Friday 17th April 2015

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:11 pm

The CON score of 30 was very low, so not suspicious to get +4.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:13 pm

Emily Ashton ‏@elashton 59m59 minutes ago
Lord Oakeshott has urged Lib Dems and "moderate" Tories to vote Labour in S Thanet to keep out Farage & Mackinlay: http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/loa ... n-the-road" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:14 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:The CON score of 30 was very low, so not suspicious to get +4.

34 is the highest for Cons this year. They usually poll 31/32 wit Survation so 34 is unusually high, albeit within the MOE

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:16 pm

pk1 wrote:Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 09/04) CON 34% (+4); LAB 33% (-2); UKIP 17% (+1); LD 7% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1); AP 1% (NC)

Mighty suspicious +4 for the Cons there..

I've just seen it. Agree. Smelly.
Or, people have got so fed up with being asked so frequently, that they're giving a different answer just to be awkward.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:34 pm

pk1 wrote:Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 09/04) CON 34% (+4); LAB 33% (-2); UKIP 17% (+1); LD 7% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1); AP 1% (NC)

Mighty suspicious +4 for the Cons there..

And just realised. That Green figure is very low...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:43 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 28 mins28 minutes ago
Survation ENGLAND only data

CON 35.8
LAB 34.5
LD 6.4
UKP 18.5
GN 4.8
A 5.05% CON to LAB swing since 2010

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:50 pm

How have the Greens got that score for England and much lower for UK?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:53 pm

Jack Blanchard ‏@Jack_Blanchard_ 6 hrs6 hours ago
25,000 people logged on to register to vote after last night's TV debate. Cameron said TV debates would "suck the life" out of the campaign.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:56 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
Cameron says last night’s debate was a challengers’ debate. That was an idea from the broadcasters. He was not invited.
He is disgusting.

I'll just add my voice to this. I cannot find the words to accurately describe how this makes me feel about the supposed leader of our country.

I should not be surprised that the MSM has not made this into a bigger issue, but that's another reason for me to feel disgusted.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 7:56 pm

Hi all,

Sorry if posted.

Who is winning the election battle on social media?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... cial-media

For what it's worth.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:18 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 8m8 minutes ago
My guess is that the big announcement promised for midnight is about what Boris will do if Tories win.

Why the **** should we care? Someone thinks that would be an announcement worth being up at midnight for?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:22 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Jack Blanchard ‏@Jack_Blanchard_ 6 hrs6 hours ago
25,000 people logged on to register to vote after last night's TV debate. Cameron said TV debates would "suck the life" out of the campaign.

They've certainly sucked the life out of the Tories campaign!

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:30 pm

Protester adds welcome mats to Ukip immigration poster in Nigel Farage's target constituency South Thanet, gets called a 'hero'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84370.html

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:33 pm

Classic!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:35 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 9m9 minutes ago
Saying Boris would become DPM could help in the LD seats that Tories badly need.

Oh FFS.

50 shades of desperate.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 8:55 pm

UK nuclear strategy faces meltdown as faults are found in identical French project
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 86163.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Chevet, head of the nuclear safety watchdog, ASN, first revealed the fault a week ago. In more detailed public comments yesterday, he revealed that the steel ordered for the safety casings or “pressure vessels” for six EPR reactors – including those earmarked for Hinkley Point – appeared to have been made inaccurately...

Sources in the French nuclear industry told the newspaper Le Parisien yesterday that dismantling the faulty pressure vessel and ordering and manufacturing a new one could take several years. “If the weakness of the steel is proved, I don’t hold out much hope for the survival of the EPR project,” a former senior nuclear safety official told Le Parisien.

Have I missed this on the news bulletins today? Seems like a big story to me ... and pretty relevant to quite a bit of the election debate re energy policies.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:09 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 8m8 minutes ago
My guess is that the big announcement promised for midnight is about what Boris will do if Tories win.
Why the **** should we care? Someone thinks that would be an announcement worth being up at midnight for?

I pointed out in my usual forthright manner that Boris had said that he ruled out standing as an MP this year.

