman', fair cop. If I said, 'go all ye here and kill as many Muslims as you can', then that'd have been an offence under existing legislation.NickPalmer said:DavidL - there is to my mind another distinction here, between mocking someone's religion (a matter of taste, as I suggested on the previous thread) and inciting to hatred of its followers. The government has a right to try to prevent civil disorder, and stirring up hatred is clearly undesirable.
To move it to a less emotive area, I've no problem with someone saying that he thinks all Labour policies are ridiculous, but I would think it dubious if someone said that anyone who was Labour was a traitor who should be treated accordingly. In practice, this sort of thing mainly arises in the racial and religious area, which is why the Act is limited to those.
But I'll leave it there - need to do some work. On topic, I don't think PtP is right that NOM is nailed on - the Tory and Labour voting shares are pretty stable, but it's still hard to predict what will happen to the others.
You're on even weaker ground with the political example anyway, I'm afraid, because you're talking about political opinions and parties.
There's no doubt that the Tories were hated by millions by 1997, and plenty more still think they're lower than vermin - just read Commentisfree. Should those people all be locked up? No, of course not.0 -
The Hanretty, Lauderdale, Vivyan model currently has it even closer than Sporting at:
Lab ........ 284
Con ....... 281
SNP ........ 35
LibDems .. 25
UKIP ..........3
NI etc ...... 22
Total ...... 650
LibDem lovers here believe that their party are assured of winning at least 30-35 seats, whilst others are equally convinced that they could struggle to win half that number. At this stage, this is probably the last potential game changer. LibDems on 35 seats or more probably assures Labour of victory, however should the Yellows win 15 seats or fewer then the Tories are likely to win the most seats, although probably not an overall majority in either instance.0 -
Of course, you've published similar cartoons online in your own name. Haven't you?Casino_Royale said:Never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but, judging from our media last night and this morning, I will say it now for the first time: I think the French have more balls than the British.
0 -
Think Labour will be clearly the largest Party and this hapless PM will toddle off into the obscurity he deserves.TGOHF said:
Quite.BenM said:NOM nailed on.
SNP gain a few from Lab
Lab gain a few from LD
a few others shuffle about and the line up aint to much different from 2010 - status quo.
Con-LD coalition.0 -
0
-
I find myself agreeing with you most of the time. Scotland is what will stop a LAB majority.DavidL said:I completely agree that this is the most unpredictable election I can recall. This far out in 2010 most would have expected a small Tory majority. In the event they fell just short but they were comfortably the largest party.
This time around even that is uncertain although I personally think that Labour are fairly strong favourites and become more so with every tied or MoE poll that comes out. If it wasn't for Scotland they would be fairly nailed on, possibly even for a majority.
BTW What is your view of Inverness? Danny Alexander to hold on or a cert SNP gain?
0 -
0
-
Jesus:NickPalmer said:One final passing point - the renegotiation package seems to have been published:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/uk-report-short-shrift-sceptics-310993?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=490b60977d-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-490b60977d-245514803
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.0 -
OT -- Tesco has announced the closure of its staff pension scheme. A fitting response to all the till workers and shelf stackers who misreported profits in the annual accounts.0
-
It's a consultation, not a final ruling.TheScreamingEagles said:The full OFCOM ruling is here
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/major-parties-consultation/0 -
I doubt there will be any debates.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
Yup, I'm not very good at multi-tasking today.antifrank said:
It's a consultation, not a final ruling.TheScreamingEagles said:The full OFCOM ruling is here
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/major-parties-consultation/0 -
Being able to screw British workers out of decent work-life balance has been one of the number one demands of business people wanting powers back from the EU.Socrates said:
Jesus:NickPalmer said:One final passing point - the renegotiation package seems to have been published:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/uk-report-short-shrift-sceptics-310993?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=490b60977d-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-490b60977d-245514803
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.0 -
Yeah, I suspect the Nats and The Greens will bugger it up for the rest of us.TGOHF said:
I doubt there will be any debates.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
I agree. Cameron would be mad to agree debates in which UKIP feature but Greens don't.TGOHF said:
I doubt there will be any debates.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
Why not? Surely David Cameron will be confident he can out-debate Ed Miliband. He does it every week at PMQs (or so I read on pb).TGOHF said:
I doubt there will be any debates.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
0 -
Technically speaking the BBC decides for itself and could choose to class things differently from OFCOM, but it's very very unlikely.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
The issues at Tesco are larger than the profit misreporting.DecrepitJohnL said:OT -- Tesco has announced the closure of its staff pension scheme. A fitting response to all the till workers and shelf stackers who misreported profits in the annual accounts.
