FlyTheNest

Morning everyone.

A bit of 'what if' speculation from Mike Smithson.

Yesterday’s interviews could prove to have been Alex Salmond’s Sheffield rally moment
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index. ... ly-moment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Further to last night's posts about British First threatening those people who were protesting about Farage, it looks like BF are openly endorsing UKIP as their preferred party and are actively (if unofficially) campaigning for them. What's that saying about 'by their friends shall you know them'?

Vote for Ukip, say far-right group Britain First
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26389.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Britain First, the far-right political party responsible for vigilante “invasions” of mosques and a campaign against the “Islamification” of Britain, has told its supporters to help deliver “major Ukip gains” at the general election.

Letters and leaflets currently being distributed by Britain First, a group formed by former British National Party members, effectively endorse Nigel Farage’s party.

The literature obtained by The Independent – carrying the signature of Britain First’s leader, Paul Golding – says its controversial activities “in the Muslim ghettoes” will combine with “major Ukip gains” to turn the election into a “game changer”.

Good morning.

Radio4 Toady linking Richard III with Leicester voters who should vote Labour but might not.
They interviewed a minority of a minority of a minority.
Desperate is as desperate does.

And why all the fuss about some old bones?

From Marr Show transcripts:

ANDREW MARR:
No I wasn’t saying it was your fault, but what I was saying is that it’s perfectly
possible – and this was suggested by a columnist in Scotland a little while ago, that
the Labour Party could just tell you where to go, could treat you very roughly because
the SNP could not put the Tories into power and, therefore, Labour could simply say
well do your worst, we dare you to vote us down. However many MPs you’ve got, we
dare you to vote us down. We will do what we want. We want to keep Trident, we
want to keep our £30 billion austerity plan and so forth. Do your worst.

These allegations aren't new, but BBC & Welsh press reporting today-

Police investigate abuse claims against late Labour MPs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32009589" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Evetimornington all

Firstly - @AAW - yes, yes, OK....that's fine (sorry - makes me a little uncomfortable seeing a 'is that OK, Wolfie' every time I read your (excellent) posts and am suitably embarrassed about hope (which is where I live, just North of Peterborough and getting closer to Landslide) being mentioned like that )

As ever, I'm not sure if this has been linked so apologies if it has, but it's an idea that could catch on (not that it's a new idea - just the logical humanist conclusion of technological advancement (just like wot we said it would be like in the 1970s)...unlike the ridiculous conclusion that the Thatcherite-neoliberal uncounting doublethinkers have come to - illogical, shallow upper-class-twit-of-the-year imitating anti-human non-economics)

Supporters believe fully automated luxury communism is an opportunity to realise a post-work society, where machines do the heavy lifting and employment as we know it is a thing of the past

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... employment

yahyah wrote:These allegations aren't new, but BBC & Welsh press reporting today-

Police investigate abuse claims against late Labour MPs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32009589" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but they're LABOUR Yah Yah...LABOUR...so they'll (Westmonster MSM/TPTB in Whitehall) try to push that connection (remember the coverage of Rotherham vs the coverage of Oxford/PIE and the NCCL (Harman/Dromey/Hewitt) - all the time ignoring many other inconvenient facts, including - PIE had an office in a Government building from 1979/an eye-witness has given a statement naming a serving Coalition Minister/So-vile etc etc)...in fact, with my usual apologies for the subject matter in advance, this joins the dots quite well (I believe(TM))

The mounting historical evidence is revealing Margaret Thatcher as having been complicit in the abuse of children by establishment paedophiles when she was Prime Minster of the United Kingdom. The Daily Mirror reported in July 2014 that Thatcher "personally covered up" child abuse by a "rising star" paedophile in the Conservative Party, whom she demanded "clean up" his sexual activity.

http://jjarichardson.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... nster.html

Morning all. So Labour are even more doomed in Scotland according to the Guardian. What's that?
'Curtice cautions that the numbers are only rough estimates, since the polling sub-samples in some of the classes of seat are relatively small'. Oh.

Another little thought (that's what you have when you have a little brain like mine ) WRT the debate debacle.....so am I right in thinking, after all OGRFGs a-ducking and a-diving, a-bobbin and a -weavin, we're reduced to a pointless exercise? The '5-way' opposition debate for example...will feature 5 party leaders, of which only 1 is an MP, and post-May 7th, a maximum of 2 might have become MPs? How can they realistically 'debate' what will happen in Westmonster, when they're not involved in it at all? (Not sure if Natalie Bennett is standing for a Westmonster constituency)...then a '7-way' 'shoutfest' which can only descend into farce...and a nice cosy interview with a supportive interviewer (who can also be relied upon to shout 'bacon sandwich' continually through anything Mr Ed might say)...so probably a 'win' for the puce-faced piss-trumpet (is that the correct descriptive reference?)

