politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump and Clinton have double digit leads in first post deb

Second....for once!

Alex Massie on why Cameron probably wont want to start a battle on a second front with the EU one going so well

In truth, the divide between the respective government positions is vastly narrower than generally assumed. That £3bn figure of which the Scottish government complains? What they don’t want you to know is that it’s £3bn (and probably actually less than that) over ten years. It’s less than one percent of the Scottish government’s current budget. It is about the same as a prudent annual underspend. It is about what the Scottish government currently spends subsidising flights from Scottish airports and ferries to the Scottish islands. It is, in the grand scheme of things, chickenfeed.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-cameron-is-going-to-have-to-give-the-snp-what-they-want/

On topic (somewhat). I hope the thread header is an indication we are going back to the smiling gordon era of how polling leads are reported?

If so, I demand my 17 smiling Trumps!

MikeSmithson said:

RobD said:

On topic (somewhat). I hope the thread header is an indication we are going back to the smiling gordon era of how polling leads are reported?

If so, I demand my 17 smiling Trumps!

That's a very long time ago - 2007 in fact. To do that with these numbers you'd have 21 Clintons and 17 Trumps.

Blimey, time does fly!

Perhaps you are right, that many Trumps and Clintons may be somewhat nauseating.

RobD said:

MikeSmithson said:

RobD said:

On topic (somewhat). I hope the thread header is an indication we are going back to the smiling gordon era of how polling leads are reported?

If so, I demand my 17 smiling Trumps!

That's a very long time ago - 2007 in fact. To do that with these numbers you'd have 21 Clintons and 17 Trumps.

Blimey, time does fly!

Perhaps you are right, that many Trumps and Clintons may be somewhat nauseating.

Jeez I can't believe that was nine years ago. Shocking.

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alex Massie on why Cameron probably wont want to start a battle on a second front with the EU one going so well

In truth, the divide between the respective government positions is vastly narrower than generally assumed. That £3bn figure of which the Scottish government complains? What they don’t want you to know is that it’s £3bn (and probably actually less than that) over ten years. It’s less than one percent of the Scottish government’s current budget. It is about the same as a prudent annual underspend. It is about what the Scottish government currently spends subsidising flights from Scottish airports and ferries to the Scottish islands. It is, in the grand scheme of things, chickenfeed.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-cameron-is-going-to-have-to-give-the-snp-what-they-want/

So what?

It's not as if the SNP are behaving with any decency in Westminster so what does Cameron have to lose? The SNP are routinely being obstructionist just for the sake of it. Even going as far as twice voting against (or saying they would) English only law changes that would have brought English law into line with Scottish law.

If the SNP want to behave like that why should Cameron give them more than one single penny more than they're owed and they're not owed this. The SNP got and lost their desired referendum, so now they can live with the consequences of that. If the SNP want to throw childish tantrums even on matters of bringing English law into line with Scottish law then there's no need or reason to bribe them. If they want to behave like grown ups then treat them as such but there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Because its 0.04% of total UK government expenditure?

Why pick a fight over that when there are bigger fish to fry.

I would say 'OK, you get this, but any underspend goes back to the UK Treasury' - which will probably be a wash.....

So what if it's 0.04% of total government expenditure. I bet a lot of other savings that can and are being made are even less than that but to be so completely flippant with taxpayers money is a disaster of Brownian proportions.

But more than that it's the principle of the matter. If the SNP want to be nothing but obstructionist and refuse to co-operate or even abstain on matters that have nothing to do with them, why should the UK government co-operate with the SNP? If you want to be an honest broker then don't be perfidious in the rest of your dealings.

RobD said:

Touched on last thread, but Osborne's jammy git status confirmed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158954/George-Osborne-to-reap-21bn-windfall-from-UKs-safe-haven-status.html

Let's hope he uses it to pay down the deficit, rather than to lessen the impact of some cut, as the previous bounty was used for.

You make your own luck.

If the "no more money left" brigade were still in power we would not be viewed as a safe haven today.

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alex Massie on why Cameron probably wont want to start a battle on a second front with the EU one going so well

In truth, the divide between the respective government positions is vastly narrower than generally assumed. That £3bn figure of which the Scottish government complains? What they don’t want you to know is that it’s £3bn (and probably actually less than that) over ten years. It’s less than one percent of the Scottish government’s current budget. It is about the same as a prudent annual underspend. It is about what the Scottish government currently spends subsidising flights from Scottish airports and ferries to the Scottish islands. It is, in the grand scheme of things, chickenfeed.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-cameron-is-going-to-have-to-give-the-snp-what-they-want/

So what?