Plus, they've launched a raft of other changes,0 -
SMAPS says crushing SNP victory. To be honest that's what SMAPS says for most seats.MikeSmithson said:
I find myself agreeing with you most of the time. Scotland is what will stop a LAB majority.DavidL said:I completely agree that this is the most unpredictable election I can recall. This far out in 2010 most would have expected a small Tory majority. In the event they fell just short but they were comfortably the largest party.
This time around even that is uncertain although I personally think that Labour are fairly strong favourites and become more so with every tied or MoE poll that comes out. If it wasn't for Scotland they would be fairly nailed on, possibly even for a majority.
BTW What is your view of Inverness? Danny Alexander to hold on or a cert SNP gain?0 -
Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.0 -
On the bus this morning in West London, and the two electronic advertising hoardings I passed both had "JE SUIS CHARLIE" on them. Good for them.0
-
He won't want a party that has only 2Mps and their leader who isn't even an MP in the debates throwing their populist rocks around for cheap cheers.DecrepitJohnL said:
Why not? Surely David Cameron will be confident he can out-debate Ed Miliband. He does it every week at PMQs (or so I read on pb).TGOHF said:
I doubt there will be any debates.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
If the above is true then we have Edinburgh rule.Morris_Dancer said:If those numbers came true, we'd have a pretty weak government whatever happened, it seems.
I think the SNP may do better than suggested above, and UKIP/Labour a little worse.0 -
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
Don't you think this "own name" attempt to close down debate is wearing just a trifle thin ?TheWatcher said:
Of course, you've published similar cartoons online in your own name. Haven't you?Casino_Royale said:Never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but, judging from our media last night and this morning, I will say it now for the first time: I think the French have more balls than the British.
0 -
Having the Greens in the debates would screw Labour, so of course it is very very very unlikely that the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation would not follow OFCOMcorporeal said:
Technically speaking the BBC decides for itself and could choose to class things differently from OFCOM, but it's very very unlikely.TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/5531317692189900800 -
O/T, saw Foxcatcher. Steve Carrell as Du Pont in with a real shout for the Oscar for the Best Male Actor, but overall thought the film excrutiatingly slow, and way overloaded on the homo-eroticism around wrestling. Given the later life of Du Pont was dominated by him being utterly bat-shit crazy, the film strangely chooses to depict none of the well-catalogued manifestations of his paranoia.
Also Calvary, which was more sombre than In Bruges and The Guard, but a towering performance again from Brendan Gleeson.
I also caught up with the LEGO Movie. Which confirmed one thing.
Everything is awesome.0 -
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)Socrates said:
Jesus:NickPalmer said:One final passing point - the renegotiation package seems to have been published:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/uk-report-short-shrift-sceptics-310993?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=490b60977d-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-490b60977d-245514803
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.0 -
If the midpoint of the above is the result then which leader goes first - surely Ed is safe if he gets largest party. Farage has done OK and is now an MP along with a small cohort of others.
Lab + LD = 314, and the Lib Dems have had a poor night. But they know the other parties still need them to form a Government.
Cameron out as Tory leader but still PM maybe ?0 -
An interesting article that may apply just as much the UK as to the USA:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/06/have-we-already-reached-peak-leftism/0 -
Indeed, and on the bright side, now that another good one has closed, pb Tories will have even more ammunition when they compare public and private sector pensions.TheScreamingEagles said:
The issues at Tesco are larger than the profit misreporting.DecrepitJohnL said:OT -- Tesco has announced the closure of its staff pension scheme. A fitting response to all the till workers and shelf stackers who misreported profits in the annual accounts.
Plus, they've launched a raft of other changes,0 -
ICM conducted an opinion poll last year in Danny Alexander's constituency. It didn't make for pretty reading for him, putting him third, far behind the SNP:
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2014_libdems_inverness.pdf
However, it didn't prompt for him by name, so it's very doubtful whether it captures any incumbency advantage that he might have. But it predated the referendum, which seems to have given the SNP a further boost from earlier in the year.
My assumptions again put him in third, a bit behind Labour and far behind the SNP. But they only made partial allowance for an MP's incumbency.0 -
I find Inverness to be a complete split between my head and my heart.MikeSmithson said:
I find myself agreeing with you most of the time. Scotland is what will stop a LAB majority.DavidL said:I completely agree that this is the most unpredictable election I can recall. This far out in 2010 most would have expected a small Tory majority. In the event they fell just short but they were comfortably the largest party.