Morning!

I'm going to start with the phrase everyone hates me for.....

If we assume that a Labour / SNP "pact" of some kind is the most likely outcome of this election, then the focus on going and fringe of votes between Labour and SNP is not a huge issue (actually I hope and believe that Labour will do better on the day than the polls suggest).

It's the establishment that want us to worry about the Scotland thing. In my view the outcome of the election hinges instead, as so often, on voters in London and in the Midlands.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

I'm going to start with the phrase everyone hates me for.....

If we assume that a Labour / SNP "pact" of some kind is the most likely outcome of this election, then the focus on going and fringe of votes between Labour and SNP is not a huge issue (actually I hope and believe that Labour will do better on the day than the polls suggest).

It's the establishment that want us to worry about the Scotland thing. In my view the outcome of the election hinges instead, as so often, on voters in London and in the Midlands.

The Midlands have been getting bigged up rather a lot in PMQs (hard to filter out TLTEP and NorthernPowerhouse).

There's only one unionist party now, Labour. SNP and the Conservatives both want to separate Scotland from England to suit their own agendas.

Oh just fuck off you fucking fuck.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ff-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' In an interview with the New Statesman, Simon Danczuk, the Rochdale Labour MP, said, “any Labour politician that says to you they knock on a door and Ed Miliband is popular are telling lies. They’re just telling lies. It’s just not true. '

Lonewolfie wrote:Evetimornington all

Firstly - @AAW - yes, yes, OK....that's fine (sorry - makes me a little uncomfortable seeing a 'is that OK, Wolfie' every time I read your (excellent) posts and am suitably embarrassed about hope (which is where I live, just North of Peterborough and getting closer to Landslide) being mentioned like that )

As ever, I'm not sure if this has been linked so apologies if it has, but it's an idea that could catch on (not that it's a new idea - just the logical humanist conclusion of technological advancement (just like wot we said it would be like in the 1970s)...unlike the ridiculous conclusion that the Thatcherite-neoliberal uncounting doublethinkers have come to - illogical, shallow upper-class-twit-of-the-year imitating anti-human non-economics)

Supporters believe fully automated luxury communism is an opportunity to realise a post-work society, where machines do the heavy lifting and employment as we know it is a thing of the past

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... employment

Sorry Wolfie it was a joke that I quite simply forgot to change - gone now and sincere apologies, I have never meant any detriment to Hope, or your good self.

Morning all.

Shapps in a spot of bother again...Guido is reporting.

A report published today by the Public Administration Select Committee has found that CCHQ were wrong to ask Special Advisers to campaign for the party in the Rochester by-election. Theresa May’s SpAd Nick Timothy was dropped from the candidates list in a major internal Tory row after he argued that demands from Grant Shapps for SpAds to take part in telephone canvassing were against their Code of Conduct. The report finds:

“We therefore conclude that any direction to a Special Adviser to conduct telephone canvassing was misguided, and that advice that such a direction or such canvassing was permitted under their Code and contract of employment was wrong in law… We recommend that Special Advisers should never again be confronted with directions or informal pressure that puts them in breach of the Code and of their contracts of employment.”

One would have thought he has to go but I doubt he will.

Relating to discussion on cannabis a couple of weeks ago :

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... ut-cannabi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

I'm going to start with the phrase everyone hates me for.....

If we assume that a Labour / SNP "pact" of some kind is the most likely outcome of this election, then the focus on going and fringe of votes between Labour and SNP is not a huge issue (actually I hope and believe that Labour will do better on the day than the polls suggest).

It's the establishment that want us to worry about the Scotland thing. In my view the outcome of the election hinges instead, as so often, on voters in London and in the Midlands.

Yep.

Follow your heart, your deepest held convictions, Simon Danczuk.
Get out of the Labour party & go it alone.

Edited to correct 'heat' to heart!

RobertSnozers wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Oh just fuck off you fucking fuck.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ff-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' In an interview with the New Statesman, Simon Danczuk, the Rochdale Labour MP, said, “any Labour politician that says to you they knock on a door and Ed Miliband is popular are telling lies. They’re just telling lies. It’s just not true. '

This is the same Danczuk who had a go at the mansion tax because it shows Labour are anti-business? Very 'in touch'. Make up your fucking mind you pathetic little troll.

