politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Greens move up 4% in the ICM phone poll while LAB has a
Comments
-
The way to do it is to say what mechanisms will get us there: bringing back the primary purpose rule, raising the income thresholds in each category, put in fixed quotas etc. I was pretty alarmed the other day when I was looking at Home Office settlement statistics, and found that the vast majority settlement was in areas that required no skills at all.HurstLlama said:
They could try that but how many people will believe them? On immigration, for instance, what could Cameron say? Vote for us and we will reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands; honest, we mean it this time?Socrates said:
If Tories are sensible, they will realise they've lost more voters to the right than the left, and realise you can't get into office riding one horse. They will then tailor their policy platform so that it includes "right wing" positions where such positions have majority support. Immigration is the obvious one, seeing that it is the second most important issue to the British people and half the public wants to see significant reductions.TheWatcher said:
Tories implode, as they will, and Ed's sitting pretty beyond 2020.DavidL said:Well the good news is that my small bet that the Lib Dems are going to get more than 4x UKIP is looking pretty nailed on. At this level of polling 9 Lib Dem MPs should be enough.
My second small bet that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP is still looking problematic but less so than it has for most of the last few months.
The bad news is that we are probably heading to a minority Labour government under Ed and a significant SNP presence in a febrile Commons. Man the lifeboats.0 -
The Borders?!? Don't you mean Coalition there?Pulpstar said:
Fortress Kirkcaldy and the borders.antifrank said:
The thing you have to ask yourself is where is Labour support going to hold up best? If they're losing a third of their vote or more, where is that taking place?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, but so is a 20-point swing.Pulpstar said:It is those whopping majorities, look tough to bet against.
It's most unlikely to be a uniform loss of support.
0 -
SMAPS has Kircaldy falling to the SNP by 1447 votes. Which is another reason not to trust SMAPS.Pulpstar said:
Fortress Kirkcaldy and the borders.antifrank said:
The thing you have to ask yourself is where is Labour support going to hold up best? If they're losing a third of their vote or more, where is that taking place?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, but so is a 20-point swing.Pulpstar said:It is those whopping majorities, look tough to bet against.
It's most unlikely to be a uniform loss of support.
0 -
Interesting how propositions are doing well at the moment, with the polls showing support for ideas rather than reality.
Just take the Green's. Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies) - probably not, but being Green is all warm and cozy and is a nice thing to say you support.
Or the NHS. Those nasty Tories have made it worse, so I'm supporting that nice Labour party (who have nothing to do with the terrible & worse NHS Wales).
Just cannot see it when it comes down to the actual vote. The economies getting better and better. Will voters really risk it all on the 2 Ed's?0 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
By my calculations, ICM really should be:
Lab 34
Con 30
LD 11
UKIP 11
Greens 8
Just sayin'...0 -
I've put my tentative suggestions up to be shot at, of course.Pulpstar said:
Fortress Kirkcaldy and the borders.antifrank said:
The thing you have to ask yourself is where is Labour support going to hold up best? If they're losing a third of their vote or more, where is that taking place?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, but so is a 20-point swing.Pulpstar said:It is those whopping majorities, look tough to bet against.
It's most unlikely to be a uniform loss of support.
Although I still find it hard to believe the conclusions that I reached by applying my loose model.0 -
Thank you for the in-depth, astute analysis. I think you may have overstated the case though. Most Greens would be happy only turning the clock back to 1750 or so.saddo said:
Just take the Green's. Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies)0 -
But stick another 12% or 15% on 2010 turnout - and suddenly those Labour majorities look a whole lot more vulnerable.TheScreamingEagles said:
Differential turnout.Alistair said:
I'm beginning to think that a more sensible thing to do is to look at 2005 votes rather than 2010 votes for getting an idea at what the SNP has to overcome. 2010 was a massive high water mark for SLab at Westminster. 2005 might give a better idea of the summits that need ot be scaled by SNP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, follow the polls.antifrank said:
Merci bien. A stonking performance on their part.TheScreamingEagles said:For those who asked.
The SNP are on 5% in this poll (and 52% in the smallish sub-sample)
Like you, I'm amazed at the prices in the Scottish Constituencies.
The Indyref turnout was close to 85%.
I can't see that being replicated in the General Election.
Now of those voters who voted in September, which segments are more likely to turnout.
I can see arguments both in favour and against Yes/SNP leaners.
Have we had any indication yet of Labour/the Unions diverting funds to fight seats where they only ever weighed their vote before?
0 -
Strange Betfair punters trusting LARGER rather than ICM!!MikeL said:Disappointing poll for Con. However Con has now gone odds on for most seats, and Lab is odds against.
Con 1.99/2.00
Lab 2.02/2.04
0 -
Intersting to see that the Scotlnad "Certain to Vote Figure" is now inline with the rest of the country in the ICM poll rather than the 10 to 20 points above as it has been in other polls. But that hasn't seen a reduction in the SNP vote which is what I thought would happen.
Much like John Snow I know nothing.0 -
There's a HoC Library document that shows how difficult it is to define truly EVEL-only legislation.CarlottaVance said:
Its very simple - just tie spending to it and 'Barnett consequentials' come into play - one of the issues with EVEL is taking UK spending out of 'English' legislation - so even NHS legislation (both fully devolved) often (not entirely unreasonably) involve Scottish & Welsh MPs voting as spending is affected.DavidL said:
I think his definition of "English matters" might prove to be quite flexible. It really wouldn't be difficult for the government to put a kilt on a variety of measures to justify SNP support.Flightpath said:
How does Minority Ed work with SNP not voting on English matters?DavidL said:Well the good news is that my small bet that the Lib Dems are going to get more than 4x UKIP is looking pretty nailed on. At this level of polling 9 Lib Dem MPs should be enough.
