Saturday 2nd, Sunday 3rd & Monday 4th May 2015

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:05 am

yahyah wrote:
We're all on edge at the moment.

Yes. What IS the Royal Baby going to be called?

Good morning.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:21 am

Further to my conversation with my daughter's carers, plus two others with learning difficulties, about their advocacy in casting their votes I've just sent the following text as a reminder.

Please exercise all five of your votes this Thursday. Don't allow the menace of Dave, George and the odious IDS to have any more say over yours and your charges' future. Please consign them to Esther Vey's news.

I know, a little contrived even by my standards, but it's the message that counts.

Edit: misplaced apostrophe.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:22 am

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29m29 minutes ago
Listening to Ed Miliband @BBCr4today it's clear he thinks he can put together a Queen's Speech which SNP will back, without talking to SNP

Well given that the comparison of the SNP and Labour manifestos concluded that there was a lot of common ground and that Labour's was actually a bit more 'progressive' and radical .... I'd say he is right.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:29 am

For Tish - if you know all this, forgive me; I do not intend to patronise.

Quote - "...the way they set in place the system that currently harasses the sick and disabled" - this is true; but there is more to it than that.

When Peter Lilley was SoS under Major, he made a famous speech in 1992 at the Tory conference - "I have a little list" - which was based on the Gilbert and Sullivan ditty from the Mikado.
In it, he targeted single mothers, malingerers, and others for his very special treatment and proceeded to demonise them very much in the same way benefit claimants have been under IDS recently.
It was Lilley who first brought in Unum (disability deniers of note and many US court cases) to consult on social security; he wanted an insurance-type system for sickness and other benefits.

The then head of DWP, one Mansel Aylward, was a devotee of the bio/psych/social model of sickness and disability; he left DWP to run the Unum-funded centre for disability "research" funded by Unum at Cardiff University.
Over time, the model was warped to an unprecedented degree; the Work Capability Assessment was brought in to replace the Personal Capability Assessment when ESA was introduced by James Purnell and Yvette Cooper.
The WCA is based on LIMA (Logic Integrated Medical Assessment) which is software developed by Unum; it is based on an algorithm designed to detect the smallest physical ability based on a set of questions.

The LIMA software was leased/purchased by Atos Origin; Atos Origin formed a subsidiary Atos Healthcare which used LIMA for various insurance claims (including public servants claiming pensions early due to retirement on medical grounds, eg. BT, NHS, others)
Unum were involved at arms-length; Aylward was still consulting whilst in the pay of Unum; various senior Unum executives worked for Atos while it has the DWP contract, and now for Maximus now that they have taken it over.

The shenanigans behind ESA basically involve big corporate interests; and both Purnell and Cooper are responsible for allowing this to happen, and bought into Lilley's ideas wholesale. But Purnell was always a pro-business Blairite; Cooper simply waved it all through.

Personally, I think that a Labour government would not have -
time-limited WRAG ESA retrospectively to 52 weeks;
brought in mandatory and indefinite workfare for WRAG claimants;
ignored the mounting evidence that appeals were not only increasing in number but being won;
ignored the alterations proposed by Harrington and other paid experts;
changed the sanction disallowance from 25% of the WRAG award to 70%;
insisted on rapid and repeated assessments of people with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions;
removed the right to immediate appeal;
removed the right to legal aid for tribunals.
This is what the coalition under Cameron and IDS have done, with support from the LibDems.

ESA was introduced in October 2008 for new claims only. The idea was to roll it out slowly.
The majority of new claimants sign off before they reach the 12 weeks - the WCA process begins at 13 weeks.
The first WCAs were not done until early 2009, with very low numbers processed for the first year or so.
The first indications that the process wasn't working was when appeal numbers started to increase through late 2009/early 2010.
The scandals were just beginning when Labour left office.