One of the usual suspects wasn't impressed and suggested that Boris had changed his mind...not quite the point.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:16 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Interesting (and slightly positive!) column from Robin Lustig on The Scottish Question

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-l ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Has Robin Lustig been lurking here, my 9.37 am post talks about Sturgeon's bluff being called, and having no cards to play! Yet again the perceptive FTN team beat the professionals to the punch!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:19 pm

As far as I've noticed no one has yet mentioned the disgusting piece by K Hopkins in the Sun calling immigrants cockroaches. How can they get away with publishing that? And today LBC radio announce they've given her a show ...

We lose a Clarkson and a Hopkins floats to the surface .... scum beyond scum.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:30 pm

graun wrote:During the referendum campaign last year, we were told repeatedly by politicians that wanted us to vote no that Scotland was an integral part of the UK, that our voice mattered and our voice will be heard, so it strikes me as completely unacceptable for those politicians to turn round now and when Scotland choose to make its voice be heard by voting SNP to say your voice cannot be heard.

Jesus. what is this woman on? The number of Scottish MPs is identical. Does she regard anyone not voting SNP as not Scottish?

(spots PFY and adopts "who me" kind of look)

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:33 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 8m8 minutes ago
My guess is that the big announcement promised for midnight is about what Boris will do if Tories win.
Why the **** should we care? Someone thinks that would be an announcement worth being up at midnight for?
I pointed out in my usual forthright manner that Boris had said that he ruled out standing as an MP this year.

One of the usual suspects wasn't impressed and suggested that Boris had changed his mind...not quite the point.

It would seem Tories & their supporters think they're free to make up their own standards of conduct as it suits them, lie without compunction, break promises, pledges & laws. They're obliged to abide by the same rules as everyone else though.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:33 pm

Speaking of Clarkson.

Hop Gear is a top tipple for Wensleydale Brewery

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.c ... e_Brewery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:42 pm

gilsey wrote:Speaking of Clarkson.

Hop Gear is a top tipple for Wensleydale Brewery

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.c ... e_Brewery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Glad someone in the area is capitalising on the grubby 'fracas'.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:47 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 9:59 pm

Night PF.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:00 pm

Farage has been given a half hour Question Time slot ...

Allegra Stratton ‏@BBCAllegra 13m13 minutes ago
Farage statement re half hr Question Time slot: "I am absolutely delighted to accept the BBC's invitation to once again engage w the public"

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:10 pm

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

Night PF

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:12 pm

Goodnight, PF

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:17 pm

Vets call for end to controlled badger shooting in pilot culls
http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/vets-call-for ... -culls.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vets have called for an end to the shooting of free-running badgers in Defra’s two pilot culls in the west of England.

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) said it could no longer support so called controlled shooting, where marksman use high-powered rifles to cull free-running badgers.

Instead it has called for the four-year culls in west Somerset and west Gloucestershire to be completed using only the “tried and tested” method of cage trapping first and then shooting....

A BVA statement said council members had come to the conclusion “in light of the results from two years of culling in the two pilot areas”.

The statement said: “Following a full discussion at BVA council, members concluded that the results from the first two years of culling have not demonstrated conclusively that controlled shooting can be carried out effectively and humanely.

“BVA remains supportive of the use of badger culling as a necessary part of the comprehensive strategy for control and eradication of bovine TB.”

It added that the organisation wanted the government to revert to the method of cage trapping and shooting only, which it said could “deliver a safe, humane and effective cull, as demonstrated in the earlier Randomised Badger Culling Trial [RBCT]“.

It's not good that they still support any kind of mass killing of badgers ... but this is a real turnaround for the BVA ... and should be very embarrassing and difficult for the coalition to deal with. The 'tried and tested' method was what they rejected on the grounds of cost and restrictions re methodology, time periods etc ...

I now feel a little bit less scared on behalf of badgers and myself and many thousands of others out in the fields if the worst happens and we get the Tories back in. Cage trapping is just what they don't want ....

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:23 pm

David Cameron 'delighted' with hunt support to swing election
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Davi ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prime Minister David Cameron said he is 'delighted' with the efforts of an army of hunt supporters being mobilised to help the Conservatives win in marginal seats across the West.

