politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP seats drop to their lowest level yet on the Commons se
Comments
-
Suicide watch from some Tories on Sunday.BenM said:Labour's little bounce-let in polls is over, Tories firming up after last week's so called "wobble".
Updated unscientific don't-rely-on-this BenM 7th May vote share predictor (changes from last time I did it a couple of weeks ago):
Con 35% (-1)
Lab 32% (-1)
Lib Dem 11% (+1)
UKIP 11% (-)
Others 11% (+1)
Seats
Con 287 (+1)
Lab 266 (-4)
Lib Dem 27 (-)
Green 1 (+1)
UKIP 1 (-1)
SNP 48 (+4)
Plaid 2 (-1)
NI 18
Con chances of being largest party now >65% (was >50%).
It's all over for Ed.
Same from some non-Tories today.
To me neither party has been more than 1% ahead since October.
Still neck and neck.0 -
Nicola Sturgeon
called on new powers for Scotland to be delivered “in full and quickly” - before making clear the SNP wants full fiscal autonomy “over a period of years”
...when the oil price goes back up...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/live0 -
Guido has read the Green Party manifesto so you don’t have to.
“a complete ban on cages for hens and rabbits” (Spring time for foxes?)
“end the use of the whip in horse racing and conduct a full review of the sport” (what about the lossof horse manure, it is very natural?)
“end the practice of grouse shooting” (Is this to provide more food for foxes?)
“ensure UK taxpayers’ money is not used for bullfighting” (Where are our bullfights?)
“ban the import of fur products” (Bad, since we will have fewer rabbits)
“progressively introduce anonymised CVs” (WTF)
“introduce new taxes on the use of water” (A sure winner)
“ensure that no company owns more than 20% of a media market” (Good, will eff up the BBC)
“pursue a policy of defensive defence, which threatens no one” (Please do not hit me if I smile)
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/free-the-bunnies-the-maddest-policies-in-the-green-manifesto-listed/#_@/Zv_-Cu9cn3rT6Q0 -
True or false?Sunil_Prasannan said:Plato said:This is interesting. I still disapprove of HS2.
And that is on top of our £50 billion commitment to build High Speed 2 – the
new North-South railway linking up London with the West
Midlands, Leeds and Manchester – and develop High Speed
3 to join up the North. We will back scientific and technical
strengths by creating new institutions such as Health North;
the Royce Institute for Advanced Materials in Manchester,
Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield; the National Centre for
Ageing Science and Innovation in Newcastle; the Cognitive
Computing centre at Daresbury; and by making investments
in energy research in Blackpool, Cumbria and Thornton�
Sunil's trip over the Easter weekend to Amsterdam via Brussels on the Eurostar and the TGV-style Thalys service has made him think again about his opposition to HS2.
I'm more interested in what you got up to during a weekend in Amsterdam...0 -
Don't tell OGH, this GE result would leave him 9 x [NOT £20] out of pocket.BenM said:Labour's little bounce-let in polls is over, Tories firming up after last week's so called "wobble".
Updated unscientific don't-rely-on-this BenM 7th May vote share predictor (changes from last time I did it a couple of weeks ago):
Con 35% (-1)
Lab 32% (-1)
Lib Dem 11% (+1)
UKIP 11% (-)
Others 11% (+1)
Seats
Con 287 (+1)
Lab 266 (-4)
Lib Dem 27 (-)
Green 1 (+1)
UKIP 1 (-1)
SNP 48 (+4)
Plaid 2 (-1)
NI 18
Con chances of being largest party now >65% (was >50%).
It's all over for Ed.
(Unless he took my advice and closed his bet for a nominal loss of 2 x [Not£20] yesterday.)0 -
I once poisoned a rat with dishwasher powder knowing it couldn't be sick. This was back in about 1986. I'd rather wrung it's neck or hit it on the head but it was trapped in a very tight space and had already bitten me.Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?0 -
2015 General Election - Prime Minister After GEantifrank said:
He said "Ed", not "Labour". He might well be right on those numbers.Pulpstar said:
Not on that seat count it isn't.BenM said:Labour's little bounce-let in polls is over, Tories firming up after last week's so called "wobble".
Updated unscientific don't-rely-on-this BenM 7th May vote share predictor (changes from last time I did it a couple of weeks ago):
Con 35% (-1)
Lab 32% (-1)
Lib Dem 11% (+1)
UKIP 11% (-)
Others 11% (+1)
Seats
Con 287 (+1)
Lab 266 (-4)
Lib Dem 27 (-)
Green 1 (+1)
UKIP 1 (-1)
SNP 48 (+4)
Plaid 2 (-1)
NI 18
Con chances of being largest party now >65% (was >50%).
It's all over for Ed.
Con + DUP + LD = 323
The nice thing about a betting exchange is that you can lay Dave
0 -
Your Lab triumphalism is rather funny. Do you realise that if the SNP take Scotland it is very unlikely that there will EVER be a Labour majority government again.surbiton said:
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?Bob__Sykes said:
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.antifrank said:So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
Conversely, pretty sure we blues are banking the following positions:
- may not win outright this time, but probably the only party who will ever win outright again.
- the party to clear up after all future profligate governments.
To add to
- the party of social mobility
- the party of the working man
- the party of a property owning democracy
As a one nation (one Union?) Tory, I'm particularly proud of all of these.
0 -
Hi Bev, long time no see! I've been publishing my ELBOW (that's "Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week") every Sunday since August which keeps me rather busy on PB!Beverley_C said:
Sunil darling!! You are still here!!!!Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, it was 2%!Scrapheap_as_was said:Did I see a TNS poll out with a Tory lead of ** just ** 3% this morning?
Bad news - I am back.
Last two weeks have given conflicting results. Week ending Easter Sunday, 0.4% Tory lead, but Week ending 12th April, Labour bounced back to a 1.2% lead!
Overall trend here:
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5873811693244989440 -
Foxes and aggressors will love that little list.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Guido has read the Green Party manifesto so you don’t have to.
“a complete ban on cages for hens and rabbits” (Spring time for foxes?)
“end the use of the whip in horse racing and conduct a full review of the sport” (what about the lossof horse manure, it is very natural?)
“end the practice of grouse shooting” (Is this to provide more food for foxes?)
“ensure UK taxpayers’ money is not used for bullfighting” (Where are our bullfights?)