Of course, what has happened since is entirely down to IDS. I like to think that Labour might have intervened when it became obvious that ESA and specifically the WCA were unfit for purpose as it was - obviously we can never know.
What I do think, though, is that Labour would not have done what IDS has done; even Reeves is clear that the WCA must be reformed. Her ideas so far are not much to be hopeful about, unfortunately.

What needs to happen is a total rethink about we treat poorly people who need financial support, because as medicine keeps more of us alive for longer and the pension age increases, there will be more people like me knocking 60 with permanent illness.
Reeves conflates disability with illness all the time - that needs to stop too. ESA like IB before it is for people who are too ill to work as judged by their own clinicians, whether they are disabled or not. The purpose of the benefit needs clarifying.

I am hoping that if Labour take over, they will do what they say and involve people like me in their consultations. They say they will.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:32 am

The Humphreys interview just proves the point that they have nothing left to talk about.

Talking about public spending to a leader who wasn't in the Treasury after he got elected? Really, what's the point of that?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:33 am

Robin Brant ‏@robindbrant 2m2 minutes ago
.@Nigel_Farage admits he 'might have voted he wrong way' at EU Parly last week over plans to keep MEP expenses secret #ge2015

Robin Brant ‏@robindbrant 2m2 minutes ago
.@ukip leader excuse is that there were '80 pages' of things to vote on, says many MEPs don't know what they are voting on #ge2015

He gets away with taking the proverbial, doesn't he. The focus has been taken off him somewhat in the past couple of weeks ... but good someone has been keeping an eye on his actions nevertheless.

What sort of advert for Ukip's ability to deal with the detail of policy and legislation is that anyway? 80 pages of things to vote on - too much to read beforehand and work out what the really important bits were?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:35 am

I'd like to reiterate the sense of community here, albeit all from different viewpoints, circumstance and background. Even when I moved here from lurking I hinted at the possibly partisan nature, which unfortunately has seen worthy contributors leave. Generally however I find we are all united in our disgust for the current government and welcome differing views, provided they're expressed with a healthy dose of respect.

I'll leave it at that because I'm not always known for my tact.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:40 am

Robin Brant ‏@robindbrant 9m9 minutes ago
.@Nigel_Farage says he will change his vote if he finds out he did vote against MEPs expenses disclosure #ge2015

Can MEPs do that - change their vote retrospectively?

Seems rather weird to me - suppose a whole bunch of MEPs decided to change their votes retrospectively? You'd never know if legislation had actually been passed or not - even if there was a time limit for such changes it would be very destabilising.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:44 am

StephenDolan wrote:'Arrogance' is thinking that your piddly couple of potential seats should wield a massively disproportionate amount of power in the House of Commons. Yes Wood, I'm glaring at you.

Little Woody Two Shoes is getting ideas above her station, IMHO.

In Wales -
Plaid had 3 seats last time, and are aiming for 5 this time.
The LibDems had 3, and are likely to lose 2 of those.
The Tories had 8, and are expected to lose 1 and gain 1.
Labour had 26.

Assuming they do well and get the 5 they're after, it won't make a huge difference; whilst I have some sympathy for some of Plaid's policies, they are manifestly not the "Party of Wales" if the numbers of seats held is any indication.

I think it's only if Labour have to form a minority government that the support of Plaid will be of any use.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:48 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Robin Brant ‏@robindbrant 9m9 minutes ago
.@Nigel_Farage says he will change his vote if he finds out he did vote against MEPs expenses disclosure #ge2015
Can MEPs do that - change their vote retrospectively?

Seems rather weird to me - suppose a whole bunch of MEPs decided to change their votes retrospectively? You'd never know if legislation had actually been passed or not - even if there was a time limit for such changes it would be very destabilising.

Weird?

It's bollocks, MsRiots.

The votes cast on the day are the votes cast. You can't change them.

If Nige is saying that he doesn't know what he voted for when, he's even more of a moron than I give him plenty of credit for.