This time around even that is uncertain although I personally think that Labour are fairly strong favourites and become more so with every tied or MoE poll that comes out. If it wasn't for Scotland they would be fairly nailed on, possibly even for a majority.
BTW What is your view of Inverness? Danny Alexander to hold on or a cert SNP gain?
I would love Danny Alexander to hold on. He has been an extremely useful and loyal part of this government. I don't think the tories should even put up a candidate but should endorse Danny as the Unionist candidate (they won't).
As I said before yesterday's announcement I expect Danny to have a high profile in this election and that large numbers of people will find themselves agreeing with him if they bother to listen. That might help. He has the sort of balanced position between the extremes that the media like (esp the BBC).
My head says he has no chance. For him to hold on the SNP surge would have to fade to an extent I just can't see. If they are really going to storm the ramparts of SLAB's western fortresses they should take this seat at a canter. And I think they will.0 -
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need to field candidates in for it to qualify as a UK party?TheScreamingEagles said:The full OFCOM statement is here.
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/major-parties-consultation/0 -
It is, because much of the kipper vote is really NOTA and has sod all to do with Europe per se.TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
That poll didn't have a spiral of silence of adjustment either.antifrank said:ICM conducted an opinion poll last year in Danny Alexander's constituency. It didn't make for pretty reading for him, putting him third, far behind the SNP:
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2014_libdems_inverness.pdf
However, it didn't prompt for him by name, so it's very doubtful whether it captures any incumbency advantage that he might have. But it predated the referendum, which seems to have given the SNP a further boost from earlier in the year.
My assumptions again put him in third, a bit behind Labour and far behind the SNP. But they only made partial allowance for an MP's incumbency.0 -
For any point that ther Watcher actually understands well enough to recycle you can take it that the point is utterly simple, dead wrong and has worn thinner than Peason's second-best pair of trousis.Indigo said:
Don't you think this "own name" attempt to close down debate is wearing just a trifle thin ?TheWatcher said:
Of course, you've published similar cartoons online in your own name. Haven't you?Casino_Royale said:Never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but, judging from our media last night and this morning, I will say it now for the first time: I think the French have more balls than the British.
0 -
The odd thing about Cameron's demands is that they vaguely relate to trade matters (apart from the water standards) - things you might accept can be negotiated in a common market.
He could have asked for them a couple of years ago, when he promised the referendum, and we could have had the referendum by now.
So I ask again, why kick it into the long grass of 2017? And why not make any demands until now?
Yes, I suspect the answer is to keep the Tory Eurosceptics on board for the 2015 election.
I'd like to stay in a common market, the problem is the political union.
Do I trust Cameron? No. Will he hold a referendum in 2017? Yes, if he's in power, and he'll campaign for staying in even without any concessions.
My conclusion .. we are heading for political union even if it takes another decade.
0 -
Why should we vote for a party led by a man who has said he will never countenance us leaving the EU?TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
http://labourlist.org/2015/01/labour-to-publish-a-manifesto-for-women-because-most-women-see-politics-as-a-men-only-zone/
Just shows the priority of their leadership - will this manifesto include Muslim/African women's protection against FGM and Equality etc and how it will be enforced? Doubt it somehow as they will not want to upset their supporters0 -
And another chunk is Blue Labour (WVM) and will see liberal Conservatives in hell before they give them their votes.DecrepitJohnL said:
It is, because much of the kipper vote is really NOTA and has sod all to do with Europe per se.TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
0 -
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4316972.ece0 -
Dear Lord AboveRichard_Tyndall said:
Why should we vote for a party led by a man who has said he will never countenance us leaving the EU?TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
He will campaign for "IN". So effing what?!
You are surely not saying that Cam, the man vilified many times over, who is like a wet fish in wetland, Mr U-Turn himself, will be able to persuade the great people of these Isles to stay if they don't want to?
Really? He has that much power?
Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?0 -
So you are essentially admitting that there is no possible route for even an IN/OUT referendum. No party will allow a referendum other than the Tories. Unless you are bat-shit crazy enough to think that the Kippers are somehow going to stop being the most loathed party and somehow get either a majority, or just as unlikely, get the balance of power where they can force one of the other parties to give them what they want. Which appears to be a referendum where there is a guaranteed OUT result.Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
Just admit it. You don't REALLY want out. You just want the EU to be always there as a perpetual scapegoat for every ill that afflicts your life, rather than be put in your box by the British voters having taken the view that IN is the least worst result.0 -
Debates won't happen now surely?TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/553131769218990080
0 -
Them kippers. There's something about their faces....0
-
Not to mention is just plain sexist, ie treating people differently according their their gender and sex. Mind you we are good at turning blind eyes to right-on discrimination in the UK, anyone wonder how long a National White Police Association would last ?Financier said:http://labourlist.org/2015/01/labour-to-publish-a-manifesto-for-women-because-most-women-see-politics-as-a-men-only-zone/
Just shows the priority of their leadership - will this manifesto include Muslim/African women's protection against FGM and Equality etc and how it will be enforced? Doubt it somehow as they will not want to upset their supporters
0 -
Your belief in Cameron's super-powers is touching, if a little inconsistent.....Richard_Tyndall said:
Why should we vote for a party led by a man who has said he will never countenance us leaving the EU?TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.
0 -
Yet another excellent post Cyclefree. I thought your contributions yesterday were outstanding.Cyclefree said:Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.0 -
That's a big win for UKIP.GIN1138 said:
Debates won't happen now surely?TheScreamingEagles said:Damn you Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/553131769218990080
What is the basis for making UKIP major party but not the Greens ?
Polls, by-elections ?
I think that whilst tactical voting is a useful tool it can have drawbacks - and this demonstrates that possibly votes, not just seats do matter at some level.0 -
Here are the major* recommendations from the FreshStart's group on EU renegotiation, that people like Richard Nabavi have claimed would be a "good basis" for discussions:
- Reform structural funds, including a cap on the budget
- Repatriate regional spending for rich member states
- Entirely remove market support subsidies in Common Agricultural Policy
- Prepare ground for the removal of rural development subsidies
- Force a reduction in overall CAP budget
- Reduction in EU agricultural tariffs
- Repatriate UK's territorial waters from Common Fisheries Policy
- Half the fiscal cost of overall EU budget
- Removal from EU budget of funds for NGOs, pressure groups and taxpayer funded lobbying
- Deregulate or repatriate EU social & employment policy
- UK veto over all new financial regulation
- 'Yellow card' system where EU has to reconsider if one third of national parliaments reject proposal
- Opt out of policing and criminal justice measures
- Safeguards for EU immigration, such as requirement for self-sufficiency before given right to reside in another member state
So before negotiations have even started, out of these 14 measures, Cameron has given up entirely on 11 of them, and has retreated to half way demands on 2 more.
(*There were a lot more minor ones, but I didn't want to waste people's times with the minutiae.)0 -
What was it, best part of a couple of hundred years?Indigo said:
Not to mention is just plain sexist, ie treating people differently according their their gender and sex. Mind you we are good at turning blind eyes to right-on discrimination in the UK, anyone wonder how long a National White Police Association would last ?Financier said:http://labourlist.org/2015/01/labour-to-publish-a-manifesto-for-women-because-most-women-see-politics-as-a-men-only-zone/
Just shows the priority of their leadership - will this manifesto include Muslim/African women's protection against FGM and Equality etc and how it will be enforced? Doubt it somehow as they will not want to upset their supporters
0 -
How many people vote for the donkey in the red or blue rosette ? do you find it hard to believe that people will vote for the donkey that says it has repatriated a range of important powers (ie tinsel) for Britain, and stands on the stage next to his friends in business and the media telling everyone what a good deal it is, how it works for Britian, and how they should vote for it. I mean no one called say Heath did pretty much exactly that in the 70s, no siree.TOPPING said:Or do you think that while you are able to look at the issues critically and make your own mind up, regardless of what the politicians say, perhaps the great unwashed are not able to do so?
0 -
There is no majority in parliament for any negotiations now. That's why it has to be after 2015. And the big headlines over the new year was Cameron saying that if the referendum could be sooner then he was happy. So what really is your point?CD13 said:
The odd thing about Cameron's demands is that they vaguely relate to trade matters (apart from the water standards) - things you might accept can be negotiated in a common market.
He could have asked for them a couple of years ago, when he promised the referendum, and we could have had the referendum by now.
So I ask again, why kick it into the long grass of 2017? And why not make any demands until now?
Yes, I suspect the answer is to keep the Tory Eurosceptics on board for the 2015 election.
I'd like to stay in a common market, the problem is the political union.
Do I trust Cameron? No. Will he hold a referendum in 2017? Yes, if he's in power, and he'll campaign for staying in even without any concessions.
My conclusion .. we are heading for political union even if it takes another decade.