“ban the import of fur products” (Bad, since we will have fewer rabbits)
“progressively introduce anonymised CVs” (WTF)
“introduce new taxes on the use of water” (A sure winner)
“ensure that no company owns more than 20% of a media market” (Good, will eff up the BBC)
“pursue a policy of defensive defence, which threatens no one” (Please do not hit me if I smile)
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/free-the-bunnies-the-maddest-policies-in-the-green-manifesto-listed/#_@/Zv_-Cu9cn3rT6Q0 -
Cameron didn't 'welch' on a foxhunting deal, it wasn't a Tory government it was a coalition. Similar to Clegg and tuition fees.Indigo said:
I personally don't care about fox hunting on way or the other, but I would dearly like to see some signs of integrity from those that purport to lead us. Cameron did a deal with the Countryside Alliance, their ground army for a free vote on Hunting. He did the same in 2010 and then welched on it, he should do as he promised this time. It's a free vote, so if there is no support for it in the country, it will fail, that's life.trublue said:The fox hunting stuff seems unnecessary and dangerous ground.
Once he has done that he can make a promise on immigration that a) is technically possible to keep even with a full majority and b) he actually plans to keep.0 -
1st May 2016
Dear Daughter, the new RedEdHell coalition has banned all cages so we had to let your bunny Floppy out in the garden at night and unfortunately Rennard killed it....0 -
Ah managed to get you into a bit of class war.. it is satisfying to see people forget themselves when they have their backs upIndigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Animals kill each other in a cruel way without any encouragement from us. "Toffs" fox hunting or "chavs" with their dog fighting, I dislike both
If Dogs fight each other, or hunt foxes, that's life. We are animals too, killing other animals when there is no alternative/to protect our own families well being is necessary, and none of this conflicts with anything I have said earlier.
0 -
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?isam said:
Lots of assumptions, guesses and general rubbish from you there, you may as well talk to yourself if you are going to do that.Indigo said:
"Jesus that sounds like a load of shite" - No, nothing insulting there are all.isam said:
Who insulted anyone? Or used slogans?Indigo said:
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.isam said:Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
You didn't make any point to argue, save that in your opinion tradition was less important that foxes, which is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence or argument with which people may or may not agree.
Personally I think its cant, thousands of foxes die "naturally" in unpleasant circumstances every year, you don't propose a National Save The Fox program, with retirement homes for elderly foxes, hence your argument boils down to you wanting to such things to happen out of your sight, which means its about your personal comfort and nothing to do with foxes.
Which is of course leaving aside the unpleasant outcomes of most alternative ways of controlling the fox population, which farmers will do with substantially more vigour without the income from the hunts on their land.
I do help urban foxes suffering from mange, and hunts do happen out of my sight anyway, so its not adding to or lessening my discomfort either way. I don't advocate a ban on hunting I just think people that defend or glorify it are uncaring, ignorant fools. But we all have our moments
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
0 -
Jones didn't get them all.TCPoliticalBetting said:Guido has read the Green Party manifesto so you don’t have to.
“a complete ban on cages for hens and rabbits” (Spring time for foxes?)
“end the use of the whip in horse racing and conduct a full review of the sport” (what about the lossof horse manure, it is very natural?)
“end the practice of grouse shooting” (Is this to provide more food for foxes?)
“ensure UK taxpayers’ money is not used for bullfighting” (Where are our bullfights?)
“ban the import of fur products” (Bad, since we will have fewer rabbits)
“progressively introduce anonymised CVs” (WTF)
“introduce new taxes on the use of water” (A sure winner)
“ensure that no company owns more than 20% of a media market” (Good, will eff up the BBC)
“pursue a policy of defensive defence, which threatens no one” (Please do not hit me if I smile)
http://order-order.com/2015/04/14/free-the-bunnies-the-maddest-policies-in-the-green-manifesto-listed/#_@/Zv_-Cu9cn3rT6Q0 -
It was in the coalition agreement.logical_song said:
Cameron didn't 'welch' on a foxhunting deal, it wasn't a Tory government it was a coalition. Similar to Clegg and tuition fees.Indigo said:
I personally don't care about fox hunting on way or the other, but I would dearly like to see some signs of integrity from those that purport to lead us. Cameron did a deal with the Countryside Alliance, their ground army for a free vote on Hunting. He did the same in 2010 and then welched on it, he should do as he promised this time. It's a free vote, so if there is no support for it in the country, it will fail, that's life.trublue said:The fox hunting stuff seems unnecessary and dangerous ground.
Once he has done that he can make a promise on immigration that a) is technically possible to keep even with a full majority and b) he actually plans to keep.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf (p.18)We will bring forward a motion on a free vote
enabling the House of Commons to express
its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act0 -
Well quite. My mother had a rabbit called Phidippides when she was a kid [small child rather than infant goat].TCPoliticalBetting said:
1st May 2016
Dear Daughter, the new RedEdHell coalition has banned all cages so we had to let your bunny Floppy out in the garden at night and unfortunately Rennard killed it....0 -
I'm more interested in what you got up to during a weekend in Amsterdam...JosiasJessop said:
True or false?Sunil_Prasannan said:Plato said:This is interesting. I still disapprove of HS2.
And that is on top of our £50 billion commitment to build High Speed 2 – the
new North-South railway linking up London with the West
Midlands, Leeds and Manchester – and develop High Speed
3 to join up the North. We will back scientific and technical
strengths by creating new institutions such as Health North;
the Royce Institute for Advanced Materials in Manchester,
Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield; the National Centre for
Ageing Science and Innovation in Newcastle; the Cognitive
Computing centre at Daresbury; and by making investments
in energy research in Blackpool, Cumbria and Thornton�
Sunil's trip over the Easter weekend to Amsterdam via Brussels on the Eurostar and the TGV-style Thalys service has made him think again about his opposition to HS2.
Actually I'm more in favour than against!
Oh, I was with my parents on the trip, so I behaved myself
0 -
First date from hell???Plato said:I once poisoned a rat with dishwasher powder knowing it couldn't be sick. This was back in about 1986. I'd rather wrung it's neck or hit it on the head but it was trapped in a very tight space and had already bitten me.
Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?0 -
This thread makes me think of the convo between Christoph Waltz and the French bloke in Inglourious Basterds!
Hans Landa: Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
Perrier LaPadite: I suppose I would.
Landa: Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?
LaPadite: Rats spread diseases. They bite people.