My second small bet that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP is still looking problematic but less so than it has for most of the last few months.
The bad news is that we are probably heading to a minority Labour government under Ed and a significant SNP presence in a febrile Commons. Man the lifeboats.
Oh I see... Salmond is a liar?
It also depends on the numbers. In most cases it might be enough for Labour to have a majority that the SNP simply abstain. If Ed has 310 seats and the SNP 25 that would work every time.
By the same logic, major policy changes to the English NHS which filter through into spending in following years, such as privatisation and charging patients, are not truly EVEL. Even minor ones are, incrementally, but the SNP pretty much ignore those in their current rough and ready EVEL policy.
I'm wondering how much Mr Cameron thought he could deliver on EVEL, as I am sure that document existed and that we were discussing those issues a year or two before he came out with his proposals on 19 September.
0 -
Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.0
-
For Scotland you can look at
YES/No
2005
2011 Scots Election
They all say slightly different things, and the biggest Yes swings were in some of the biggest majority areas (Willie Bain's seat).
It's a tricky one to work out.0 -
Just took a bit of the 2.02 on LAB most seats despite being overexposed on this already.
Seems incredible value to me maybe heart over head but I still cant see Tories getting most seats.
Only 107 days till we know0 -
Neil,
"Most Greens would be happy only turning the clock back to 1750 or so."
Those carefree, happy days when the sun was always shining. Before the industrial revolution with its dark, satanic mills. Pity about the bubonic plague, small pox, the great pox, and rampant starvation.0 -
Struck by the thought, if I put equal stakes on SNP wins across Scotland and assumed the seats won in odds order from lowest to highest how many seats would I need to win to make a profit?
If I get time tonight I'll work that out.0 -
This all reminds me of the "anyone but Romney" cycle we saw in the US. Voters deeply disillusioned with the mainstream choices, taking a look at various alternatives, before they either buckle under scrutiny, suffer under growing pains (e.g. the infighting in UKIP) or people simply get bored before moving on. Lessons there are that once momentum is gone, it'll never come back (Michele Bachmann anyone?) and that if we end up with the mainstream option in the end, they are damaged rather than enhanced through the process.0
-
Backing Ed as PM if you can get it at Evens or above is a better bet I think, as the SNP won't support the Conservatives but may cost Ed most seats.bigjohnowls said:Just took a bit of the 2.02 on LAB most seats despite being overexposed on this already.
Seems incredible value to me maybe heart over head but I still cant see Tories getting most seats.
Only 107 days till we know0 -
Tories buckle on 'red card' proposals:
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 20m20 minutes ago
Foreign Sec Philip Hammond rules out giving Westminster Parliament a 'red card' on EU law, saying it would 'wreck' the single market0 -
Terrible century.Neil said:
Thank you for the in-depth, astute analysis. I think you may have overstated the case though. Most Greens would be happy only turning the clock back to 1750 or so.saddo said:
Just take the Green's. Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies)
England made its biggest mistake of all time by going into a political union with the Scots.0 -
That's only because both Scottish Labour and the SNP are being disingenuous, claiming that they should have a say in matters which have only an indirect, second-order effect in Scotland.Carnyx said:There's a HoC Library document that shows how difficult it is to define truly EVEL-only legislation.
The test is very simple: is it a devolved matter, or not? If so, it should be decided in the Scottish parliament, and Scottish MPs should have no vote on it in Westminster.
After all, no-one claims that it's hard to define devolved matters when it comes to deciding whether Holyrood should vote on them, so what's the problem?0 -
Your back dating analysis is a lot more accurate than mile. Big questions are then how would the Greens rule the newly reaquired US & Canada colonies and was Obama aware of the implications of the Greens gaining power when he said "Vote My Bro Dave" last week?Neil said:
Thank you for the in-depth, astute analysis. I think you may have overstated the case though. Most Greens would be happy only turning the clock back to 1750 or so.saddo said:
Just take the Green's. Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies)0 -
Experts on the Government’s troubled child sexual abuse inquiry may have been gagged over what evidence they give to a parliamentary committee, it has been claimed. Sharon Evans, a member of the independent panel, told MPs she had been told by counsel to the inquiry that she and others must speak with one “collective voice”. She also claimed that letters had been rewritten and she felt “bullied and intimidated” by the lawyer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11357759/Keith-Vaz-Child-abuse-panel-members-intimidated-over-what-they-can-say-to-committee.html
This looking like as much of a stitch-up as the street grooming case has been.0 -
IIRC it was highest (90%) in 'No' areas and lowest in GOTV 'Yes' (70-75%) areas.....how that unwinds in May is anybody's guess......TheScreamingEagles said:
Differential turnout.Alistair said:
I'm beginning to think that a more sensible thing to do is to look at 2005 votes rather than 2010 votes for getting an idea at what the SNP has to overcome. 2010 was a massive high water mark for SLab at Westminster. 2005 might give a better idea of the summits that need ot be scaled by SNP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, follow the polls.antifrank said:
Merci bien. A stonking performance on their part.TheScreamingEagles said:For those who asked.