It's not as if the SNP are behaving with any decency in Westminster so what does Cameron have to lose? The SNP are routinely being obstructionist just for the sake of it. Even going as far as twice voting against (or saying they would) English only law changes that would have brought English law into line with Scottish law.

If the SNP want to behave like that why should Cameron give them more than one single penny more than they're owed and they're not owed this. The SNP got and lost their desired referendum, so now they can live with the consequences of that. If the SNP want to throw childish tantrums even on matters of bringing English law into line with Scottish law then there's no need or reason to bribe them. If they want to behave like grown ups then treat them as such but there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Because its 0.04% of total UK government expenditure?

Why pick a fight over that when there are bigger fish to fry.

I would say 'OK, you get this, but any underspend goes back to the UK Treasury' - which will probably be a wash.....

So what if it's 0.04% of total government expenditure. I bet a lot of other savings that can and are being made are even less than that but to be so completely flippant with taxpayers money is a disaster of Brownian proportions.

But more than that it's the principle of the matter. If the SNP want to be nothing but obstructionist and refuse to co-operate or even abstain on matters that have nothing to do with them, why should the UK government co-operate with the SNP? If you want to be an honest broker then don't be perfidious in the rest of your dealings.

I hate to break it to you, but its called 'Politics'.....and 'life's not fair'.....

Janan Ganesh - on why the current Tory vs SNP spat (and future ones to come) suit both parties very nicely:

Meanwhile, as long as the SNP commands a virtual monopoly of parliamentary seats in Scotland, it is structurally near-impossible for Labour to defeat the Tories in a UK-wide election. And the harder it is for Labour to win, the more the party favours a life of ideological indulgence by way of consolation. Its members chose the ageing socialist Jeremy Corbyn as leader last autumn not as a way back to credibility but as a source of pleasure while impotent. The Tories can rest on historically lavish poll leads because Labour has given up, and Labour has given up because the SNP is so strong....

No, the status quo suits both parties too much to disrupt, even if they knew how to go about such a thing. They are two columns propping up a political structure that shelters their interests. The anguish is all Labour’s. The party can only get around its systemic exclusion from power by reclaiming lost territory in Scotland. If Mr Corbyn flunks that challenge — and polls ahead of May’s Scottish elections suggest he will have a hard enough time keeping the Tories in third — it should explode the idea, born of the 1980s, that Scots are wildly leftwing.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b594caf4-d1a1-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#ixzz40JEHYA2c.

Philip_Thompson said:

If he doesn't bribe the SNP what are they going to do?
Become obstructionist? Oh wait already doing that.
Call a repeat of the referendum they've already lost at a time oil is worthless? No they'd lose again.

Exactly. They shot that bolt.

And the more they crank up the grievance agenda while being unable to call another vote, the more disillusioned the Zoomers will get.

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So what?

It's not as if the SNP are behaving with any decency in Westminster so what does Cameron have to lose? The SNP are routinely being obstructionist just for the sake of it. Even going as far as twice voting against (or saying they would) English only law changes that would have brought English law into line with Scottish law.

If the SNP want to behave like that why should Cameron give them more than one single penny more than they're owed and they're not owed this. The SNP got and lost their desired referendum, so now they can live with the consequences of that. If the SNP want to throw childish tantrums even on matters of bringing English law into line with Scottish law then there's no need or reason to bribe them. If they want to behave like grown ups then treat them as such but there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Because its 0.04% of total UK government expenditure?

Why pick a fight over that when there are bigger fish to fry.

I would say 'OK, you get this, but any underspend goes back to the UK Treasury' - which will probably be a wash.....

So what if it's 0.04% of total government expenditure. I bet a lot of other savings that can and are being made are even less than that but to be so completely flippant with taxpayers money is a disaster of Brownian proportions.

But more than that it's the principle of the matter. If the SNP want to be nothing but obstructionist and refuse to co-operate or even abstain on matters that have nothing to do with them, why should the UK government co-operate with the SNP? If you want to be an honest broker then don't be perfidious in the rest of your dealings.

I hate to break it to you, but its called 'Politics'.....and 'life's not fair'.....

Neither of that answers my question of what Cameron has to lose?

Cameron is working on his 'legacy'.

The EU one is turning to ashes before his eyes - a successful devolution settlement (at the extortionate cost of 0.04% of spending) might prove too tempting to resist.....I expect we'll find out in a few days.....

That would be vanity not politics and I'd lose a bit of respect for him if he did it for that reason.

So you're agreeing by your silence I suppose there is nothing the SNP can do that they've not already done if he doesn't agree to bribe them?

Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:

To sum up where we now stand;

The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.