And Mr Cameron made his own pledge to vote to repeal the ban on hunting after the general election as he welcomed the practical help that Conservative candidates across the West are receiving from hunt supporters.

The Prime Minister has joined the campaigners co-ordinated by an organisation called Vote-OK, which matches coachloads of hunt supporters with general election candidates who support repealing the hated ban on hunting.

The Gloucestershire-based organisation said it is targeting specific seats with a strict set of criteria – they only send hunt supporters to canvas, deliver leaflets and stuff envelopes for candidates who support hunting and are in a marginal seat where the main opponent is anti-hunting...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:27 pm

David Cameron's 'not invited' line draws fire from party leaders
Conservatives’ claim that prime minister was deliberately excluded from final TV debate rubbished by opposition parties

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... t-50624792" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I realise this has been posted already but I'm just struck how offensive Dave is by blantantly lying about not being invited to attend the BBC television debates last night.

...the Conservatives had a full spin operation in force, with three Tory ministers and Craig Oliver, the party’s head of communications, in attendance.

Can someone explain this post of Clegg's, please?

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg also tried to claim that he had not been asked along by the broadcasters, saying he had been barred because he was from a party of government. “For clarity, I was not invited to #BBCDebate. I would have happily taken part and proudly defended our strong @LibDems record in government,” he tweeted.

'saying he had been barred because he was from a party of government.'
What an offensive, arrogant, shockingly inaccurate thing to write! It's three weeks prior to democratic accountability in the form of a General Election, Nick. You & your Dave were both invited to attend. You both refused to take responsibility for your five years in government.
Non-attendance because 'they were parties in government'?

Outside the contest, Labour shadow leader of the house Angela Eagle tweeted: “Embarrassing from William Hague, pretending Cameron wasn’t invited. Cameron chose the format and then chose not to turn up #ChickenDave.”

It's more than embarrassing, it's actionable. Someone call the authorities. The country has had enough of this.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:28 pm

: Politics Cleaner After Tory Cull.jpg (87.84 KiB) Viewed 9341 times

Politics A Cleaner Place After A Tory Cull

with thanks to Stop The Cull.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:33 pm

citizenJA wrote:
David Cameron's 'not invited' line draws fire from party leaders
Conservatives’ claim that prime minister was deliberately excluded from final TV debate rubbished by opposition parties

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... t-50624792" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I realise this has been posted already but I'm just struck how offensive Dave is by blantantly lying about not being invited to attend the BBC television debates last night.
...the Conservatives had a full spin operation in force, with three Tory ministers and Craig Oliver, the party’s head of communications, in attendance.
Can someone explain this post of Clegg's, please?
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg also tried to claim that he had not been asked along by the broadcasters, saying he had been barred because he was from a party of government. “For clarity, I was not invited to #BBCDebate. I would have happily taken part and proudly defended our strong @LibDems record in government,” he tweeted.
'saying he had been barred because he was from a party of government.'
What an offensive, arrogant, shockingly inaccurate thing to write! It's three weeks prior to democratic accountability in the form of a General Election, Nick. You & your Dave were both invited to attend. You both refused to take responsibility for your five years in government.
Non-attendance because 'they were parties in government'?
Outside the contest, Labour shadow leader of the house Angela Eagle tweeted: “Embarrassing from William Hague, pretending Cameron wasn’t invited. Cameron chose the format and then chose not to turn up #ChickenDave.”
It's more than embarrassing, it's actionable. Someone call the authorities. The country has had enough of this.

Someone pinch me in case I was dreaming, but after the debate in the spin room, Alexander clearly stated they'd been banned by Cameron from attending.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:34 pm

hopbin retweeted
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB Apr 9
ENGLAND & WALES ONLY figures from today's TNS poll

CON 33.78%
LAB 34.35%
LD 6.49%
UKIP 22.33%
A CON>LAB swing of 5.05% since GE10

This is an oldish one. Only just noticed.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 10:34 pm

For citizenja:

The Lib Dems are saying Clegg wasn't invited to yesterdays debate ... it was, according to them, one of Cameron's conditions because if Clegg had been there it would have effectively been the same as empty chairing him.