Fecking anagram.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 04 May, 2015 9:55 am

Iain Dale is at his crystal ball again ...

Iain Dale @IainDale · 1m 1 minute ago
Blogpost: My 20 Predictions for Election Night http://iaindale.com/posts/2015/05/04/tw ... tion-night" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

They're fairly general and often tongue in cheek but here's a few where he's sticking his neck out with specifics:

10. In my seat by seat predictions I’ve predicted the Conservatives will get 276 seats. My gut feeling is that is on the low side, but 290 is their maximum reach.

11. For Labour, I’ve predicted 267. I think 275 is their maximum.

12. I’ve predicted the LibDems will get 23 seats. If they get over 30 they will be euphoric. Sort of.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:01 am

ephemerid wrote:... If Nige is saying that he doesn't know what he voted for when, he's even more of a moron than I give him plenty of credit for...

Personally I think he knows exactly what he does, ephemerid. As Andy Dufresne would say he is merely being obtuse.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:04 am

What's worth staying up for on election night?
What are the parties saying about the key seats on election night, when will they declare, and what will they mean?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... tion-night" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and from that:

04:30

Ilford North (CON), one of Labour’s toughest fights in London declares, as does Leeds North West (LD), another tricky prospect. Witney (CON) declares and David Cameron will give his speech

But the main event at 4:30 is Sheffield Hallam (LD). Will Nick Clegg survive?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:14 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Ilford North (CON), one of Labour’s toughest fights in London declares, as does Leeds North West (LD), another tricky prospect. Witney (CON) declares and David Cameron will give his speech

I'm in Ilford South and have only seen leaflets (three) from the sitting MP Mike Gapes - think the other parties have simply given up trying although I did see a Tory lady handing out leaflets outside the school gate the other day. None through the door though. And no knockers either.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:19 am

StephenDolan wrote:Just seen the weather forecast for Wednesday. Heavy rain and gailforce winds. That'd better not slip to Thursday...

Good weather predicted for polling day - except for parts of Scotland

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:23 am

Tizme, did you follow my link? The pondlife btl I refer to are racists who show up on the Guardian whenever Muslims are mentioned. No idea why you were offended by me calling them that. I wasted a fair bit of time arguing with them.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:44 am

The NHA Party ‏@NHAparty Apr 29

Tell everyone in SW Surrey - @drmarielouise's chances of unseating Hunt are growing:

http://nhap.org/suspension-of-lib-dem-i ... remy-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #r4today

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:49 am

Morning all.
Daily Torygraph; Business section; front page; two headlines.

1 Fears for economy if Labour win.
2 Foreign buyers flock to gilts.

Erm...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:51 am

Good morfternoon.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:53 am

SNP and budgets.

My guess (and this is all it is) is that the SNP will find any excuse they can to vote against Labour's budget. It will all be part of their narrative of opposing austerity and standing up for Scotland.

Don't vote Nat.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:54 am

ohsocynical wrote:The NHA Party ‏@NHAparty Apr 29

Tell everyone in SW Surrey - @drmarielouise's chances of unseating Hunt are growing:

http://nhap.org/suspension-of-lib-dem-i ... remy-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #r4today

The only specific polling carried out in SW Surrey (as far as I know) was by Survation (on behalf of Unite) in December; it showed Hunt on 57%, UKIP on 15%, Labour on 11%, Lib Dems on 8%, Greens on 7% and NHA Party on ...... 1.3%!! Now forgive me for being thick, but how does that mean the seat is now a straight fight between Hunt and Irvine?

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:55 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29m29 minutes ago
Listening to Ed Miliband @BBCr4today it's clear he thinks he can put together a Queen's Speech which SNP will back, without talking to SNP
Well given that the comparison of the SNP and Labour manifestos concluded that there was a lot of common ground and that Labour's was actually a bit more 'progressive' and radical .... I'd say he is right.