The SNP are on 5% in this poll (and 52% in the smallish sub-sample)
Like you, I'm amazed at the prices in the Scottish Constituencies.
The Indyref turnout was close to 85%.
0 -
Afternoon, Mr D. Indeed - and the thought had actually occurred to me also, but I didn't want to upset some of our fellow PBers ...!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
The HoC report, IIRC, was partly written to inform whether EVEL would be possible at all. Might be time to fish it out again.
0 -
Sorry to dirty the site with betting talk, I promise not to offer wagers, but what price would people go under over these poll findings to 100%?0
-
Vote-rigging going on in Newspaper comment sections:
http://i.imgur.com/AL5455S.jpg
I'm sure this is entirely unrelated from the huge sums the Tories are spending on online astroturfing:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/01/tories-spent-114000-on-facebook-likes-and-ads-in-just-one-month/0 -
Good tip. Only £15 available at 2.02 with Betfair ATMPulpstar said:
Backing Ed as PM if you can get it at Evens or above is a better bet I think, as the SNP won't support the Conservatives but may cost Ed most seats.bigjohnowls said:Just took a bit of the 2.02 on LAB most seats despite being overexposed on this already.
Seems incredible value to me maybe heart over head but I still cant see Tories getting most seats.
Only 107 days till we know0 -
11% for the Lib-Dems with ICM just three months before the election is pretty dire for them...0
-
Apparently the electorate favour a Grand Coalition (9%) over either of the minority government options (Tory 8%, Lab 3%).0
-
Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?saddo said:Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies) - probably not, but being Green is all warm and cozy and is a nice thing to say you support.?
0 -
There's no problem about devolved matters. It's the bits that aren't that are the matter - and that includes the overall budgeting allocated to the Scottish Gmt, as well as policy changes that have a significant budgetary impact.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's only because both Scottish Labour and the SNP are being disingenuous, claiming that they should have a say in matters which have only an indirect, second-order effect in Scotland.Carnyx said:There's a HoC Library document that shows how difficult it is to define truly EVEL-only legislation.
The test is very simple: is it a devolved matter, or not? If so, it should be decided in the Scottish parliament, and Scottish MPs should have no vote on it in Westminster.
After all, no-one claims that it's hard to define devolved matters when it comes to deciding whether Holyrood should vote on them, so what's the problem?
Consider this hypothesis: a UK parliamentary motion is passed to make, say, NHS dentistry fully private in England, or at least to approve an administration decision thereof (as appropriate).
The money for SHS dentistry services in Scotland is then effectively and promptly cut to zero without any Scottish MP having a say in the matter. Still less any MSP, and yet on your argument ...
Conversely, the UK Pmt can decide to charge the Scots twice over for railways - not just for the part of the network in Scotland but for railways in and to London, including lines which are of very little relevance to Scotland (at all, or as yet: Crossrail and HS2). Yet railways are a devolved matter.
The current situation is a hopeless mess ...
0 -
Unlimited immigration would probably drop our average income a good part of the way there.Edwardian said:
Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?saddo said:Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies) - probably not, but being Green is all warm and cozy and is a nice thing to say you support.?
0 -
Time travel machines for everyone.Edwardian said:
Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?saddo said:Is 11% of the population crazy enough to want the UK to go back towards the middle ages (Ref: Read the bonkers policies) - probably not, but being Green is all warm and cozy and is a nice thing to say you support.?
0 -
You are forgetting that England and the UK are being, as so often, confounded, and the result is asymmetric. Once we have an English Parliament, it will all fall into place.john_zims said:@Carnyx
'There's a HoC Library document that shows how difficult it is to define truly EVEL-only legislation.'
If it can be defined for Scotland & Wales it can be defied for England,anything else is just an excuse.
0 -
ICM without spiral of silence adjustment for people reverting to last election or not voting last time (Table 3) and don't knows:
Lab 35
Con 29
LD 8
Gr 9
UKIP 12
The published data is closer because Tory certainty to vote is higher (fair enough) and LibDems who didn't know are assumed to revert to LibDem.(highly dubious now IMO).0 -
It's not that bad, because it's ICM. In 2014 ICM measured UKIP support at the following levels:Socrates said:Terrible result for UKIP. Let's hope it doesn't turn up elsewhere.
9% (thrice)
10% (twice)
11% (twice)
14% (thrice)
15% (once)
16% (once)
So the 11% today is equal to their median score for 2014. That's not terrible at all - it's just that you're comparing it with the scores UKIP get with YouGov and Ashcroft.0 -
No, that is sophistry. The effect is a negligible, second-order effect on the Scottish budget, and in any case spending decisions are taken in the Budget.Carnyx said:Consider this hypothesis: a UK parliamentary motion is passed to make, say, NHS dentistry fully private in England, or at least to approve an administration decision thereof (as appropriate).
The money for SHS dentistry services in Scotland is then effectively and promptly cut to zero without any Scottish MP having a say in the matter..
Basically it's (as so often) the Scots wanting to have their cake and eat it. Even that wouldn't be too objectionable, if they didn't also want to tell us what kind of cake we should eat.0 -
Just did a quick checkCarlottaVance said:
IIRC it was highest (90%) in 'No' areas and lowest in GOTV 'Yes' (70-75%) areas.....how that unwinds in May is anybody's guess......TheScreamingEagles said:
Differential turnout.Alistair said:
I'm beginning to think that a more sensible thing to do is to look at 2005 votes rather than 2010 votes for getting an idea at what the SNP has to overcome. 2010 was a massive high water mark for SLab at Westminster. 2005 might give a better idea of the summits that need ot be scaled by SNP.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, follow the polls.antifrank said:
Merci bien. A stonking performance on their part.TheScreamingEagles said:For those who asked.