To me it makes sense to link negotiations in with the inevitable coming closer together of the Eurozone since we will not be part of that and any proposed 'closer union with the EU generally.
Your conclusion is wrong. With a tory govt we will not be part of a closer union. With Labour maybe. But if we do ever have a Labour govt wanting to be part of a closer union we will have a tory opposition campaigning against it - assuming Labour provide a referendum. So we can vote. Do you think it would be YES to closer union? I think the likely choice in a referendum 2017 is to leave the EU (for where?) or stay in with whatever reforms but out of the Euro and outside any closer political union. To me the latter choice is marginally better than the EEA, or any alternate trade deal we could get, but from trade and labour movement the EEA is little different to now.0 -
Why do you think that?Socrates said:So before negotiations have even started, out of these 14 measures, Cameron has given up entirely on 11 of them, and has retreated to half way demands on 2 more.
0 -
Seconded.DavidL said:
Yet another excellent post Cyclefree. I thought your contributions yesterday were outstanding.Cyclefree said:Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
0 -
I admire your optimism, at best it will be a narrow win for IN, and it will be a running sore for ever more just like the Scottish Referendum, if you think that will put it to bed for the duration, I think you haven't been watching closely enough.MarqueeMark said:Just admit it. You don't REALLY want out. You just want the EU to be always there as a perpetual scapegoat for every ill that afflicts your life, rather than be put in your box by the British voters having taken the view that IN is the least worst result.
0 -
O/T (But relevant) did the "bonfire of the quangoes" ever actually happen ?0
-
So, given that trade and labour movement are only a very small part of the EU these days what you are actually saying is that there is a huge difference between the EU and the EEA. Typical weasel words from Flightpath again.Flightpath said:
There is no majority in parliament for any negotiations now. That's why it has to be after 2015. And the big headlines over the new year was Cameron saying that if the referendum could be sooner then he was happy. So what really is your point?CD13 said:
The odd thing about Cameron's demands is that they vaguely relate to trade matters (apart from the water standards) - things you might accept can be negotiated in a common market.
He could have asked for them a couple of years ago, when he promised the referendum, and we could have had the referendum by now.
So I ask again, why kick it into the long grass of 2017? And why not make any demands until now?
Yes, I suspect the answer is to keep the Tory Eurosceptics on board for the 2015 election.
I'd like to stay in a common market, the problem is the political union.
Do I trust Cameron? No. Will he hold a referendum in 2017? Yes, if he's in power, and he'll campaign for staying in even without any concessions.
My conclusion .. we are heading for political union even if it takes another decade.
To me it makes sense to link negotiations in with the inevitable coming closer together of the Eurozone since we will not be part of that and any proposed 'closer union with the EU generally.
Your conclusion is wrong. With a tory govt we will not be part of a closer union. With Labour maybe. But if we do ever have a Labour govt wanting to be part of a closer union we will have a tory opposition campaigning against it - assuming Labour provide a referendum. So we can vote. Do you think it would be YES to closer union? I think the likely choice in a referendum 2017 is to leave the EU (for where?) or stay in with whatever reforms but out of the Euro and outside any closer political union. To me the latter choice is marginally better than the EEA, or any alternate trade deal we could get, but from trade and labour movement the EEA is little different to now.
0 -
Another kipper smoked out.TheScreamingEagles said:You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4316972.ece0 -
Nope, no belief in Superpowers, just a recognition that Cameron will make sure he uses his position as PM and leader of the Tories to keep us in the EU if he can. Why should I therefore vote for him or his party?MarqueeMark said:
Your belief in Cameron's super-powers is touching, if a little inconsistent.....Richard_Tyndall said:
Why should we vote for a party led by a man who has said he will never countenance us leaving the EU?TOPPING said:
They will have a much better chance of winning an OM if the Kippers, whose (sole?) raison d'etre is to get us out of Europe...actually voted for them...or is that too simple?Socrates said:
If you mean the Tories, then they don't have a chance to give us a referendum. They won't win a majority, and no potential coalition partners will allow a referendum.MarqueeMark said:
More to the point, euro-sceptics don't work in a logical way. They would rather we had a Government that refuses them a vote on an early IN/OUT referendum and forges ever more intractible ties to Brussels, than work to elect the one party in with a chance to give them what they say they crave.TOPPING said:
If euro-sceptics were logical, which of course they aren't, they would love every minute of Cam getting a shellacking by Merkel. Every ridiculously trivial regulation set to be repatriated. Every failure to achieve a stated aim.woody662 said:
Should have asked how many changes can we have to the EU rules, would have given us 9 areas to have a go at.Ishmael_X said:
What is hard about saying "nein"?Casino_Royale said:Read in the Metro that there was a lot of hard talking on the EU renegotiation between Cameron and Merkel yesterday.