The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.

The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that

Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

So what?

If the SNP want to behave like that why should Cameron give them more than one single penny more...uences of that. If the SNP want to throw childish tantrums even on matters of bringing English law into line with Scottish law then there's no need or reason to bribe them. If they want to behave like grown ups then treat them as such but there needs to be a quid pro quo.

Because its 0.04% of total UK government expenditure?

Why pick a fight over that when there are bigger fish to fry.

I would say 'OK, you get this, but any underspend goes back to the UK Treasury' - which will probably be a wash.....

So what if it's 0.04% of total government expenditure. I bet a lot of other savings that can and are being made are even less than that but to be so completely flippant with taxpayers money is a disaster of Brownian proportions.

But more than that it's the principle of the matter. If the SNP want to be nothing but obstructionist and refuse to co-operate or even abstain on matters that have nothing to do with them, why should the UK government co-operate with the SNP? If you want to be an honest broker then don't be perfidious in the rest of your dealings.

I hate to break it to you, but its called 'Politics'.....and 'life's not fair'.....

Neither of that answers my question of what Cameron has to lose?

Cameron is working on his 'legacy'.

The EU one is turning to ashes before his eyes - a successful devolution settlement (at the extortionate cost of 0.04% of spending) might prove too tempting to resist.....I expect we'll find out in a few days.....

That would be vanity not politics and I'd lose a bit of respect for him if he did it for that reason.

So you're agreeing by your silence I suppose there is nothing the SNP can do that they've not already done if he doesn't agree to bribe them?

I hope Cameron is seeing a 'bigger picture' than 0.04% of the budget - what the SNP is doing is hypocritical and dishonest - but its good politics - Cameron's prize is getting them to lie in the bed they've made for themselves - giving them an 'easy out' over (relatively) trivial amounts of money would be a mistake - the SNP's 'bigger prize' is perpetual grievance mongering - they should be denied it.....

SNP are in that magical position of dominant impotence. Because they have no further gains to make, they can be refused out of hand.

And I hope they will be.

Because DC represents Britain, and Britain has had enough of Scots whinging.

Indigo said:

So about this idea of having our Financial Services industry having to follow rules made by the ECB, and financial regulations passed by Eurozone QMV...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158626/German-bail-in-plan-for-government-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html

A new German plan to impose "haircuts" on holders of eurozone sovereign debt risks igniting an unstoppable European bond crisis and could force Italy and Spain to restore their own currencies, a top adviser to the German government has warned.

“It is the fastest way to break up the eurozone,” said Professor Peter Bofinger, one of the five "Wise Men" on the German Council of Economic Advisers.

That's nothing to do with the relationship between Eurozone and non Eurozone countries. That's a suggestion for how to deal with future sovereign defaults inside the Eurozone.

Mortimer said:

SNP are in that magical position of dominant impotence. Because they have no further gains to make, they can be refused out of hand.

And I hope they will be.

Because DC represents Britain, and Britain has had enough of Scots whinging.

So this boils down to it costing the UK 0.04% to keep the SNP brand strong, Labour buggered in Scotland - and so out of power in the UK? That sound like a very cheap insurance premium to me...

Surely this will finish Trump.

http://uproxx.com/life/donald-trump-orders-steak-well-done/

Who could vote for him after this?

Mortimer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mortimer said:

SNP are in that magical position of dominant impotence. Because they have no further gains to make, they can be refused out of hand.

And I hope they will be.

Because DC represents Britain, and Britain has had enough of Scots whinging.

So this boils down to it costing the UK 0.04% to keep the SNP brand strong, Labour buggered in Scotland - and so out of power in the UK? That sound like a very cheap insurance premium to me...

Arguably, it might keep the SNP brand stronger to not allow this...

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

asjohnstone said:

Surely this will finish Trump.

http://uproxx.com/life/donald-trump-orders-steak-well-done/

Who could vote for him after this?

Who? Only a nation cowed by haughty maitre d's into ordering their steaks "medium", that's who. Millions of Trump supporters going "free at last, free at last...."

Or something.

CarlottaVance said:

WE STOOD UP FOR SCOTLAND TO STOP THE WESTMINSTER TORIES SCREWING WEE BAIRNS may be nearer the mark.....

And how exactly were they screwing wee bairns?

BY TAKING AWAY THE MAHOOSSIVE SUBSIDIES... Oh, wait.

https://twitter.com/alexgallagher2/status/699498066261491712

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Somehow I don't think that's the argument they'll use.....

WE STOOD UP FOR SCOTLAND TO STOP THE WESTMINSTER TORIES SCREWING WEE BAIRNS may be nearer the mark.....