The SNP are on 5% in this poll (and 52% in the smallish sub-sample)
Like you, I'm amazed at the prices in the Scottish Constituencies.
The Indyref turnout was close to 85%.
Dundee at 78.83 and Glasgow at 75% where big low turnouts and Yes voting districts, whilst East Dunbartonshire and East Renfreshire were 90% turnout and No voters. But then you have Yes voting areas like West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire on 88% and 84%.
Basically when looking at the top 10 Yes percentage council areas Dundee and Glasgow stick out like sore thumbs, everything else is in the range 84-84%, the top 10 No voting areas have the two Easts sticking out at 70%, the rest are at 83%-87%. So excluding the extremes the population is basically the same.
A tricky problem where comparing areas of Scotland for the Indy ref results is the massively different size of council areas. East REnfreshire with it's 90% turnout was 90% of 72981, North Lanarkshire with it's 84% was 84% of 2687040 -
In the Ashcroft 53% of current Green support voted for LibLabCon in 2010, while for UKIP that figure is 68%. So, no.tlg86 said:Do we think that people giving a VI of green are more likely to have voted at the last GE compared with Ukip? Could that be why they are doing better with those pollsters who put quite a bit of emphasis on voting at the last election?
0 -
Unless bad for SNPAlistair said:
We don't pay any attention to Scottish sub-samples.TheScreamingEagles said:For those who asked.
The SNP are on 5% in this poll (and 52% in the smallish sub-sample)0 -
If England wants a Parliament then let England have a Parliament but hijacking the UK's Parliament for its own needs seems a bit much.Richard_Nabavi said:
Basically it's (as so often) the Scots wanting to have their cake and eat it. Even that wouldn't be too objectionable, if they didn't also want to tell us what kind of cake we should eat.0 -
Mr. Socrates, online vote-rigging and comments being astroturf is immensely unsurprising. At election time, parties try and get letters into newspapers as well.
Mr. Carnyx, *if* we get an English Parliament. It makes sense and is needed, whether the UK stays together or splits apart.
But vested interests, namely political idiots in Westminster, will not be keen to emasculate the Westminster Parliament, which would lose 80-90% of its numbers and duties.
So the left will try and **** it up with their divisive little fiefdom bullshit, and the right will try a sticking plaster for a foot long gash (English votes for English laws is a step forward but insufficient on a permanent basis).0 -
Unfortunately that horse was let out of the stable by Tony Blair, to whom any complaints should be addressed.Neil said:
If England wants a Parliament then let England have a Parliament but hijacking the UK's Parliament for its own needs seems a bit much.Richard_Nabavi said:
Basically it's (as so often) the Scots wanting to have their cake and eat it. Even that wouldn't be too objectionable, if they didn't also want to tell us what kind of cake we should eat.0 -
F1: several races will start earlier, meaning some 5am race starts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/308962690 -
Equivalent poll in 2010 was
40 29 21
GE2010 Outturn
36.9 29.7 24
0 -
Lol, a Tory can come out with that as well, more faces than the town clock. Suck it up loser.Flightpath said:
How does Minority Ed work with SNP not voting on English matters?DavidL said:Well the good news is that my small bet that the Lib Dems are going to get more than 4x UKIP is looking pretty nailed on. At this level of polling 9 Lib Dem MPs should be enough.
My second small bet that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP is still looking problematic but less so than it has for most of the last few months.
The bad news is that we are probably heading to a minority Labour government under Ed and a significant SNP presence in a febrile Commons. Man the lifeboats.
Oh I see... Salmond is a liar?0 -
Eh? In the scenario you are discussing Cameron is not PM and consequently almost certainly no longer Conservative party leader.TheWatcher said:
Exactly. Cameron has promised a referendum but this very site is clogged with voices calling him a liar.HurstLlama said:
They could try that but how many people will believe them? On immigration, for instance, what could Cameron say? Vote for us and we will reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands; honest, we mean it this time?Socrates said:
If Tories are sensible, they will realise they've lost more voters to the right than the left, and realise you can't get into office riding one horse. They will then tailor their policy platform so that it includes "right wing" positions where such positions have majority support. Immigration is the obvious one, seeing that it is the second most important issue to the British people and half the public wants to see significant reductions.TheWatcher said:
Tories implode, as they will, and Ed's sitting pretty beyond 2020.DavidL said:Well the good news is that my small bet that the Lib Dems are going to get more than 4x UKIP is looking pretty nailed on. At this level of polling 9 Lib Dem MPs should be enough.
My second small bet that the Lib Dems will outpoll UKIP is still looking problematic but less so than it has for most of the last few months.
The bad news is that we are probably heading to a minority Labour government under Ed and a significant SNP presence in a febrile Commons. Man the lifeboats.
Whatever he says now, the same commentators will be accusing him of telling porky pies just to get their votes.
A new leader has the opportunity to set a new direction, and if they didn't happen to be an enthusiastic supporter of Cameron in the first place, such a change of direction would be all the more credible.0 -
Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?