Landa: Rats were the cause of the bubonic plague, but that's some time ago. I propose to you, any disease a rat could spread, a squirrel could equally carry. Would you agree?
LaPadite: Oui.
Landa: Yet I assume you don't share the same animosity with squirrels that you do with rats, do you?
LaPadite: No.
Landa: But they're both rodents, are they not? And except for the tail, they even rather look alike, don't they?
LaPadite: It's an interesting thought, Herr Colonel.
Landa: Ha! However interesting as the thought may be, it makes not one bit of difference to how you feel. If a rat were to walk in here right now, as I'm talking, would you greet it with a saucer of your delicious milk?
LaPadite: Probably not.
Landa: I didn't think so. You don't like them. You don't really know why you don't like them; all you know is you find them repulsive.
0 -
LOL, very good!SandyRentool said:
First date from hell???Plato said:I once poisoned a rat with dishwasher powder knowing it couldn't be sick. This was back in about 1986. I'd rather wrung it's neck or hit it on the head but it was trapped in a very tight space and had already bitten me.
Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?0 -
You did no such thing. I could care less about either. It was you who asked about rat hunting, so it's the hunting you object to rather than the cruelty, you object to other people enjoying it.isam said:
Ah managed to get you into a bit of class war.. it is satisfying to see people forget themselves when they have their backs upIndigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Animals kill each other in a cruel way without any encouragement from us. "Toffs" fox hunting or "chavs" with their dog fighting, I dislike both
If Dogs fight each other, or hunt foxes, that's life. We are animals too, killing other animals when there is no alternative/to protect our own families well being is necessary, and none of this conflicts with anything I have said earlier.
0 -
In 1997 and 2001, Labour's majority would still have been a majority excluding Scotland.Mortimer said:
Your Lab triumphalism is rather funny. Do you realise that if the SNP take Scotland it is very unlikely that there will EVER be a Labour majority government again.surbiton said:
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?Bob__Sykes said:
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.antifrank said:So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)0 -
0
-
Thankfully, the chances of Blair Mk II are remarkably small in my lifetime.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In 1997 and 2001, Labour's majority would still have been a majority excluding Scotland.Mortimer said:
Your Lab triumphalism is rather funny. Do you realise that if the SNP take Scotland it is very unlikely that there will EVER be a Labour majority government again.surbiton said:
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?Bob__Sykes said:
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.antifrank said:So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)0 -
I am increasingly of the view that the Conservatives are going to hammer the LibDems - especially in the South West, London and some of the market towns of the South East.Casino_Royale said:
Tipped by a certain pb.com poster a few weeks ago:Pulpstar said:Mogg's swing may indicate half a Tory hope in Bath tbh.
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
But that the LibDems are holding up well in many places where Labour is the challenger - such as Cambridge, Bradford East, and Hornsey & Wood Green. (In all these seats I expect tactical voting from Conservative voters to keep Ed out.) If the Labour Party is only making 6 or 7 gains from the LibDems, then Ed's chances of becoming PM are quite modest.0 -
antifrank said:
Very good point. The only party that is in a position morally to do this is the Lib Dems.murali_s said:
Are the public going to ignore the obvious funding hole in the Conservatives' manifesto? Labour have to decide whether they're going to point it out relentlessly, risking the battle being on terrain where the Conservatives have been seen as far stronger for years, or to rely on other parties doing so. A better approach for Labour would be to focus on the Conservatives' lack of credibility for delivering nice things, given the last five years' grind, and using the funding gap as a way of showing that they won't in practice happen.antifrank said:So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions. I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
Go for it, Clegg!!!!0 -
isam's like them Puritans. They banned bear baiting not because it caused suffering to the bear, but because it gave enjoyment to the spectators.Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Same mentality, different spectators to hate.
A fun anti-UKIP policy would be to turn BBC2 into a Polish language channel just to piss off UKIPpers.
Imagine the foam as they tuned in to watch Jeremy Clarkson in Najwyższy Bieg. English subtitles of course, especially for the gwiazda w samochodzie za rozsądną cenę section.0 -
What did you think of the manifesto?rcs1000 said:
I am increasingly of the view that the Conservatives are going to hammer the LibDems - especially in the South West, London and some of the market towns of the South East.Casino_Royale said:
Tipped by a certain pb.com poster a few weeks ago:Pulpstar said:Mogg's swing may indicate half a Tory hope in Bath tbh.
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
But that the LibDems are holding up well in many places where Labour is the challenger - such as Cambridge, Bradford East, and Hornsey & Wood Green. (In all these seats I expect tactical voting from Conservative voters to keep Ed out.) If the Labour Party is only making 6 or 7 gains from the LibDems, then Ed's chances of becoming PM are quite modest.0 -
Nope, quite the opposite, if you see my reply to isam below that is what how I am characterising his position, personally I would not ban it on libertarian grounds.Bond_James_Bond said:
isam's like them Puritans. They banned bear baiting not because it caused suffering to the bear, but because it gave enjoyment to the spectators.Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
0 -
Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne as a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%! I was estimating that it was much closer.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
Someone asked me about rat hunting.. I wasn't aware of humans going out on rat hunts that's all, so I asked if such a thing existedIndigo said:
You did no such thing. I could care less about either. It was you who asked about rat hunting, so it's the hunting you object to rather than the cruelty, you object to other people enjoying it.isam said:
Ah managed to get you into a bit of class war.. it is satisfying to see people forget themselves when they have their backs upIndigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Animals kill each other in a cruel way without any encouragement from us. "Toffs" fox hunting or "chavs" with their dog fighting, I dislike both
If Dogs fight each other, or hunt foxes, that's life. We are animals too, killing other animals when there is no alternative/to protect our own families well being is necessary, and none of this conflicts with anything I have said earlier.
You mentioned toffs.. inferring I dislike people who are branded toffs. I don't like or dislike anyone dependent on the stereotype you label them with
I don't like the cruelty with which animals die at the hands of other animals, but of course that is the way life works. I wouldn't want to watch it, and I wouldn't organise a social event to encourage and glorify it. Each to their own
0 -
How did the launch of Labour's 'Minority Manifesto' go earlier today?0
-
I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
How confident are you on Bradford East ?rcs1000 said:
I am increasingly of the view that the Conservatives are going to hammer the LibDems - especially in the South West, London and some of the market towns of the South East.Casino_Royale said:
Tipped by a certain pb.com poster a few weeks ago:Pulpstar said:Mogg's swing may indicate half a Tory hope in Bath tbh.
https://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/libdemgeddon-you-dont-want-to-miss-a-thing/
But that the LibDems are holding up well in many places where Labour is the challenger - such as Cambridge, Bradford East, and Hornsey & Wood Green. (In all these seats I expect tactical voting from Conservative voters to keep Ed out.) If the Labour Party is only making 6 or 7 gains from the LibDems, then Ed's chances of becoming PM are quite modest.