Check out this - Stephen Tall has apparently complained to the BBC for inaccurately reporting that Clegg had chosen not to attend.

For the benefit of Michael Crick – why Clegg wasn’t at the BBC’s challengers’ debate
http://stephentall.org/2015/04/17/for-t ... bate/?wt=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:07 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:For citizenja:

The Lib Dems are saying Clegg wasn't invited to yesterdays debate ... it was, according to them, one of Cameron's conditions because if Clegg had been there it would have effectively been the same as empty chairing him.

Check out this - Stephen Tall has apparently complained to the BBC for inaccurately reporting that Clegg had chosen not to attend.

For the benefit of Michael Crick – why Clegg wasn’t at the BBC’s challengers’ debate
http://stephentall.org/2015/04/17/for-t ... bate/?wt=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The whole thing makes me more angry each time I think about it.

The "failing to turn up for the job interview" line is the only thing that is mellowing me on this for the moment.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:08 pm

So here's the thing about Scotland. If the SNP are elected there on the basis of a promise to represent the left, then they're as trapped by that narrative as any other MPs. It means that, for all we know the SNP are not lefties, the people who elected them will mean they can't avoid supporting the left.

And there are far worse things than this outcome. After all, a government who had its agenda forced by the left is something that would be far better - and a far longer time coming - for ordinary people than any government of the last 40 years.

People forget that the SNP are as trapped by their populist narrative as those they oppose are. An SNP elected on the promise of opposing the right still has to live up to its own promise. A love of the left depends on the right policies winning not on a certain party winning. Wouldn't it be fantastic to see the SNP trapped by something they tried to co-opt?

Edit: typos because tipsy.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:08 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:For citizenja:

The Lib Dems are saying Clegg wasn't invited to yesterdays debate ... it was, according to them, one of Cameron's conditions because if Clegg had been there it would have effectively been the same as empty chairing him.

Check out this - Stephen Tall has apparently complained to the BBC for inaccurately reporting that Clegg had chosen not to attend.

For the benefit of Michael Crick – why Clegg wasn’t at the BBC’s challengers’ debate
http://stephentall.org/2015/04/17/for-t ... bate/?wt=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for the article; Stephen Tall is an apologist for a lying pair of boys.

Cameron can't legally dictate conditions to another party leader in this matter prior to an election. Regardless of whatever Dave said to his deputy PM & broadcasters, Nick could have made it clear he was attending the debates last night. The country, the world knows the run up to all of Dave's freaked out, scared lying dithering over the debates & I'm shaking with anger over the contempt shown to people by this lie, this attempt at spinning something not true into Tory fact. The last five years are a testament to Dave's failed Tory government & 'he doesn't accept that'.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:13 pm

GetYou wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:For citizenja:

The Lib Dems are saying Clegg wasn't invited to yesterdays debate ... it was, according to them, one of Cameron's conditions because if Clegg had been there it would have effectively been the same as empty chairing him.

Check out this - Stephen Tall has apparently complained to the BBC for inaccurately reporting that Clegg had chosen not to attend.

For the benefit of Michael Crick – why Clegg wasn’t at the BBC’s challengers’ debate
http://stephentall.org/2015/04/17/for-t ... bate/?wt=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The whole thing makes me more angry each time I think about it.

The "failing to turn up for the job interview" line is the only thing that is mellowing me on this for the moment.

You & I both. I've been working all day & while I'd seen the article about Dave's failure to be held responsible for his record last night, I hadn't realised the depths of this man's delusions. He blatant lie about not being invited to the debate is so offensive to me, I'm shaking. I'll get the better of it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:18 pm

citizenJA wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:For citizenja:

The Lib Dems are saying Clegg wasn't invited to yesterdays debate ... it was, according to them, one of Cameron's conditions because if Clegg had been there it would have effectively been the same as empty chairing him.

Check out this - Stephen Tall has apparently complained to the BBC for inaccurately reporting that Clegg had chosen not to attend.