Take your pick. OK they've updated a few to take account of modern things like TV and they don't want us to a military to boff everybody else up, but aside from that, they'd be quite happy for everyone living on the collective farm wearing naturally dyed hemp cloth.
Advertising: The “overall volume” of advertising on TV and in newspapers would be controlled and reduced, as part of a war on the “materialist and consumption-driven culture which is not sustainable”. All alcohol advertising would be banned.
Animal welfare: Measures would be imposed to encourage a “transition from diets dominated by meat” to vegetarianism. Factory farming would be banned.
Beyonce tax: So dubbed because a tax would be imposed on “superstar performances” to raise funds to support “local cultural enterprises”.
Birth control: To prevent “overpopulation”, the state would provide free condoms and fund research for new contraceptives.
Defence: Britain would leave Nato and unilaterally abandon nuclear weapons. Army, navy and air force bases would be turned into nature reserves.
Economy: The only way to a greener future is for zero - better still, negative – growth. It leads to less personal consumption.
Europe: Free trade with the EU bloc would end because new tariffs would be introduced to reflect the “ecological impact” of any import.
Gift tax: In order to “prevent the accumulation of wealth and power by a privileged class”, inheritance tax would also cover gifts made while the giver is alive.
Healthcare: The NHS would return to full government-run status with an NHS tax brought in to fund it. Assisted dying would be legalised, abortion liberalised and “alternative” medicine promoted.
Immigration: Because richer nations should not “protect their privileges from others”, border controls would be “progressively reduced”. Everyone living in Britain, whatever passport they carry, would have equal access to benefits.
Income: Everyone would enjoy an unconditional, non-withdrawable income of £71 a week “as a right of citizenship”.
Jobs: The idea of the £71 hand-out (above) is to help people take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. Overall, paid work should be “less necessary”: sharing and bartering would be encouraged.
Schools: Private schools would lose their charitable status and pay corporation tax. RI would be banned during school hours. SATS, early years tests and league tables would be abolished.
Sex and drugs: Brothels and all elements of the sex industry would be decriminalised. Trading and possession of cannabis would be decriminalised, too, along with possession of Class A and B drugs for personal use.
Television: The BBC would be bound to show educational programmes during prime time, giving them “equal precedence” to entertainment shows0 -
Someone needs to tell Shadsy UKIP are going to get beat in Thurrock, he has shortened them to 4/7 today, shortest they've been
Green vote share market pulled! Was over under 4% with over 8/130 -
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
0 -
Found a nice table of turnouts and result. There is indeed a minor negative trend between Yes and turnout. However discard Glasgow, Dundee and West Dunbartonshire (one of the highest turnout areas) and it becomes a minor positive trend between Yes vote and turnout.
From my cursory look at the Glasgow result it seemed that the more Studenty the area the lower the turnout.0 -
The moneyRichard_Nabavi said:
That's only because both Scottish Labour and the SNP are being disingenuous, claiming that they should have a say in matters which have only an indirect, second-order effect in Scotland.Carnyx said:There's a HoC Library document that shows how difficult it is to define truly EVEL-only legislation.
The test is very simple: is it a devolved matter, or not? If so, it should be decided in the Scottish parliament, and Scottish MPs should have no vote on it in Westminster.
After all, no-one claims that it's hard to define devolved matters when it comes to deciding whether Holyrood should vote on them, so what's the problem?0 -
If only we could get a cake, lucky to get left oversRichard_Nabavi said:
No, that is sophistry. The effect is a negligible, second-order effect on the Scottish budget, and in any case spending decisions are taken in the Budget.Carnyx said:Consider this hypothesis: a UK parliamentary motion is passed to make, say, NHS dentistry fully private in England, or at least to approve an administration decision thereof (as appropriate).
The money for SHS dentistry services in Scotland is then effectively and promptly cut to zero without any Scottish MP having a say in the matter..
Basically it's (as so often) the Scots wanting to have their cake and eat it. Even that wouldn't be too objectionable, if they didn't also want to tell us what kind of cake we should eat.0 -
They were 1% ahead in an Ashcroft poll which is only good for amusement value. They are 3% behind with the gold standard. They are also at 30%.felix said:
Goodness -how wet can you get. Only yesterday they were ahead with Ashcroft and on 35%with Populus. There's a long way to go yet. Still enormous potential for one of several outcomes on all sides. You need to grow a pair.DavidL said:I suppose this poll just shows how awful December was for the tories. Was that the month when hopes of victory finally crumbled?
Swingback went into reverse and the tories seem to have hit a glass ceiling in the very low 30s. The only way they can win is if Labour falls through the floor. With Ed anything is possible but it must be a long shot.
Labour continue to fall because Ed is crap. The 35% policy is now a distant memory. It is entirely possible they will poll less than in 2010. He is a huge drag on the party but he is largely priced in. Even the casual observer knows he is crap by now.
But the Tory vote has been static for months now. Only Labour's collapse is reducing their lead. The tories probably need a lead of 4-5% and a collapse of SLAB to be the largest party. If they are to do as well as last time they need a lead of 6-7% and for their share to increase to in excess of 35%. If they are to get a majority they will need to do better yet. That seems very unlikely to me.
UKIP is likely to poll in double figures. More than half of their increase are disaffected tory voters. That explains why the tories are down from 36 to 30. They have gained modestly from the collapse of the Lib Dems but not nearly as much as Labour. Unless 2010 Labour voters abandon Ed in significant numbers I cannot see their vote getting to the required level.0 -
Hang on, I thought the line was that Scots are better off than the rest of the UK? You should be sending consignments of Dundee Cake down south.malcolmg said:If only we could get a cake, lucky to get left overs
0 -
Thanks, Mr Saddo.saddo said:Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?