Grade A1 Arse. Labour should deselect him now, he is far too toxic to be hanging around after the election.

What I want to know is what does this muppet think he is achieving with this bollocks? It won't help him win election and it must piss off even the ultra Blairites in the Labour Party. Has he cut some sort of deal with Farage to make trouble in return for a plum MEP job if he loses in May? Seems pretty unlikely to me, but I cannot understand what he gets out of this.

Morning, I'm taking a back seat for a while unless I've really got something to say. Anyway for those who may be interested..

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... s-rpt-ann/

The Work and Pensions Select Committee will publish its report, Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review, at 00.01 am on Tuesday 24 March.

RobertSnozers wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

I'm going to start with the phrase everyone hates me for.....

If we assume that a Labour / SNP "pact" of some kind is the most likely outcome of this election, then the focus on going and fringe of votes between Labour and SNP is not a huge issue (actually I hope and believe that Labour will do better on the day than the polls suggest).

It's the establishment that want us to worry about the Scotland thing. In my view the outcome of the election hinges instead, as so often, on voters in London and in the Midlands.

But only if the SNP don't take enough seats off Labour to make the Tories the largest party, which could very well happen.

Yes it would be better if that didn't happen!

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:Oh just fuck off you fucking fuck.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ff-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' In an interview with the New Statesman, Simon Danczuk, the Rochdale Labour MP, said, “any Labour politician that says to you they knock on a door and Ed Miliband is popular are telling lies. They’re just telling lies. It’s just not true. '

This is the same Danczuk who had a go at the mansion tax because it shows Labour are anti-business? Very 'in touch'. Make up your fucking mind you pathetic little troll.

Grade A1 Arse. Labour should deselect him now, he is far too toxic to be hanging around after the election.

What I want to know is what does this muppet think he is achieving with this bollocks? It won't help him win election and it must piss off even the ultra Blairites in the Labour Party. Has he cut some sort of deal with Farage to make trouble in return for a plum MEP job if he loses in May? Seems pretty unlikely to me, but I cannot understand what he gets out of this.

I've come the conclusion that Danczuk would love to have the whip withdrawn, then he can act the martyr as he 'reluctantly' defects to UKIP; on that basis the party are right not to do so ...... for the time being. Sadly deselection is in the hands of his local CLP and I don't see that happening

What is SpinningHugo?

citizenJA wrote:What is SpinningHugo?

AJPTayloring I'd say...

As to what he is in real life...well, I have my suspicions and that would account for why the Guardian keep kicking him out.

Good morfternoon.

Labour's Simon Danczuk blames 'difficult day' for anti-Miliband interview

The Labour MP Simon Danczuk has been scathing about Ed Miliband in an interview with the New Statesman.

This morning Danczuk seems to have had a change of heart. (Andrew Sparrow, Guardian)

StephenDolan wrote:Oh just fuck off you fucking fuck.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ff-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' In an interview with the New Statesman, Simon Danczuk, the Rochdale Labour MP, said, “any Labour politician that says to you they knock on a door and Ed Miliband is popular are telling lies. They’re just telling lies. It’s just not true. '

What fabbered my ghast in that piece was when it said:

Danczuk is all too aware of the tabloids’ “nasty side” and their tendency to “stick the knife in”

while all the time sticking the knife into EM......

He has now resorted to bleating:

Posted at 11:34
Labour MP Simon Danczuk has reacted to the publication of his interview with the New Statesman in which he appeared to be pretty unflattering about his party leader. Via Twitter, he says: "That NS interview does not fully reflect my views. We all have off days. I'd had a very difficult day & was feeling emotional. I do not meet anyone on the doorstep who is enthusiastic about David Cameron. I want Ed Miliband in Downing Street."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-31973557" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RobertSnozers wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

I'm going to start with the phrase everyone hates me for.....

If we assume that a Labour / SNP "pact" of some kind is the most likely outcome of this election, then the focus on going and fringe of votes between Labour and SNP is not a huge issue (actually I hope and believe that Labour will do better on the day than the polls suggest).

It's the establishment that want us to worry about the Scotland thing. In my view the outcome of the election hinges instead, as so often, on voters in London and in the Midlands.

But only if the SNP don't take enough seats off Labour to make the Tories the largest party, which could very well happen.