If Labour and Lib Dems were Evens the pair, who would you plump for ?
Or is this decent value outsider confident.
I'd like to know as I'm on the red side of the book here at an awful price (Got carried away with the Ashcroft polling here)0 -
What "hounds" would you use on a Rat Hunt?isam said:
Someone asked me about rat hunting.. I wasn't aware of humans going out on rat hunts that's all, so I asked if such a thing existed
Voles?
Shrews?
Mice? 0 -
Mate lay off the sauce it turns you into an absolute helmetBond_James_Bond said:
isam's like them Puritans. They banned bear baiting not because it caused suffering to the bear, but because it gave enjoyment to the spectators.Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
Same mentality, different spectators to hate.
A fun anti-UKIP policy would be to turn BBC2 into a Polish language channel just to piss off UKIPpers.
Imagine the foam as they tuned in to watch Jeremy Clarkson in Najwyższy Bieg. English subtitles of course, especially for the gwiazda w samochodzie za rozsądną cenę section.
I have said many times I wouldn't ban it. Could you get it any more wrong?0 -
@WillHeaven: David Cameron has stolen the Labour Party's soul http://t.co/2Fl0l2WPXg0
-
I'm afraid it does not for me.Sunil_Prasannan said:This thread makes me think of the convo between Christoph Waltz and the French bloke in Inglourious Basterds!
Hans Landa: Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
Perrier LaPadite: I suppose I would.
...
...
etc
Using our relationship with rats as a justification for murdering Jews seems a bit of self justification. The conversation itself was a form of torture.0 -
Aren't Yorkies ratting dogs? There are IIRC Ratting Hounds as a breed, at least in the USA.Sunil_Prasannan said:
What "hounds" would you use on a Rat Hunt?isam said:
Someone asked me about rat hunting.. I wasn't aware of humans going out on rat hunts that's all, so I asked if such a thing existed
Voles?
Shrews?
Mice?0 -
Since 'the day the polls turned' Labour have led in just 3 out of 11 polls by my reckoning & all those are YGonline.
A lot of us thought at the time of that headline it was premature. You couldn't make it up really.0 -
I haven't said ban it. I just called out what I thought was a bad argument justifying itIndigo said:
Nope, quite the opposite, if you see my reply to isam below that is what how I am characterising his position, personally I would not ban it on libertarian grounds.Bond_James_Bond said:
isam's like them Puritans. They banned bear baiting not because it caused suffering to the bear, but because it gave enjoyment to the spectators.Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?0 -
Ok, hands up if you are in charge...
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/512/amz/vivo/live/images/2015/4/14/eb6f94ad-798f-4766-92a8-19c5c4219f28.jpgLabour has run into a little difficulty over the consistency of its message on spending cuts. The problem was summed up by shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna declaring earlier that "the leader of the Scottish Labour Party will not be in charge of the UK Budget”. His comments followed shadow chancellor Ed Balls saying he couldn’t guarantee Scotland an exemption from cuts. That appeared to clash with Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy’s comments during last week’s TV debates. Mr Murphy, out campaigning in Cumbernauld today, insists he’s “singing from the same hymn sheet”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/live0 -
Hence my reference to Tony stealing the Tories clothes upthread. EdM's indignation was so obvious.
He was pissed and outraged and It's Not Fair.The Tory manifesto basically offers a "cradle-to-grave" approach, just like the founding document of the welfare state, the 1942 Beveridge Report. David Cameron's earlier speech also emphasised that theme. "We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life," he said.
Ed Miliband, or any Labour leader since the Second World War, could have uttered that sentence. Because in 16 words, Mr Cameron has basically nicked the Labour Party's mission statement. He has stolen its soul.
And that's why it is so clever. The Prime Minister is pretending to be more Red than Ed.
But his approach is actually true blue, because although the manifesto aspires to the kind of state Beveridge intended – not the leviathan we have ended up with, where hundreds of thousands of households are paid to be workless – it does this through Tory means.Scott_P said:@WillHeaven: David Cameron has stolen the Labour Party's soul http://t.co/2Fl0l2WPXg
0 -
Very, very rare. Hounds are bred and trained to hunt their proper quarry and nothing else, and the ones that like moonlighting don't last very long. Crop damage does happen, and loss of livestock indirectly caused by leaving gates open, but the farmer gets compensated (or the hunt doesn't get to hunt on his land any more) and the individuals responsible get serious grief from the Field Master.Carnyx said:
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?isam said:
Lots of assumptions, guesses and general rubbish from you there, you may as well talk to yourself if you are going to do that.Indigo said:
"Jesus that sounds like a load of shite" - No, nothing insulting there are all.isam said:
Who insulted anyone? Or used slogans?Indigo said:
Shame that such a thoughtful post by SO has to be replied to by such a tendentious load of old cobblers from you. Hunting is something people are going to have a wide range of opinions, rather like voting UKIP, and one which people are not going to change their mind on due to be sloganized, or insulted, rather like voting for UKIP.isam said:Jesus that sounds like a load of shite
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
A lot of things that are morally wrong give a lot of people a lot of pleasure, is that justification for encouraging them?
You say people have a wide range of opinions on it, then smear one you disagree with without arguing against any of the points made... v open minded of you
You didn't make any point to argue, save that in your opinion tradition was less important that foxes, which is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence or argument with which people may or may not agree.
snip
Which is of course leaving aside the unpleasant outcomes of most alternative ways of controlling the fox population, which farmers will do with substantially more vigour without the income from the hunts on their land.