Actually I quite like the health, schools and “sex and drugs" sections. Mostly anyway!
Take it they want, like UKIP, to leave the EU without a referendum, though.
The advertising proposals do remind one of the 18th C newspaper licensing.0 -
.
0 -
Sounds like The Modern Parents from VizOldKingCole said:
Thanks, Mr Saddo.saddo said:Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?
Actually I quite like the health, schools and “sex and drugs" sections. Mostly anyway!
Take it they want, like UKIP, to leave the EU without a referendum, though.
The advertising proposals do remind one of the 18th C newspaper licensing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Parents0 -
ICM need to work harder if they want to be re-considered for the Gold Standard.0
-
Hi Nick,NickPalmer said:ICM without spiral of silence adjustment for people reverting to last election or not voting last time (Table 3) and don't knows:
Lab 35
Con 29
LD 8
Gr 9
UKIP 12
The published data is closer because Tory certainty to vote is higher (fair enough) and LibDems who didn't know are assumed to revert to LibDem.(highly dubious now IMO).
What do you expect to happen in Notts come May? Is Sherwood a nailed on gain for Lab? Has the closure of the colliery at Thoresby been a factor there?
As I was saying yesterday I was in Notts at the weekend and surprised at how popular Anna Soubry seems to be amongst at a constituency level. Do you expect to beat her with ease?0 -
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
0 -
Their wacko "alternative" medicine pish is a complete pile of bollocks.OldKingCole said:
Thanks, Mr Saddo.saddo said:Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?
Actually I quite like the health, schools and “sex and drugs" sections. Mostly anyway!
Take it they want, like UKIP, to leave the EU without a referendum, though.
The advertising proposals do remind one of the 18th C newspaper licensing.
If, like me, you are incensed by charlatans who peddle sugar pills and water as effective medicines then there are numerous handy cut out and keep guides (in the shape of early day motions in favour of homeopathy) that show who you should vote against at the forth coming election.0 -
No it is we "should " be better off , but it is spent on all those English only debates allocating our cash outside of Scotland.Richard_Nabavi said:
Hang on, I thought the line was that Scots are better off than the rest of the UK? You should be sending consignments of Dundee Cake down south.malcolmg said:If only we could get a cake, lucky to get left overs
0 -
Yes but the English MP's decide what our Scottish only budget is , not managed to grasp this yet have you.Flightpath said:
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
0 -
You do get how the Barnett formula works right?Flightpath said:
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
0 -
So let's scrap the Barnett formula to prevent this unnecessary interdependency.Alistair said:
You do get how the Barnett formula works right?Flightpath said:
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
Oh wait, the SNP don't want to do that either.0 -
Alistair, He could not run a bath never mind understand thatAlistair said:
You do get how the Barnett formula works right?Flightpath said:
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
0 -
Any further sustained surge by the Communists Greens has to hurt Labour, any further sustained dip by UKIP has to help the Tories.
Interesting times ahead perhaps.0 -
Hello, reserved powersSocrates said:
So let's scrap the Barnett formula to prevent this unnecessary interdependency.Alistair said:
You do get how the Barnett formula works right?Flightpath said:
What cobblers. The budget is tied to UK spending. And UK spending is tied to oil prices at $45. How Scotland spends its Scottish only budget is decided by Scottish MSPs. Scottish MPs can also decide English only spending. Why not admit it and say its wrong.malcolmg said:
Not whilst Scottish budget is tied to English spendingMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Carnyx, I don't believe it's beyond the wit of man for English votes for English laws to work. However, even if that were the case, the ultimate goal for equality must be an English Parliament, which would have (as one of many essential positives) the bonus of resolving that potential problem.
Oh wait, the SNP don't want to do that either.0 -
It's worth noting that this ICM poll did not prompt respondents for the Greens, UKIP or the SNP. That makes the Greens' and the SNP's performance in this poll still more impressive.0
-
*hmmpeter_from_putney said:Any further sustained surge by the Communists Greens has to hurt Labour, any further sustained dip by UKIP has to help the Tories.
Interesting times ahead perhaps.0 -
Take your pick. OK they've updated a few to take account of modern things like TV and they don't want us to a military to boff everybody else up, but aside from that, they'd be quite happy for everyone living on the collective farm wearing naturally dyed hemp cloth.saddo said:Can you name one single Green policy that would take the UK back to the Middle Ages?
snips
Television: The BBC would be bound to show educational programmes during prime time, giving them “equal precedence” to entertainment shows
As if all the other policies were not rubbish this last one clearly shows they are in la la land. There are no entertaining shows on the BBC.
Still at least they seem to have found someone to write out their policies, even if it is Frank Spencer0 -
The secondary effects on the Scottish budget should not justify Scottish MPs voting on devolved matters. Under the present system the logic has to be that all Scots vote for higher spending all the time because it creates a "windfall" for Scotland. This is irrational.
What needs to be done is simple in concept if not reality. It is necessary to come up with a formula for allocating spending to the different regions of the UK without interdependency on the individual items. How the elected representatives choose to spend that money is then a matter for the elected representatives of that area only.