ConHome is advocating the Cons should do a deal with the SNP if that's what it takes.

Helpfully, they provided the following image to remind us all what that deal would look like:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

citizenJA wrote:What is SpinningHugo?

AJPTayloring I'd say...

As to what he is in real life...well, I have my suspicions and that would account for why the Guardian keep kicking him out.

And what are those suspicions Rog? Happy to disabuse you of them.

No mystery as to why they keep kicking me out. They banned me ages ago. I wrote and asked why and was told it was for 'persistent trolling'. I found this surprising as virtually no posts I made had ever fallen foul of the guidelines, but there we are. Their website, up to them.

If I log back in using a fake email address (easy enough with disposable email) I can post merrily for several days until someone complains (usually one of the regulars on the daily politics page).

As I said a few weeks ago, it has now got to the stage where the some of the regulars are saying it is me, when it isn't.

utopiandreams wrote:Morning, I'm taking a back seat for a while unless I've really got something to say. Anyway for those who may be interested..

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... s-rpt-ann/

The Work and Pensions Select Committee will publish its report, Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review, at 00.01 am on Tuesday 24 March.

Thanks for this.

The Oakley Review, of course, was a meretricious piece of nonsense which did nothing to address the real issues on sanctions and simply concluded that Jobcentre staff and DWP letters should be easier to understand.

This is no more than one would expect from an interested party like Oakley - Policy Exchange, adviser to the Treasury and the team working on Universal Credit, and is one of several appointees to the SSAC who are either Tory stooges or representatives of the likes of Working Links who benefit from social security policy and get to impose sanctions too.

I expect this report will praise the efforts of DWP to improve its communication skills (which it will lie about) and express the hope that sanctions will be applied more fairly (and ignore the inherent unfairness of the new regime)

And now, for your delectation - Troubled Families.
(Figures from 150309 Final Table for February 2015, DWP press releases).

Of the 120,000 such (allegedly) troubled families, 117,910 were identified and put on the programme. Since it got going in May 2012, the government has claimed that 105,671 families have been "turned around".

It is claimed that 95,163 have had a crime, anti-social behaviour, or education "result". I have no idea what this actually means - maybe a fall in truancy, or an increase in ASBO's? I shall have to look up what the project defines as a "result".

It is also claimed that 10,508 "achieved a continuous employment result" and it says 8,277 "are achieving a progress to work outcome"
This means that about 10% of the total have either - got a real job(with continuous employment defined as 3 months in any work including part-time); are volunteering; are on workfare; or have been switched from ESA to JSA to "move closer to work".

Other DWP data (from EvidenceUK) shows this - no provider has met its targets.
For progress measures or job outcomes.
From the target of 120,000 families to be "helped" by now, the programme is short by 2,090.
The providers of the schemes had a very low target for job outcomes - just 19,832.
They got a total of 720.

The claims that this is a roaring success, at a cost of £200 Miilion, is ridiculous.

A one-off post to give you some highlights of the Preseli Pembrokeshire ground campaign … (and say hello and welcome to PembsPaul – I have spotted you on the odd occasion in Cardigan High Street … if I do so again I’ll now come up and introduce myself).

Firstly – we appear to be trialling the ‘challenger’ debate format by default. The two hustings that have taken place so far have been attended by all the candidates bar the Conservatives and Lib Dems. This does indeed mean that the Labour candidate is pretty much the only one with a record to defend and generally the one that the other candidates are aiming any pot shots at. Glad we have got a good candidate …. Our local scenario is also now more complex as one of the consultants at Withybush Hospital is standing as a candidate on a single issue Save Withybush ticket and seems to have Labour as his main target.

The second hustings – organised by a 38 Degrees supporter – who is a local Plaid Cymru activist and who also chairs the events – took place in Fishguard yesterday evening at the Ffrwn. (A place to visit if you are ever this way – old village hall turned into a rustic bar / venue – decked out with big old refectory tables, pews and school chairs, selling homemade pastries and pies, selection of wines, spirits, and beer served from barrels sitting behind the bar – regular local gigs and visiting folk / indie bands. Good place.)
Mr Riots went to the first of these hustings. He tells me that many of the same people who came along to support their candidate / challenge Labour then were also at the second hustings – and, indeed, some of the very same questions were put by the very same people. It could get very boring if that happens every time! (The single most important question for one duo appears to be whether the Labour candidate accepted the £1000 donation from Tony Blair. I’m betting they’ll try to get that question in again.)