I do help urban foxes suffering from mange, and hunts do happen out of my sight anyway, so its not adding to or lessening my discomfort either way. I don't advocate a ban on hunting I just think people that defend or glorify it are uncaring, ignorant fools. But we all have our moments
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
0 -
What's the position on Hampstead and Kilburn now that Ronnie Carroll has died ? I assume that it will be postponed as in Thirsk and Malton in 2010. However there is some doubt as Carroll was standing as an independent>0
-
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).0
-
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
0 -
Very little if any crop damage is caused by hunts, which take place in winter when crops aren't growing. Farmers give permission for the hunt to enter their land they wouldn't if it involved damage to their crops. That said some damage does sometimes occur to hedges, fences, gates etc., where it does the hunt, if it is well run, will quickly put it right and/or provide compensation.Carnyx said:
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
As to farm animals and pets killed by hunts, I have read of it but have never known a case locally. It probably happens but very infrequently and only when something has gone horribly wrong. Farmers lose more livestock to pet dogs not being kept under proper control than they ever do to hounds from the hunt.0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/liveScott_P said:Ok, hands up if you are in charge...
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/512/amz/vivo/live/images/2015/4/14/eb6f94ad-798f-4766-92a8-19c5c4219f28.jpgLabour has run into a little difficulty over the consistency of its message on spending cuts. The problem was summed up by shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna declaring earlier that "the leader of the Scottish Labour Party will not be in charge of the UK Budget”. His comments followed shadow chancellor Ed Balls saying he couldn’t guarantee Scotland an exemption from cuts. That appeared to clash with Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy’s comments during last week’s TV debates. Mr Murphy, out campaigning in Cumbernauld today, insists he’s “singing from the same hymn sheet”.
Cumbernauld... CUMBERNAULD.
Seems... optimistic.0 -
***** Betting Post *****
My Bet of the Week suggestion this time again concentrates on value and on the possible rather than the probable.
Some recent polls have shown something of an improvement in the LibDems' share of the vote of between 1% - 2%, which is in line with some experts' expectations of what was likely during the GE campaign.
Currently the spread-betting and fixed odds betting markets are showing the Yellow Team as winning within a range of the mid to upper twenties in terms of seats. If the party is indeed likely to perk up even a little over the next three weeks, it seems reasonable that their seats tally might do likewise, increasing to the low to mid thirties.
Here, I just taken the few quid that was available of Betfair's offering at 6.0 (or 5/1 for their before their commission) for their 31 - 35 Seat Band, so you may need to ask for this price or accept slightly lower odds. Either way, this looks attractive to me on the basis that fair value might well be nearer to 4.5 (or 7/2 in old money).
As ever DYOR.0 -
It's IIRC the first election with a dead candidate on the ballot paper.
As he's an Indy - that changes the rules. We had a discussion about forming a Suicide Party on an earlier thread yesterday.slade said:What's the position on Hampstead and Kilburn now that Ronnie Carroll has died ? I assume that it will be postponed as in Thirsk and Malton in 2010. However there is some doubt as Carroll was standing as an independent>
0 -
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus and THIS is the face... of Jewish vengeance!"Flightpath said:
I'm afraid it does not for me.Sunil_Prasannan said:This thread makes me think of the convo between Christoph Waltz and the French bloke in Inglourious Basterds!
Hans Landa: Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
Perrier LaPadite: I suppose I would.
...
...
etc
Using our relationship with rats as a justification for murdering Jews seems a bit of self justification. The conversation itself was a form of torture.0 -
How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.Danny565 said:
Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
0 -
Mr Clampett good to see you back posting.HurstLlama said:
Very little if any crop damage is caused by hunts, which take place in winter when crops aren't growing. Farmers give permission for the hunt to enter their land they wouldn't if it involved damage to their crops. That said some damage does sometimes occur to hedges, fences, gates etc., where it does the hunt, if it is well run, will quickly put it right and/or provide compensation.Carnyx said:
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
As to farm animals and pets killed by hunts, I have read of it but have never known a case locally. It probably happens but very infrequently and only when something has gone horribly wrong. Farmers lose more livestock to pet dogs not being kept under proper control than they ever do to hounds from the hunt.0 -
Er. no. Of the last 11 polls, Tories led in 4, Lab in 4 and three ties!Purseybear said:Since 'the day the polls turned' Labour have led in just 3 out of 11 polls by my reckoning & all those are YGonline.
A lot of us thought at the time of that headline it was premature. You couldn't make it up really.0 -
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest0 -
Murphy spending time in Cumbernauld of all places shows the suspension of reality Scottish Labour exist in at the moment.0
-
Sport offers various wonderful sights, but they are all the better for being completely meaningless. That's why the interviews and commentary can be so awful: deep down you know it's utterly pointless and they are all taking it far too seriously.SouthamObserver said:Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
0 -
0
-
He is just using Hanretty www.electionforecast.co.uklogical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
Have we done the IFS reaction?
One thing the prime minister didn’t make too much of but did say, was that he was reaffirming a commitment to getting the overall budget into surplus by 2018. That implies something really dramatic - and we’re talking tens and tens of billions of pounds worth of spending cuts or tax increases even before you start to think about some of the promises that we’ve heard on the National Health Service, on increasing the personal tax allowance.
So what you got was a lot of the good stuff of course - more money for childcare, more money for the health service and so on - but absolutely no detail on the bad stuff, which is there’s going to have to continue to be really big cuts on welfare spending, really big cuts in local government spending, really big cuts in all the other bits of spending which haven’t been specifically protected.
0 -
Surely, all the polls just confirm that this is Scotland’s election.
If the Scots hadn’t fallen out of love with Labour, then Ed Miliband would be almost home and dry. On BenM’s figures below, if most of the ex-Scottish Labour vote returned, then Labour would be easily the biggest party, and almost have a majority.
Their best hope now is to see whether any of that SLAB vote can be gotten back. If I was Miliband, I would be camped North of the Border on my knees, pleading, cajoling, hoping, begging ... and in such desperate circumstances maybe even telling the truth.
Gordon Brown could surely have won this election if he was Labour leader.
It was the appointment of such a London-centric figure as Miliband that has lost the election for Labour. Yes, I know he nominally represents a rotten borough in Yorkshire, but he is 100 per cent North London.