Personally I liked the idea floated on here a few weeks ago. Abolish the House of Lords. Set up an English Parliament to sit in its accommodation 2 days a week and restrict the UK Parliament to 3 days or as required. The English Parliament has its own Ministers for devolved matters. The UK Parliament deals with national matters and in particular the budget on which every MP gets an equal say.
Solved.0 -
Thanks for the link. The section on trade, while making the case for the continuation of the Union between England and Scotland, does raise the question of the economic benefit of a Federal European Union...antifrank said:The full text of Sir Nicholas Macpherson's lecture on the Scottish independence referendum:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/events/assets/Speech-macpherson190115.pdf0 -
You're choosing to focus on one poll when 3 others in the last 24 hours give a different view. Seek help.DavidL said:
They were 1% ahead in an Ashcroft poll which is only good for amusement value. They are 3% behind with the gold standard. They are also at 30%.felix said:
Goodness -how wet can you get. Only yesterday they were ahead with Ashcroft and on 35%with Populus. There's a long way to go yet. Still enormous potential for one of several outcomes on all sides. You need to grow a pair.DavidL said:I suppose this poll just shows how awful December was for the tories. Was that the month when hopes of victory finally crumbled?
Swingback went into reverse and the tories seem to have hit a glass ceiling in the very low 30s. The only way they can win is if Labour falls through the floor. With Ed anything is possible but it must be a long shot.
Labour continue to fall because Ed is crap. The 35% policy is now a distant memory. It is entirely possible they will poll less than in 2010. He is a huge drag on the party but he is largely priced in. Even the casual observer knows he is crap by now.
But the Tory vote has been static for months now. Only Labour's collapse is reducing their lead. The tories probably need a lead of 4-5% and a collapse of SLAB to be the largest party. If they are to do as well as last time they need a lead of 6-7% and for their share to increase to in excess of 35%. If they are to get a majority they will need to do better yet. That seems very unlikely to me.
UKIP is likely to poll in double figures. More than half of their increase are disaffected tory voters. That explains why the tories are down from 36 to 30. They have gained modestly from the collapse of the Lib Dems but not nearly as much as Labour. Unless 2010 Labour voters abandon Ed in significant numbers I cannot see their vote getting to the required level.0 -
The various positions taken on this forum are all influenced by individual political loyalties but in the real world the voters who will decide the election are switched off and tired of the daily narrative in the media. This will change from Mid March on and I think the result may surprise many who seem to think its all over for the conservatives and labour are going to head a left leaning coalition0
-
Look at the graph. It says exactly what I am saying: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2felix said:
You're choosing to focus on one poll when 3 others in the last 24 hours give a different view. Seek help.DavidL said:
They were 1% ahead in an Ashcroft poll which is only good for amusement value. They are 3% behind with the gold standard. They are also at 30%.felix said:
Goodness -how wet can you get. Only yesterday they were ahead with Ashcroft and on 35%with Populus. There's a long way to go yet. Still enormous potential for one of several outcomes on all sides. You need to grow a pair.DavidL said:I suppose this poll just shows how awful December was for the tories. Was that the month when hopes of victory finally crumbled?
Swingback went into reverse and the tories seem to have hit a glass ceiling in the very low 30s. The only way they can win is if Labour falls through the floor. With Ed anything is possible but it must be a long shot.
Labour continue to fall because Ed is crap. The 35% policy is now a distant memory. It is entirely possible they will poll less than in 2010. He is a huge drag on the party but he is largely priced in. Even the casual observer knows he is crap by now.
But the Tory vote has been static for months now. Only Labour's collapse is reducing their lead. The tories probably need a lead of 4-5% and a collapse of SLAB to be the largest party. If they are to do as well as last time they need a lead of 6-7% and for their share to increase to in excess of 35%. If they are to get a majority they will need to do better yet. That seems very unlikely to me.
UKIP is likely to poll in double figures. More than half of their increase are disaffected tory voters. That explains why the tories are down from 36 to 30. They have gained modestly from the collapse of the Lib Dems but not nearly as much as Labour. Unless 2010 Labour voters abandon Ed in significant numbers I cannot see their vote getting to the required level.0 -
I blames the ECHR
Supreme court rules Muslim inmate may wear short beard
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/20/supreme-court-short-beard-muslim-inmate0 -
Reading the squabbles and predictions whenever a poll comes out is like watching the over reactions in the betting whenever a boundary is hit or wicket is taken in a ODI Cricket match0
-
Honestly don't know much about Sherwood - our people are busy there too but I have no direct info on what the atmosphere is.AllyPally_Rob said:
Hi Nick,
What do you expect to happen in Notts come May? Is Sherwood a nailed on gain for Lab? Has the closure of the colliery at Thoresby been a factor there?
As I was saying yesterday I was in Notts at the weekend and surprised at how popular Anna Soubry seems to be amongst at a constituency level. Do you expect to beat her with ease?
Saw your post with surprise - we don't normally mention AS on the doorstep but it's such a common response that "I won't vote for Soubry" that we've introduced a special column on the canvass sheet to record that reply (instead of just "don't know"). Perhaps fairest to say she's a Marmite candidate.
If there was an election tomorrow I think we'd win by 7% or so - the 17% LibDem vote is swinging heavily to us with the continued absence of a LIbDem candidate sending a very clear message, and Lab/Con voters last time are pretty much unchanged, with a handful of defectors each way but tbh not many. UKIP is nibbling at us both but are quite disorganised locally - e.g. their Broxtowe website http://www.ukipnotts.org/ukip_broxtowe.html doesn't mention their Broxtowe candidate.