There is, IMO, a very odd and skewed dynamic in an event like this where the other main contender is not there to give an account of themselves or be challenged in any way. The Save Withybush candidate wrapped every answer to whichever question around the hospital. The Green candidate relied, understandably, on setting out national policy proposals as her response – it was a bit bland. Her response to a question asking what the candidates had already done for Pembrokeshire was that she had set up a business but there was no detail. The Plaid Cymru candidate veered too much into statistics and political history rather than address questions straight on (again IMO).

Proceedings were much enlivened (not sure if that’s the right term) by a mystery candidate. An elderly gentleman was already sitting on the stage when we came in. We assumed he was the Lib Dem candidate. Not so. He was last to respond to the first question about how they would represent Pembrokeshire as an MP – and what a response it was – a full 10 minutes or so warning us about the dangers of radio masts and the effects of the waves passing through our bodies and the environment. After this magnificent introduction the audience were wondering which party this gentleman could possibly be representing …. the chair was encouraged to ask him on our behalf (yes, you might think the chair might have known already, but apparently not). I was half expecting him to say something like the anti-microwave party – but no – it was the National Society of Worth (I think that’s what I heard, apologies if that’s not accurate). To give this gentleman credit - he was asked politely if he could keep his answers brief as time was limited and he certainly did that. In response to a question about whether VAT is a regressive tax and should be cut or not … he stood up and said that it was a matter of opinion, VAT could be either cut or put up – and sat back down again.

Next hustings stop is Haverfordwest – the county town. Stephen Crabb, Conservative is apparently going to turn up for this one. I hope the venue is packed out – with more than just the same supporter groups – he really needs to be held accountable by as many constituents from as many walks of life as possible. And the invisible Lib Dem …… who knows?

SpinningHugo wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

citizenJA wrote:What is SpinningHugo?

AJPTayloring I'd say...

As to what he is in real life...well, I have my suspicions and that would account for why the Guardian keep kicking him out.

And what are those suspicions Rog? Happy to disabuse you of them.

No mystery as to why they keep kicking me out. They banned me ages ago. I wrote and asked why and was told it was for 'persistent trolling'. I found this surprising as virtually no posts I made had ever fallen foul of the guidelines, but there we are. Their website, up to them.

If I log back in using a fake email address (easy enough with disposable email) I can post merrily for several days until someone complains (usually one of the regulars on the daily politics page).

As I said a few weeks ago, it has now got to the stage where the some of the regulars are saying it is me, when it isn't.

OK, yesterday you said that you'd met or seen Miliband 25 years ago when to the rest of us he would have been unknown.

Does that mean you were at university at Oxford with him?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote: AJPTayloring I'd say...

As to what he is in real life...well, I have my suspicions and that would account for why the Guardian keep kicking him out.

And what are those suspicions Rog? Happy to disabuse you of them.

No mystery as to why they keep kicking me out. They banned me ages ago. I wrote and asked why and was told it was for 'persistent trolling'. I found this surprising as virtually no posts I made had ever fallen foul of the guidelines, but there we are. Their website, up to them.

If I log back in using a fake email address (easy enough with disposable email) I can post merrily for several days until someone complains (usually one of the regulars on the daily politics page).

As I said a few weeks ago, it has now got to the stage where the some of the regulars are saying it is me, when it isn't.

OK, yesterday you said that you'd met or seen Miliband 25 years ago when to the rest of us he would have been unknown.

Does that mean you were at university at Oxford with him?

For professional reasons (and I know you won't like this) I post anonymously. What I said was true however.

@RR2

Good to see you. I'm sure I speak for others when I say that your posts have been missed - I so enjoy reading of your kitchen exploits with Mr RR" !

Don't stay away too long x

SpinningHugo wrote: For professional reasons (and I know you won't like this) I post anonymously. What I said was true however.

So are you saying that you were at university with him?

It's a fairly simple question and I have doubts as to whether anyone could possibly identify you from that.

Professional reasons - what does that mean?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: For professional reasons (and I know you won't like this) I post anonymously. What I said was true however.

So are you saying that you were at university with him?

It's a fairly simple question and I have doubts as to whether anyone could possibly identify you from that.

Professional reasons - what does that mean?

It means that I am not free, because of the nature of the job I do, to go around posting political opinions under my own name (or to do so in a way that discloses who I am).

Sorry.

Who I am isn't actually all that interesting, I don't intend to be a tease.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: For professional reasons (and I know you won't like this) I post anonymously. What I said was true however.