0 -
Before its removal, attending public hangings and executions was extremely popular. Humans want sex, death and blood. It's not a nice thing to say but true - witness those who filmed parents trying to rescue their children from the sea and didn't try and help them.MyBurningEars said:
A good point. But I think that if it's only wrong because it's a socialised, that isn't a very strong argument that it is wrong. Do people take vicarious pleasure in watching a magnificent hunting animal tear its prey to shreds? On widescreen TV with a narrator you wish was your uncle and some stunning scenery in the background, apparently it's more politically and culturally acceptable. Do humans help one animal to hunt another? Seems to be the point of the barn cat, and numerous other examples of one beast use for the "pest control" of another. So I'm reluctant to castigate fox-hunting as some unique evil which brings out the worst in human nature, though as a fluffy sensitive urban vegetarian type, it's really not my bag.isam said:
Do humans assist cats, wolves and lions to do what comes naturally to them, and organise their social calendar around such events?MyBurningEars said:I do admire your not being an on-message one-party drone, SO. A top post, even if I couldn't agree with it all. The issue of importance of welfare vs tradition so very subjective, I don't think a definitive answer is possible. It's one that will run and run. Even the question of whether a fox is really a "pest" - it's an extreme view, but there's a school of gardening that says there's no such thing as a weed.
I'd venture that people's sensitivity over the fate of cute fluffy calendar-adorning foxes is utterly irrational. How kindly do they think that wolves euthanise deer, or lion take care to stun their antelope before devouring them? All magnificent when you watch it on a wildlife documentary of course (in a way that a hound hunting apparently isn't). Does their adorable pet kitten take out those voles and mice and tweety-birds with a well-aimed bolt to the head? When foxes themselves hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs and fledglings, do they get a special licence of approval from the RSPCA first?
And of course the very worst thing that could happen to a fox is to be caught by another animal. Without that they would never experience the joys of being mangled by an automobile, or half-starving half-freezing to death in winter, or the wracking of their flesh as infirmity and disease takes it course.
Lots of misplaced sympathy to go about, it seems.0 -
Only if you equate the life of an animal with the life of a human. I am afraid I just don't. How could I or anyone else who eats meat think that? How could anyone who knows anyone who eats meat think that?isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
0 -
I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?logical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
Twit.isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
0 -
He's not predicting anything at all this time though, he's just using Hanretty's model.Plato said:I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?logical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
Plato said:
Thankfully, the chances of Blair Mk II are remarkably small in my lifetime.
Sunil_Prasannan said:
In 1997 and 2001, Labour's majority would still have been a majority excluding Scotland.Mortimer said:
Your Lab triumphalism is rather funny. Do you realise that if the SNP take Scotland it is very unlikely that there will EVER be a Labour majority government again.surbiton said:
The difference now is that the two Ed's know that they have to govern whereas Dave and Gideon are somewhat free knowing they would not be in charge anyway - so why not ?Bob__Sykes said:
Having speed-read both, I have to say if you removed the party branding and colour schemes, you'd swear the Labour one was Dave's and the Tory one Ed's.antifrank said:So the Conservatives have decided to cash in their reputation for prudence in order to go on a spree of promises, while Labour have decided to make a virtue of prudence having spent years opposing any difficult funding decisions.
I expect it's too late for either of them to be believed.
The Tory one reminds me of my own performance review at work each year - repackaging the same objectives every year and how i'm going to definitely achieve them, rather than addressing the lack of progress made over the past 12 months.... ;-)
That was New Labour. That ship sailed a long time ago. [Thankfully]
0 -
Don't forget the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt set up in honour of Tony Blair...Indigo said:
No but millions die every year from internal bleeding and dehydration as a result of poisoning, I am sure its not a particularly pleasant way to go. I thought you were concerned about animal cruelty not that it was seen as a spectator sport for toffs.isam said:
Are there rat hunts then?Bond_James_Bond said:
Is it just foxes you think are cute? With their cute widdle bwushy wushy tails?isam said:
Jesus that sounds like a load of shiteSouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
People can ride horses in the countryside and dogs can run without having to sacrifice a fox.
Why is a link back to a past more important than a living beings feelings/existence. I am sure people enjoyed watching women tried as witches face the ducking stool once. That was part of England too. So what?
What about rats, are they too cute to hunt, too?
I bet you don't run into many of them Poles, comin' over 'ere, on hunts. There's a thought eh?
http://www.cssh.org.uk/0 -
Really? Well that's more white labeling like Ashcroft - I really don't like this trend.Pulpstar said:
He's not predicting anything at all this time though, he's just using Hanretty's model.Plato said:I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?logical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/0 -
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers.isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being.
A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954.0 -
Dave has gone from the NHS being "Open all hours" to now offering "The Good life" !0
-
And the strategy to defer a vote was agreed with the CA in advance. They knew that it couldn't be won, so agreed to wait for a better time. As with the EU vote, lose it once and it's over for a generation (if not for ever)logical_song said:
Cameron didn't 'welch' on a foxhunting deal, it wasn't a Tory government it was a coalition. Similar to Clegg and tuition fees.Indigo said:
I personally don't care about fox hunting on way or the other, but I would dearly like to see some signs of integrity from those that purport to lead us. Cameron did a deal with the Countryside Alliance, their ground army for a free vote on Hunting. He did the same in 2010 and then welched on it, he should do as he promised this time. It's a free vote, so if there is no support for it in the country, it will fail, that's life.trublue said:The fox hunting stuff seems unnecessary and dangerous ground.
Once he has done that he can make a promise on immigration that a) is technically possible to keep even with a full majority and b) he actually plans to keep.0 -
No, he's quite open about it:Plato said:Really? Well that's more white labeling like Ashcroft - I really don't like this trend.
Pulpstar said:
He's not predicting anything at all this time though, he's just using Hanretty's model.Plato said:I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?logical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
U.K. General Election Predictions
"FiveThirtyEight is publishing forecasts for the 2015 parliamentary election developed by Chris Hanretty, Ben Lauderdale and Nick Vivyan, a group of U.K. academics. Their model combines opinion polls, historical election results and census data. More U.K. election coverage »"0 -
Yes, the soundbite of saving 1% of the government budget sounds very reasonable, but is disingenuous when you consider the vast amounts of the budget that are completely off-limits: NHS and Pensions for starters.SouthamObserver said:Have we done the IFS reaction?
One thing the prime minister didn’t make too much of but did say, was that he was reaffirming a commitment to getting the overall budget into surplus by 2018. That implies something really dramatic - and we’re talking tens and tens of billions of pounds worth of spending cuts or tax increases even before you start to think about some of the promises that we’ve heard on the National Health Service, on increasing the personal tax allowance.
So what you got was a lot of the good stuff of course - more money for childcare, more money for the health service and so on - but absolutely no detail on the bad stuff, which is there’s going to have to continue to be really big cuts on welfare spending, really big cuts in local government spending, really big cuts in all the other bits of spending which haven’t been specifically protected.