In May, who knows? If there's a 4% swing to Tories nationally between now and then, they should be optimistic. Otherwise, I don't think so - we are much stronger on the ground, partly because of the big Nottingham party. And frankly I'm working it harder and have been for years.
In theory (the 40/40 strategy) the Tories should be counter-attacking in local Labour marginals, e.g. Nottingham South (2% swing needed). In practice their effort there is very low profile - perhaps there's lots under the radar but we think not.
0 -
Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?0 -
Graphs will not provide the help you need.DavidL said:
Look at the graph. It says exactly what I am saying: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2felix said:
You're choosing to focus on one poll when 3 others in the last 24 hours give a different view. Seek help.DavidL said:
They were 1% ahead in an Ashcroft poll which is only good for amusement value. They are 3% behind with the gold standard. They are also at 30%.felix said:
Goodness -how wet can you get. Only yesterday they were ahead with Ashcroft and on 35%with Populus. There's a long way to go yet. Still enormous potential for one of several outcomes on all sides. You need to grow a pair.DavidL said:I suppose this poll just shows how awful December was for the tories. Was that the month when hopes of victory finally crumbled?
Swingback went into reverse and the tories seem to have hit a glass ceiling in the very low 30s. The only way they can win is if Labour falls through the floor. With Ed anything is possible but it must be a long shot.
Labour continue to fall because Ed is crap. The 35% policy is now a distant memory. It is entirely possible they will poll less than in 2010. He is a huge drag on the party but he is largely priced in. Even the casual observer knows he is crap by now.
But the Tory vote has been static for months now. Only Labour's collapse is reducing their lead. The tories probably need a lead of 4-5% and a collapse of SLAB to be the largest party. If they are to do as well as last time they need a lead of 6-7% and for their share to increase to in excess of 35%. If they are to get a majority they will need to do better yet. That seems very unlikely to me.
UKIP is likely to poll in double figures. More than half of their increase are disaffected tory voters. That explains why the tories are down from 36 to 30. They have gained modestly from the collapse of the Lib Dems but not nearly as much as Labour. Unless 2010 Labour voters abandon Ed in significant numbers I cannot see their vote getting to the required level.0 -
Try being scored in rugby is the classic over reaction. Anyone who had a decent high speed trading algo on the Betfair market cold make phat cash on the bounce.isam said:Reading the squabbles and predictions whenever a poll comes out is like watching the over reactions in the betting whenever a boundary is hit or wicket is taken in a ODI Cricket match
0 -
Why dont the SNP and the 45,ers just grow some balls and declare UDI ..It would stop all this whinging0
-
One way to look at this poll is Tories/Greens - on the right side of the debate argument - up 6%
Labour/LibDems/UKIP - on the frit side of the debate argument - down 6%0 -
I am enjoying the idea of UKIP to Green switchers. My guess is that they can be largely discounted as possible voters in May.0
-
It was the same when my wife was pregnant back in the early 90s. It's when I started to discount opinion polls that found people would be happy to pay more tax for better public services.Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?
0 -
Or switchers in safe Con or Lab seats where how you vote doesn't matter.SouthamObserver said:I am enjoying the idea of UKIP to Green switchers. My guess is that they can be largely discounted as possible voters in May.
0 -
That was the case in the summer and early autumn of 2001 too, from what I was told at the time by the mother of my daughter.Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?
When we moved to Exeter it was striking the way in which people were much more polite when queueing for the bus - not the trains though. From this I surmise that the problem is partly created by over-crowding, rather than by an intrinsic quality of the people in the different locales.0 -
I can honestly say I always offer to stand if a man older than me or any woman is standing while I have a seat...Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?
Patronising ageist chauvinist that I am0 -
How pregnant are they? Perhaps you don't want to make the ultimate faux pas in offering them a seat!Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?0 -
Not as boring as Test Cricketisam said:Reading the squabbles and predictions whenever a poll comes out is like watching the over reactions in the betting whenever a boundary is hit or wicket is taken in a ODI Cricket match
0 -
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, as they say down the Coventry Arms.OblitusSumMe said:
That was the case in the summer and early autumn of 2001 too, from what I was told at the time by the mother of my daughter.Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?
When we moved to Exeter it was striking the way in which people were much more polite when queueing for the bus - not the trains though. From this I surmise that the problem is partly created by over-crowding, rather than by an intrinsic quality of the people in the different locales.
From memory foreign folk were always more likely to offer their seats than the locals; and women much more than men.
0 -
You can get badges from LT that say something to the effect that "I am pregnant please offer me your seat". EDIT - obviously, you have to be pregnant to get one.RobD said:
How pregnant are they? Perhaps you don't want to make the ultimate faux pas in offering them a seat!Socrates said:Just speaking to a couple of pregnant ladies who live in London, who were complaining about not being offered seats on the Tube. They agreed that about 25% of the time they get offered a seat when they get on, 40% of the time they get offered a seat but only after a stop or two, and the rest of the time they don't get offered one at all. Apparently most people clearly avoid looking at them. They both mentioned that often they get pushed past as people getting on try to get seats ahead of them.
Isn't that bloody shameful? What sort of society are we becoming in London?
0 -
Wait until the SNP get 61 MPs first.richardDodd said:Why dont the SNP and the 45,ers just grow some balls and declare UDI ..It would stop all this whinging
0