I suspect the SNP reaction to a Labour Queen's Speech will very much depend on how the numbers stack up. If they can get away with abstaining without it having any effect on the outcome, they probably will (as they did with the bedroom tax). That way, they can tell their supporters that they didn't support the nasty 'red Tories' who wouldn't speak to them.

If their positive votes are necessary to carry the QS, I don't see how they can oppose it - unless it looked as if it would result in a formal vote of no confidence. Voting down the QS but supporting Ed in a NC vote might suit their purpose (discord) nicely.

Whichever way they vote, I think I can confidently predict that they will be looking at the possible effect on the SE next year, and not what is best for the UK as a whole.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 04 May, 2015 10:59 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:The NHA Party ‏@NHAparty Apr 29

Tell everyone in SW Surrey - @drmarielouise's chances of unseating Hunt are growing:

http://nhap.org/suspension-of-lib-dem-i ... remy-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #r4today
The only specific polling carried out in SW Surrey (as far as I know) was by Survation (on behalf of Unite) in December; it showed Hunt on 57%, UKIP on 15%, Labour on 11%, Lib Dems on 8%, Greens on 7% and NHA Party on ...... 1.3%!! Now forgive me for being thick, but how does that mean the seat is now a straight fight between Hunt and Irvine?

Now the LibDem has gone I think they're hoping to pick up all those who would have voted for him in the past. Snag is he went too late to have his name removed from the polling form.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:03 am

ohsocynical wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:The NHA Party ‏@NHAparty Apr 29

Tell everyone in SW Surrey - @drmarielouise's chances of unseating Hunt are growing:

http://nhap.org/suspension-of-lib-dem-i ... remy-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #r4today
The only specific polling carried out in SW Surrey (as far as I know) was by Survation (on behalf of Unite) in December; it showed Hunt on 57%, UKIP on 15%, Labour on 11%, Lib Dems on 8%, Greens on 7% and NHA Party on ...... 1.3%!! Now forgive me for being thick, but how does that mean the seat is now a straight fight between Hunt and Irvine?
Now the LibDem has gone I think they're hoping to pick up all those who would have voted for him in the past. Snag is he went too late to have his name removed from the polling form.

Still only gets them to a scratch over 9%, less than Labour & UKIP. Not straight fight territory.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:09 am

This particular tweet from the Telegraph is going down like a lead balloon.

Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics
Women, we've read the political manifestos so you don't have to http://tgr.ph/1I7fGrB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:12 am

Natalie Rowe's book is out on Kindle today!

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:15 am

Spacedone wrote:This particular tweet from the Telegraph is going down like a lead balloon.

Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics
Women, we've read the political manifestos so you don't have to http://tgr.ph/1I7fGrB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Men - I've burned down the Telegraph offices so you don't have to.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:27 am

ohsocynical wrote:The NHA Party ‏@NHAparty Apr 29

Tell everyone in SW Surrey - @drmarielouise's chances of unseating Hunt are growing:

http://nhap.org/suspension-of-lib-dem-i ... remy-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #r4today

That's a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, ohso. AV wasn't my preferred choice but the only one we were offered, nevertheless it would have catered for such circumstances provided first choice LibDem voters chose an alternative.

Edit: notwithstanding what TGS has said.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:32 am

Spacedone wrote:This particular tweet from the Telegraph is going down like a lead balloon.

Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics
Women, we've read the political manifestos so you don't have to http://tgr.ph/1I7fGrB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So say the Barclay Brothers, eh Spacedone.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:33 am

ephemerid wrote:Natalie Rowe's book is out on Kindle today!

Has Dave got his Kindle blocker implemented yet, ephemerid?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:35 am

Re the Labour "celebrity endorsement" supposed to come today - as pointed out Delia Smith has previously expressed pro-Labour sympathies so not sure if it is her.

Maybe something to do with the "Citizens" event later on?