Though elections aren't won or lost on details I would rather hope that a Conservative politician is picked up on this aspect of the 1% slogan in an interview at some point.0 -
-
For a moment today, I wondered why Google were honouring Nick Robinson on their front page...
https://www.google.co.uk0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._AmbedkarMarkHopkins said:For a moment today, I wondered why Google were honouring Nick Robinson on their front page...
https://www.google.co.uk0 -
A really good interviewer like Andrew Neil would get them on that sort of detail. Too bad Dave is avoiding him like the plague.OblitusSumMe said:Yes, the soundbite of saving 1% of the government budget sounds very reasonable, but is disingenuous when you consider the vast amounts of the budget that are completely off-limits: NHS and Pensions for starters.
Though elections aren't won or lost on details I would rather hope that a Conservative politician is picked up on this aspect of the 1% slogan in an interview at some point.0 -
Thanks.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
0 -
'historical election results' - hmmm 'Past performance is no guide to future performance' is the second thing you learn as an investor. (The first is - buy low sell high).Pulpstar said:
No, he's quite open about it:Plato said:Really? Well that's more white labeling like Ashcroft - I really don't like this trend.
Pulpstar said:
He's not predicting anything at all this time though, he's just using Hanretty's model.Plato said:I remain highly sceptical about Mr Silver. The UK market is perplexing our own expert pollsters - he comes from a two party system and IIRC was very wrong in his last UK predictions.
Let's see how he calls it this time. Until then, he's in the Angus Reid column credibility wise.
Speaking of Angus Reid, they seemed to have a great methodology and were very keen to learn about the UK market - whatever went so wrong for them?logical_song said:
It will be interesting to see how Nate Silver's predictions work out. He has UKIP on one.Plato said:I really don't know. The sitting MP has a good local rep, the Tories are hitting the streets - but so are the LDs.
It's going to be very tight. I certainly don't think the LDs are 20% near anything. A coin toss IMO.TCPoliticalBetting said:Plato, I think you are near/in Eastbourne, do you see Eastbourne a definite hold for LDs? This NateSilver website does by 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
U.K. General Election Predictions
"FiveThirtyEight is publishing forecasts for the 2015 parliamentary election developed by Chris Hanretty, Ben Lauderdale and Nick Vivyan, a group of U.K. academics. Their model combines opinion polls, historical election results and census data. More U.K. election coverage »"0 -
For the purposes of the point you made, which was the problem of equating killing a fox with sexual abuse of a child was that the child lives with the consequences while the fox is dead, the equivalent would be the child dying.SouthamObserver said:
Only if you equate the life of an animal with the life of a human. I am afraid I just don't. How could I or anyone else who eats meat think that? How could anyone who knows anyone who eats meat think that?isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
Ats opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
I wouldn't say they were the same, I did make it sound as if that's what I thought I am sorry, my mistake, but my point was logically, if the problem was the lifelong suffering then the equivalent is the child dying (or the fox being sexually abused)
I am a human and so I favour humans, foxes would favour foxes0 -
We are not getting too excited by the oil strike. Its nice of course but one has to be discreet about these things. The chap down the road who bought himself a stetson and a pair of alligator skin boots has found the invitations to social events drying up. Worrying about how many gallons in a barrel and what the cat would do in the event of a well-head fire and other such concerns of an oil-man does soak up the hours though.Alanbrooke said:
Mr Clampett good to see you back posting.HurstLlama said:
Very little if any crop damage is caused by hunts, which take place in winter when crops aren't growing. Farmers give permission for the hunt to enter their land they wouldn't if it involved damage to their crops. That said some damage does sometimes occur to hedges, fences, gates etc., where it does the hunt, if it is well run, will quickly put it right and/or provide compensation.Carnyx said:
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
As to farm animals and pets killed by hunts, I have read of it but have never known a case locally. It probably happens but very infrequently and only when something has gone horribly wrong. Farmers lose more livestock to pet dogs not being kept under proper control than they ever do to hounds from the hunt.0 -
Back in your hutch ting tongFlightpath said:
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers.isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being.
A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954.0 -
Labour have been banging on about 'growth' and the Conservatives about 'efficiency savings' as if the other side would actively halt growth or not look for savings.
0 -
I am happy to agree that Pulp Fiction is a tour de force (a masterpiece almost) - worthy of rewatching, but otherwise, technically brilliant though they are, I feel cold towards Tarrantino's other efforts. Is as if he stumbled onto the dark comedy and humanity in Pulp Fiction by accident.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus and THIS is the face... of Jewish vengeance!"Flightpath said:
I'm afraid it does not for me.Sunil_Prasannan said:This thread makes me think of the convo between Christoph Waltz and the French bloke in Inglourious Basterds!
Hans Landa: Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
Perrier LaPadite: I suppose I would.
...
...
etc
Using our relationship with rats as a justification for murdering Jews seems a bit of self justification. The conversation itself was a form of torture.
Inglorious wotsots sits uneasily with me, and I am someone who admires The Wild Bunch.
BTW as an actor he was great (as was everybody) in Dusk till Dawn. And that too was a great and original movie... fair doos to Tarrantino for writing it.
0 -
My husband brought me back a pair of alligator boots and a stetson following a trip to Houston.
I'd have preferred almost anything else - the boots chafed terribly. The hat despite my love of them was just ridiculous. I gave it to the guy who did our garden, he wore it. He was a Baptist and we nicknamed him Stunt due to the bizarre DIY accidents he had. He once arrived in a boiler suit with a massive scar on his forehead. He'd clocked himself on the head with an angle grinder the day before and knawed the skin off down to the skull.
It was an excellent quality hat made of beaver skin.HurstLlama said:
We are not getting too excited by the oil strike. Its nice of course but one has to be discreet about these things. The chap down the road who bought himself a stetson and a pair of alligator skin boots has found the invitations to social events drying up. Worrying about how many gallons in a barrel and what the cat would do in the event of a well-head fire and other such concerns of an oil-man does soak up the hours though.Alanbrooke said:
Mr Clampett good to see you back posting.HurstLlama said:
Very little if any crop damage is caused by hunts, which take place in winter when crops aren't growing. Farmers give permission for the hunt to enter their land they wouldn't if it involved damage to their crops. That said some damage does sometimes occur to hedges, fences, gates etc., where it does the hunt, if it is well run, will quickly put it right and/or provide compensation.Carnyx said:
Serious question - how many farm animals, pet cats, dogs etc. get, or got, killed by hunts?