Reminds me of a true story from when I was on holiday in Arran. I was at the supermarket, behind a Scottish mum. The cashier was putting her groceries through, when he spotted a loaf of bread, marked down to 10p, was actually outside its sell-by date. He told the lady that he couldn't sell her the bread. Angry, she tried to get him to change his mind, but he said he couldn't do anything about it. Health and safety prevented him. "Och, but it's only for the bairns.." was her classy reply.

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Somehow I don't think that's the argument they'll use.....

WE STOOD UP FOR SCOTLAND TO STOP THE WESTMINSTER TORIES SCREWING WEE BAIRNS may be nearer the mark.....

Reminds me of a true story from when I was on holiday in Arran. I was at the supermarket, behind a Scottish mum. The cashier was putting her groceries through, when he spotted a loaf of bread, marked down to 10p, was actually outside its sell-by date. He told the lady that he couldn't sell her the bread. Angry, she tried to get him to change his mind, but he said he couldn't do anything about it. Health and safety prevented him. "Och, but it's only for the bairns.." was her classy reply.

Fantastic tale!

Sounds like something out of a Hannah More broadside ballad!

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

So about this idea of having our Financial Services industry having to follow rules made by the ECB, and financial regulations passed by Eurozone QMV...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158626/German-bail-in-plan-for-government-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html

A new German plan to impose "haircuts" on holders of eurozone sovereign debt risks igniting an unstoppable European bond crisis and could force Italy and Spain to restore their own currencies, a top adviser to the German government has warned.

“It is the fastest way to break up the eurozone,” said Professor Peter Bofinger, one of the five "Wise Men" on the German Council of Economic Advisers.

That's nothing to do with the relationship between Eurozone and non Eurozone countries. That's a suggestion for how to deal with future sovereign defaults inside the Eurozone.

Nevertheless, it is alarming. I have been reluctant to take @Hunchman's predictions of sovereign insolvency seriously but a move like that would be very dangerous because no one would want to be left holding the baby when the bail in occurs.

Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.

Almost as if separate currencies might be a good idea....

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

So about this idea of having our Financial Services industry having to follow rules made by the ECB, and financial regulations passed by Eurozone QMV...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158626/German-bail-in-plan-for-government-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html

A new German plan to impose "haircuts" on holders of eurozone sovereign debt risks igniting an unstoppable European bond crisis and could force Italy and Spain to restore their own currencies, a top adviser to the German government has warned.

“It is the fastest way to break up the eurozone,” said Professor Peter Bofinger, one of the five "Wise Men" on the German Council of Economic Advisers.

That's nothing to do with the relationship between Eurozone and non Eurozone countries. That's a suggestion for how to deal with future sovereign defaults inside the Eurozone.

Nevertheless, it is alarming. I have been reluctant to take @Hunchman's predictions of sovereign insolvency seriously but a move like that would be very dangerous because no one would want to be left holding the baby when the bail in occurs.

Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.

All a bail in mechanism does is make it explicit what happens when there is a sovereign default. The alternative is the Russian roulette that we saw when Greece defaulted.

Mortimer said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

.

.

Nevertheless, it is alarming. I have been reluctant to take @Hunchman's predictions of sovereign insolvency seriously but a move like that would be very dangerous because no one would want to be left holding the baby when the bail in occurs.

Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.

Almost as if separate currencies might be a good idea....

There are echoes of the SNP dispute. What is required (from a German perspective) is that people are held responsible for their own actions and that they learn that choices have consequences. So if the Greeks are stupid enough to elect a government like Syrzia the consequences for them are adverse.

Similarly, in this country, once this lesson is learned people will not vote for a Labour government promising more spending and borrowing because they know that doesn't work. 2015 was encouraging in the belief that that message is getting through, at least outside Scotland.

The problem the Germans have got is that when you share the same currency the risks are not yours alone because the actions of one affect the others. This is why fiscal discipline is essential for the EZ creating a superstate that will dominate the EU.

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

So about this idea of having our Financial Services industry having to follow rules made by the ECB, and financial regulations passed by Eurozone QMV...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158626/German-bail-in-plan-for-government-bonds-risks-blowing-up-the-euro.html

A new German plan to impose "haircuts" on holders of eurozone sovereign debt risks igniting an unstoppable European bond crisis and could force Italy and Spain to restore their own currencies, a top adviser to the German government has warned.

“It is the fastest way to break up the eurozone,” said Professor Peter Bofinger, one of the five "Wise Men" on the German Council of Economic Advisers.

That's nothing to do with the relationship between Eurozone and non Eurozone countries. That's a suggestion for how to deal with future sovereign defaults inside the Eurozone.