The journalist was right: all the hard talking was done by Merkel.
And then vote Cons. To get the referendum they so desperately want. And then vote: "NO".
But of course the world does not work in a logical way.0 -
I mean one open now obviously.MarqueeMark said:
What was it, best part of a couple of hundred years?Indigo said:
Not to mention is just plain sexist, ie treating people differently according their their gender and sex. Mind you we are good at turning blind eyes to right-on discrimination in the UK, anyone wonder how long a National White Police Association would last ?Financier said:http://labourlist.org/2015/01/labour-to-publish-a-manifesto-for-women-because-most-women-see-politics-as-a-men-only-zone/
Just shows the priority of their leadership - will this manifesto include Muslim/African women's protection against FGM and Equality etc and how it will be enforced? Doubt it somehow as they will not want to upset their supporters
I think OGH should rename these forums PoliticalCheapPointScoring.com
0 -
No, I am admitting there is no possible route for an IN/OUT referendum in the next parliament. There is plenty of chance for a referendum in the parliament after that, as either a rejuvenated Tory party comes back with a more eurosceptic leader, Labour feels they need to give way on a referendum, and/or UKIP get a few dozen seats and demand it as part of a coalition. All of those things are made more likely by voting for UKIP now.MarqueeMark said:
So you are essentially admitting that there is no possible route for even an IN/OUT referendum. No party will allow a referendum other than the Tories. Unless you are bat-shit crazy enough to think that the Kippers are somehow going to stop being the most loathed party and somehow get either a majority, or just as unlikely, get the balance of power where they can force one of the other parties to give them what they want. Which appears to be a referendum where there is a guaranteed OUT result.
Stop flailing, you're embarrassing yourself. IN is clearly a worse result than OUT, as I and others have proven with logical argument again and again on this board. Our arguments are so strong that most IN supporters can't even attempt to refute them and have to resort to empty surface platitudes. That's why you endlessly try to change the subject to nonsense criticism about UKIP's real intentions, because the more discussion that focuses on the weaknesses of the EU and Cameron's refusal to adequately deal with them, the more your party looks appalling.MarqueeMark said:Just admit it. You don't REALLY want out. You just want the EU to be always there as a perpetual scapegoat for every ill that afflicts your life, rather than be put in your box by the British voters having taken the view that IN is the least worst result.
0 -
I see the USAF are pulling out of Mildenhall, Alconbury and Molesworth. Not good news for East Anglia.
http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/raf-mildenhall-to-close-amid-other-europe-consolidations-1.3228250 -
Every Labour politician is always being trounced in your fantasy world, Richard.richardDodd said:Slightly on topic... I watched Burnham being trounced yet again at UQ yesterday...why does this leadership hopeful always look as if he is sitting in wet underpants....
Burnham has scored some useful hits in the last few days. The NHS crisis is a systemic response to austerity biting all over the shop. Council cuts in particular, but also resources available to carers have clearly impacted on our capacity to care for the old and infirm at home. Et voila... Hospitals and in particular A&E overstretched.0 -
Seconded.DavidL said:
Yet another excellent post Cyclefree. I thought your contributions yesterday were outstanding.Cyclefree said:Let's understand what this right not to be offended or to have your religion offended actually means. It it presented - and Iqbal Sacranie was at it again last night on Newsnight - as a defensive act by a victim who was hurt and upset. And it is quite clever to present it in this way because normal decent people do not want (generally) to go round hurting others.
But it is fundamentally wrong. it is an aggressive act. What people like Sacranie are doing is saying that in Islam it is wrong to draw Mohammed. Fine - for Muslims. But by saying that they are offended when non-Muslims do it they are effectively - and this is an act of aggression - saying that non-Muslims too must abide by this particular Islamic tenet.
And to that I say no.
Whether you choose to be offended or, if offended, to react is your own affair. You have a choice. But do not presume to impose your beliefs on others because that is what you are doing by saying that I cannot draw him or write about him or whatever other than in the manner you dictate.
Muslims are free to practise their faith. But what they cannot - must not - be allowed to do is to impose it on others.
We need to stop seeing those who use this "I am offended" canard as victims and treat them as the passive-aggressors that they really are.
[edit] make that thirded.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