And what about crop damage?
Always wondered about those issues ...
As to farm animals and pets killed by hunts, I have read of it but have never known a case locally. It probably happens but very infrequently and only when something has gone horribly wrong. Farmers lose more livestock to pet dogs not being kept under proper control than they ever do to hounds from the hunt.0 -
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.Plato said:How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.
Danny565 said:Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.0 -
Things can only get betterDanny565 said:
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.Plato said:How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.
Danny565 said:Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Can only get better
Now I've found you
(sorry!)0 -
What would the cat do in the event of a well-head fire? I'm guessing find a safe distance from fire where it's still cosy from the heat, then curl up and sleep. Other possibilities include: bat disconsolately at an old cat toy, and ask for more food. I'm just going by my own cats' behaviour... yours may be more resourceful.HurstLlama said:We are not getting too excited by the oil strike. Its nice of course but one has to be discreet about these things. The chap down the road who bought himself a stetson and a pair of alligator skin boots has found the invitations to social events drying up. Worrying about how many gallons in a barrel and what the cat would do in the event of a well-head fire and other such concerns of an oil-man does soak up the hours though.
Henry0 -
I won't deny that's what I thought of when I wrote that sentence tooSunil_Prasannan said:
Things can only get betterDanny565 said:
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.Plato said:How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.
Danny565 said:Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Can only get better
Now I've found you
(sorry!) 0 -
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.Danny565 said:
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.Plato said:How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.
Danny565 said:Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.0 -
In reality, it has One Foot in the Grave!Pulpstar said:Dave has gone from the NHS being "Open all hours" to now offering "The Good life" !
0 -
Fruitcake or loon?isam said:
Back in your hutch ting tongFlightpath said:
No it is not. And you are seriously bonkers.isam said:
Fair enough point about the comparison with bear baiting, witch burning.SouthamObserver said:
Not many people enjoy watching a fox being ripped apart and very few of those on a hunt get to see it or want to see it, though they may see the aftermath. They see the foxes death as a necessity, but they do not see much difference in how it is killed. They may be wrong - but that, I would posit, is what separates hunting from things such as bear baiting, dog fighting and burning women as witches.tyson said:
The visceral enjoyment of seeing an animal ripped apart is as grotesque to me as paedophilia. Doubtless there are a few people who could justify that too.Casino_Royale said:
A very reasonable post SO.SouthamObserver said:"What most anti-fox hunting people really object to is the idea of people they don't like enjoying it."
I am not sure that is true. There have always been large majorities in favour of a ban and my impression is that's because most people feel it is cruel, not because who does it. And it is cruel - the terrified fox is hunted down and torn to shreds by a pack of dogs.
However, as someone once said: that's life. Foxes are a pest and they have to be dealt with. Quite frankly, how that happens is not a big issue for me. I used to take my father in law to follow the Warwickshire Hunt when he was alive. It was fantastic and clearly gave a lot of people a lot of pleasure. For me, that is the most important aspect to this. Watching the horses and hounds stream across a hilly green field to a wood or a copse is a wonderful sight, but a meaningless one if the fox is not involved. It's a link back to our past. It is a part of England. And that is more important than how a fox lives the last hour or so of its life.
Whilst I don't agree it's as explicitly cruel as you say it is, and do think class stereotypes play a big part in its opposition, you have a very nuanced, balanced and well-considered view on this which is, sadly, rare in this debate. And even brave.
I just do not equate the on-going physical and sexual abuse of a human child, and the resulting life-long trauma that causes, with the one-off chase and killing of a fox.
You are also right that the killing of a fox is not equivalent to sexual abuse of a child, it is equivalent to murdering a child you think of as a pest
A fox is officially vermin. A child is officially a human being.
A child may be a pest, but he/she does not fall under the Pests Act 1954. 0 -
After May 8th, the "Wallace & Gromit meet Mickey Mouse Salmond" cartoons are going to at least help numb the pain of the damage being done to the country. Brookes himself said in The Times the other week that he is looking forward to it with relish.Scott_P said:@thetimes: Today's cartoon by Peter Brookes #GE2015 http://t.co/1UAeNvnRT0 http://t.co/17hxPDJbvE
I will miss the Westminster Academy cartoons though, unless he keeps them going once Boris assumes the mantle...0 -
90% probability Con Gain Westmorland and Lonsdale I heard.Tissue_Price said:
Indeed, Purseybear will be delighted. Or maybe she won't. Hard to tell. Difficult call. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.Danny565 said:
I thought nothing about it tbh. It's just so incredibly bland that you wonder why they're bothering to stand in this election atall if they have that little to say.Plato said:How did you feel about the Labour manifesto? What caught your eye? It's passed me by and I really need to read it.
Danny565 said:Think the manifestos might well be the turning point of the whole election. Labour completely miscalculated: people don't want "credibility", they want HOPE that things are going to get better, and on that score the Tories are outgunning Labour (even if they don't keep any of their promises).
Even more depressing is their reaction to the Tory manifesto today. People don't want to hear nitpicking about how realistic or "costed" things are; people are currently so desperate for some hope that they WANT to believe things are going to get better.
Best get on fast.0 -
Labour, having gone ludicrously over-the-top a few weeks ago in describing the Conservative plans as swingeing, ideologically-driven cuts, which will take us back to Victorian times, are now having to try to switch to the opposite argument and claim that Cameron is promising unfunded giveaways.
This looks like a deliberate trap set by Osborne, and a rather nifty one. The message which most voters will get is that Conservative austerity can't be all that bad after all. Given that the Conservatives have a considerable advantage in economic credibility, that's quite a good position.
At the same time, Labour seem to have got themselves into a strategic hole with their late conversion to the message: 'any austerity Osborne can do, we can do better'. That won't play well with their core vote, and certainly not in Scotland. What's more the timing is particularly difficult for Miliband: on Thursday he'll face the challengers' debate with three feisty ladies taking chunks from his left and Nigel Farage skewering him on credibility.
I expect the Conservatives to pull ahead (or further ahead) in the next week or two.0 -
What happened to Margaret Thatcher's first Right to Buy council house?
One of the first council houses sold under Margaret Thatcher’s Right To Buy scheme was purchased for more than 20 times its original value 33 years later
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9983113/Margaret-Thatcher-History-of-one-of-the-first-Right-To-Buy-council-houses.html0