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:42 am

So while our "impartial" media do the conservatives job for them by banging on interminably about the Scot Nats..................Dave and the orange tory have obviously worked out a fall back position prior to the election.
No arrogance or sense of entitlement there then!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:54 am

ephemerid wrote:Natalie Rowe's book is out on Kindle today!

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:55 am

ScarletGas wrote:So while our "impartial" media do the conservatives job for them by banging on interminably about the Scot Nats..................Dave and the orange tory have obviously worked out a fall back position prior to the election.
No arrogance or sense of entitlement there then!

The curious thing is that I've seen very few SNP posters in windows round here. I haven't seen any at all for other parties - but given some Nat supporters' reputation for intolerance, that's not particularly surprising.

There are no lamp-post posters at all (unless there was a flurry of activity over the weekend).

I was wondering if the alleged surge in SNP membership after the referendum has ever been verified - or have the media just taken their word for it? (They have form for being economical with the truth).
And following on from that - does party membership feature in poll weightings?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:59 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:
ScarletGas wrote:So while our "impartial" media do the conservatives job for them by banging on interminably about the Scot Nats..................Dave and the orange tory have obviously worked out a fall back position prior to the election.
No arrogance or sense of entitlement there then!
The curious thing is that I've seen very few SNP posters in windows round here. I haven't seen any at all for other parties - but given some Nat supporters' reputation for intolerance, that's not particularly surprising.

There are no lamp-post posters at all (unless there was a flurry of activity over the weekend).

I was wondering if the alleged surge in SNP membership after the referendum has ever been verified - or have the media just taken their word for it? (They have form for being economical with the truth).
And following on from that - does party membership feature in poll weightings?

I have seen an SNP poster.

I live in south east England.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Mon 04 May, 2015 11:59 am

ephemerid wrote:Natalie Rowe's book is out on Kindle today!

Chapters 24 and 25 I believe are the most interesting.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:02 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Natalie Rowe's book is out on Kindle today!

Well, I suppose if it results in a surge in Kindle sales, Ossie will have the satisfaction of knowing that the majority of the tax on them won't be funding anything in the UK.

Edited to add:
Are there pictures in Kindle books?

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:06 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
ScarletGas wrote:So while our "impartial" media do the conservatives job for them by banging on interminably about the Scot Nats..................Dave and the orange tory have obviously worked out a fall back position prior to the election.
No arrogance or sense of entitlement there then!
The curious thing is that I've seen very few SNP posters in windows round here. I haven't seen any at all for other parties - but given some Nat supporters' reputation for intolerance, that's not particularly surprising.

There are no lamp-post posters at all (unless there was a flurry of activity over the weekend).

I was wondering if the alleged surge in SNP membership after the referendum has ever been verified - or have the media just taken their word for it? (They have form for being economical with the truth).
And following on from that - does party membership feature in poll weightings?
I have seen an SNP poster.

I live in south east England.

It's probably the founder of confused.com

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:10 pm

I see that commentators still speak of Cameron making up (or not) the numbers needed for government. No-one seems to have acknowledged that most LibDem candidates seem opposed to working with the Tories again, only Clegg keeps making such murmurs. I may be wrong but that's the impression I've had.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:11 pm

Miliband says Labour would put forward a bill to repeal the Health Act within its first 100 days in office.

Let us see the SNP vote against that!! Maybe that majority isn't an impossibility after all?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:15 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Miliband says Labour would put forward a bill to repeal the Health Act within its first 100 days in office.
Let us see the SNP vote against that!! Maybe that majority isn't an impossibility after all?

Ho hum.

Meanwhile, in Glasgow, SNP supporters prevented Murphy and Izzard from getting out of their car to campaign.

I wonder if this was the plan being hatched in cryptic terms on Twitter yesterday?

Not very democratic, if you ask me.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:20 pm

The Health and Social Care Act doesn't apply in Scotland. Health is devolved.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:20 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Miliband says Labour would put forward a bill to repeal the Health Act within its first 100 days in office.
Let us see the SNP vote against that!! Maybe that majority isn't an impossibility after all?