Nevertheless, it is alarming. I have been reluctant to take @Hunchman's predictions of sovereign insolvency seriously but a move like that would be very dangerous because no one would want to be left holding the baby when the bail in occurs.

Germany is desperately looking for an alternative to pooled risks which are unacceptable when there is still insufficient control on the fiscal policies of EZ members. But even putting the usual AEP hyperbole aside this is playing with fire.

All a bail in mechanism does is make it explicit what happens when there is a sovereign default. The alternative is the Russian roulette that we saw when Greece defaulted.

You don't think that might cause bond holders to reappraise the risk of holding sovereign debt, and as a result sell out, causing a run on that bond and making it a self fulfilling prophecy ? If people believe that might happen, they won't want to be the last one holding the baby bond.

If a sovereign is going to default, they are going to default.

This doesn't make it more likely Spain or Italy defaults, it merely makes the consequences, and how they are shared, explicit.

As an aside, the markets don't share your gloomy prognosis, as Spanish, Italian and Portuguese bonds are all rallying today.

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement;

He's wrong.

If no agreement is reached because the SNP want Westminster to subsidise Scotland more, that completely undermines their (fabricated) economic case

I believe that.

You believe that.

But will SNP voters believe that?

You mean will people who have a vote in Scotland.believe that?

For SindyRef2?

SNP Manifesto Nailed on, I expect......

@DavudL, @Indigo, if either of you wants a bet on the change in the spread between German and Spanish bonds on a six month view, I'm Yo for it

eek said:

Trouble with setting rules in stone is that....

.... they make you look a plonker?

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

CarlottaVance said:

Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:

To sum up where we now stand;

The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.

The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.

The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that

Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html

Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
You are through the bottom of the barrel using that dunderheid and shows the desperation of unionists. Why are you so scared after having supposedly won.

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

I loved MM's comment that posting on Scottish politics has become the equivalent of paying a shilling at Bedlam.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

I loved MM's comment that posting on Scottish politics has become the equivalent of paying a shilling at Bedlam.

Fools are easily amused.

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

I loved MM's comment that posting on Scottish politics has become the equivalent of paying a shilling at Bedlam.

Lol!

Leavers are now mocking SNP supporters for their intenseness on politics? Oh what a gift...

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Given Sanders' performances previously, even if he loses in South Carolina surely that's a mere flesh wound rather than losing an arm? How's he set for Super Tuesday?

If he wins Nevada - and it's looking good for him, see http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-hillary-nevada-blowback-219295 - then I think yes, he can afford to get blown away in SC, but it will feed a worrying narrative that he can't win black voters, an important part of the Democrat coalition. My understanding is that Super Tuesday states tend to be Clinton-leaning, though the next wave after that are mostly good Sanders territory. Clinton will want to make it look a foregone conclusion before then, a bit like Obama did to her - she did well in the later states, but too late.

NorfolkTilIDie said:

A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??

Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.

Mr. Palmer, cheers.

Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

MarqueeMark said:

Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....

We get that either way.

Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...

Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.

The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.

Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.

Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.

Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.

Has Donald Trump nuked it into the seabed already?

No, you can still hear the whining.....

AlastairMeeks said:

Leavers are now mocking SNP supporters for their intenseness on politics? Oh what a gift...

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."


http://thinkexist.com/quotation/everything_that_irritates_us_about_others_can/8704.html

If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Given Sanders' performances previously, even if he loses in South Carolina surely that's a mere flesh wound rather than losing an arm? How's he set for Super Tuesday?

I'd agree. But as Pulpstar said below, South Carolina is *not* next for the Democrats; Nevada is, on Saturday. That's the same day as the Republicans do hold their SC primary. (The reverse fixtures are the Republican Nevada caucus a week today and then the Democrat SC primary on Saturday week).

That gives Sanders a slight advantage in that if the last Nevada poll is right, he'll at the least run Hillary close there and might even win; the momentum will still be with him. By contrast, were SC first - where Hillary does seem to hold a decent lead - that might tip the vote against him in Nevada.

As for ST, it ought to go Hillary's way but again, it's a damage limitation exercise for him. Two more 3-state rounds follow within a week, both of which Sanders might hope to win 2-1, though several of the states don't appear to be polled so I'm 'finger in the air'ing there.

Nevada is turning into a pretty critical contest. I'd say that if Sanders wins, then we're in for a long fight. If he loses but is within ten points then it becomes hard for him but he'll keep the contest live well into March. If he loses by more than ten points, then we're probably just counting down to the Hillary coronation.

There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.

I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.

I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.

NorfolkTilIDie said:

If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.