So are you saying that you were at university with him?

It's a fairly simple question and I have doubts as to whether anyone could possibly identify you from that.

Professional reasons - what does that mean?

Can I request we don't play this game. We should respect anonymity even from Spinning Hugo. Let the great mystery continue.

I think he is a Ninja Tory SPAD in deep cover myself.

@ rebeccariots2

Hello! Missed you. How are things?

I'd had a very difficult day & was feeling emotional.

So, he was pissed then?

Owen Jones on BBC News24 describing the SNP (and the Greens) as "to the left of Labour".

I think not.

Greens probably are, tbf.

Want to send a letter to Clegg's constituents in Sheffield Hallam ?

http://www.labour.org.uk/w/letter-to-hallam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess Labour MP Simon Danczuk is special

@RebeccaRiots2
Happy to read you, my friend!

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Greens probably are, tbf.

That's why I (hoped to) separate them by the use of brackets (which are so often my undoing).

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: For professional reasons (and I know you won't like this) I post anonymously. What I said was true however.

So are you saying that you were at university with him?

It's a fairly simple question and I have doubts as to whether anyone could possibly identify you from that.

Professional reasons - what does that mean?

Can I request we don't play this game. We should respect anonymity even from Spinning Hugo. Let the great mystery continue.

I think he is a Ninja Tory SPAD in deep cover myself.

Yeah, okay.
No one need post anything or out with anything they don't want known.
Why do it then?
Don't expect me to believe a word when the story changes & cryptic, passive/aggressive, game-playing communications are posted.
It's not okay to claim things that aren't true, change stories when it's convenient all the better to play games with or make arrogant assumptions in posts about what I do or don't think.

citizenJA wrote:I guess Labour MP Simon Danczuk is special

What do you mean ?

Highlighting the word 'special' as you have done carries unpleasant connotations since this is how people with Downs syndrome have been referred to in recent years.

RobertSnozers wrote:I also post under a pseudonym for professional reasons, I don't think it's a problem to do so and means we get access to information and opinions that we wouldn't if people's identities were known.

So do I. So do most of us here. But most of us here have integrity. We don't lie to each other & screw around ultimately uninterested in participating in political commentary communication together.

Richard Wyn Jones & Roger Scully presentation into polling in Wales, using current GB polls as well as Ashcroft Constituency Polls

http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinw ... iefing.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's interesting to see which seats the various parties are competitive in.

Miliband repeated his assertion last week there would be no formal coalition deal with the SNP. “There isn’t going to be a coalition between Labour and the SNP after the election. There’s only one coalition I want: a coalition with working people across Britain to change how our economy works, and the way to achieve that is with a minority Labour government,” he said.

Graun misprint.

citizenJA wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote: So are you saying that you were at university with him?

It's a fairly simple question and I have doubts as to whether anyone could possibly identify you from that.

Professional reasons - what does that mean?

Can I request we don't play this game. We should respect anonymity even from Spinning Hugo. Let the great mystery continue.

I think he is a Ninja Tory SPAD in deep cover myself.

Yeah, okay.
No one need post anything or out with anything they don't want known.
Why do it then?
Don't expect me to believe a word when the story changes & cryptic, passive/aggressive, game-playing communications are posted.
It's not okay to claim things that aren't true, change stories when it's convenient all the better to play games with or make arrogant assumptions in posts about what I do or don't think.

Why do what? I don't post things I don't want to be public.

Which stories have I changed?

PorFavor wrote:Owen Jones on BBC News24 describing the SNP (and the Greens) as "to the left of Labour".

I think not.

Hello all.

Strangely enough I posted a comment btl at the Guardian today suggesting the SNP was to the right of Labour. Policy wise they would have to do a great deal better to convince me of their left-wing credentials. They haven't, as far as I know, ever denounced the Thatcherite trickle-down economics of the last 35 years, even tentatively, as Ed has done. And their policy of corporation tax cuts if they gained independence was a big flashing warning light to me. The whole point of socialism is that no one should benefit purely at the expense of someone else and the same goes for countries. I find the way the SNP want to play the system (and let international business avoid their responsibilities) just to benefit the Scottish, regardless of the consequences for people in other parts of the UK as distinctly capitalist and right-wing myself. I find this general acceptance that they are more left-wing than Labour just because they say they are extremely lazy on behalf of journalists and the voting public alike, as their policies don't seem to bear the claim out.