They've only committed to support funding for the NHS - not repealing the Health Act!

THE Scottish National Party will ensure the NHS in England receives the £8 billion it has requested to keep the service running by 2020, leader Nicola Sturgeon has said.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/snp ... -1-3762298

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:20 pm

ephemerid wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Miliband says Labour would put forward a bill to repeal the Health Act within its first 100 days in office.
Let us see the SNP vote against that!! Maybe that majority isn't an impossibility after all?

Ho hum.

Meanwhile, in Glasgow, SNP supporters prevented Murphy and Izzard from getting out of their car to campaign.

I wonder if this was the plan being hatched in cryptic terms on Twitter yesterday?

Not very democratic, if you ask me.

Some of the Scottish posters Over There insist that these groups are no real SNP supporters, but known anti-capitalist agitators.

And ..........

Breaking: Russell Brand backs Labour and Ed Miliband

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:23 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:The Health and Social Care Act doesn't apply in Scotland. Health is devolved.

That's true, but it hasn't stopped the SNP from saying they'll interfere if they have enough MPs. Of course, if any other party tried to interfere with the SNHS they would be spitting tacks.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:24 pm

Hugo, Eric, I realise that. But if they don't support this then they confirm all the things people have been saying, that they are only looking after Scotland etc. It would get very messy after that.

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:29 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
ScarletGas wrote:So while our "impartial" media do the conservatives job for them by banging on interminably about the Scot Nats..................Dave and the orange tory have obviously worked out a fall back position prior to the election.
No arrogance or sense of entitlement there then!
The curious thing is that I've seen very few SNP posters in windows round here. I haven't seen any at all for other parties - but given some Nat supporters' reputation for intolerance, that's not particularly surprising.

There are no lamp-post posters at all (unless there was a flurry of activity over the weekend).

I was wondering if the alleged surge in SNP membership after the referendum has ever been verified - or have the media just taken their word for it? (They have form for being economical with the truth).
And following on from that - does party membership feature in poll weightings?
I have seen an SNP poster.

I live in south east England.

I have, as well.

In Witney!

I assume you all know whose constituency that is.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:30 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Hugo, Eric, I realise that. But if they don't support this then they confirm all the things people have been saying, that they are only looking after Scotland etc. It would get very messy after that.

If they only support increases in the NHS budget, one could infer that that's exactly what they're doing - looking after Scotland via the Barnett formula. (Not that I'd be so cynical you understand

)

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:32 pm

Some of the Scottish posters Over There insist that these groups are no real SNP supporters, but known anti-capitalist agitators.

Alex Thomson has just tried to make a similar point on Twitter (possibly to atone for his unpleasantness this morning). He stated that these protesters were unlikely to be SNP supporters but there were many SNP supporters around who just stood back & watched it happen; needless to say he is now being mobbed by people saying what could they have done (perhaps more than the nothing/tacit approval they did) and/or that he was being unfair & restricting the right to free speech of these activists. We are now through the looking glass my friends.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 04 May, 2015 12:36 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Let us see the SNP vote against that!! Maybe that majority isn't an impossibility after all?

Ho hum.

Meanwhile, in Glasgow, SNP supporters prevented Murphy and Izzard from getting out of their car to campaign.

I wonder if this was the plan being hatched in cryptic terms on Twitter yesterday?

Not very democratic, if you ask me.
Some of the Scottish posters Over There insist that these groups are no real SNP supporters, but known anti-capitalist agitators.

And ..........

Breaking: Russell Brand backs Labour and Ed Miliband

A bit late for those he discouraged from voting which in turn probably means many didn't bother to register.
I don't know Russell Brand that well as I don't really like him, so to me it feels more like sticking a finger up at Cameron.
Still every little helps.

And with that little bit of wisdom, I'll go back to painting the bedroom ceiling....