For the benefit of Michael Crick – why Clegg wasn’t at the BBC’s challengers’ debate
http://stephentall.org/2015/04/17/for-t ... bate/?wt=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you for the article; Stephen Tall is an apologist for a lying pair of boys.

Cameron can't legally dictate conditions to another party leader in this matter prior to an election. Regardless of whatever Dave said to his deputy PM & broadcasters, Nick could have made it clear he was attending the debates last night. The country, the world knows the run up to all of Dave's freaked out, scared lying dithering over the debates & I'm shaking with anger over the contempt shown to people by this lie, this attempt at spinning something not true into Tory fact. The last five years are a testament to Dave's failed Tory government & 'he doesn't accept that'.

To be fair to Clegg (Jesus that hurts)

He is a lying scumbag.....

But on this occasion the issue is the BBC caving to Cameron. Cleggs deal under the old format was a 7 way, 5 way and nothing.

Cameron agreed to one debate, if the BBC screwed over Miliband with the challengers debate. Since he wouldn't want to be empty chaired he told the BBC he would only accept if Clegg was excluded from the second debate. Clegg took the sweetener of the QT session so he looks like one of the big boys.

Technically he excluded himself from the debate, but he took the best of a shitty deal he was offered.

As for the BBC - take it and everybody in it, screw it into a tiny ball and fire it into the heart of the sun.

Actually FUKP should put that in their manifesto.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:18 pm

Some people might spin this as "being a politician". He is a liar and cannot possibly be regarded as a viable leader.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:22 pm

Electoral Statistics for UK, 2014
Part of Electoral Statistics for UK, 2014 Release
Released: 16 April 2015

The total number of UK parliamentary electors in 2014 was 45,325,100, a fall of 1.8% from 2013.

The total number of UK local government electors in 2014 was 46,828,200, a fall of 1.8% from 2013.

Between 2013 and 2014 the total number of both parliamentary and local government electors declined in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland both had an increase.

The number of parliamentary electors declined in all regions of England between 2013 and 2014. The largest decrease (-3.5%) was in the North East.

Between 2013 and 2014, the number of local government electors declined in all regions of England. The largest decrease (-3.6%) was in the North East.

The 2014 electoral statistics are the first to have been produced following the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration (IER) in England, Wales and Scotland.

Electoral statistics are used by Boundary Commissions, the Electoral Commission, and central government to help with the improvement of electoral policies and for statutory reviews of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estim ... stics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Came out yesterday - I wish I'd posted it earlier.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:23 pm

Good line on the Vote Now Show.

"if you don't vote, you do not have the right to complain"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:30 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:So here's the thing about Scotland. If the SNP are elected there on the basis of a promise to represent the left, then they're as trapped by that narrative as any other MPs. It means that, for all we know the SNP are not lefties, the people who elected them will mean they can't avoid supporting the left.

And there are far worse things than this outcome. After all, a government who had its agenda forced by the left is something that would be far better - and a far longer time coming - for ordinary people than any government of the last 40 years.

People forget that the SNP are as trapped by their populist narrative as those they oppose are. An SNP elected on the promise of opposing the right still has to live up to its own promise. A love of the left depends on the right policies winning not on a certain party winning. Wouldn't it be fantastic to see the SNP trapped by something they tried to co-opt?

Edit: typos because tipsy.

But the SNP have got a complete free lunch at Westminster- they just have to see what Labour wants to do and attack it from the left. That they've done the opposite in Holyrood will barely be of interest to anyone. It'll be "look at weaky old Labour".

They already have powers to make Scotland distinctly social democratic. There are tax powers they never use and stop other people using. And while debt's OK for councils and Westminster, Sturgeon was asked 8 times before she suggested it might have a role in Holyrood.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:33 pm

GetYou wrote:Good line on the Vote Now Show.

"if you don't vote, you do not have the right to complain"

I am a middle aged man, the right to complain is ingrained in my DNA, hell it practically defines me.

And as a grumpy middle aged man I am glad that FUKP clearly has very strong views on homosexuality. There is clearly far too much of this sort of thing these days(TM)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ok6TL1jYfGE

Also Julia Sawalha's finest work.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:43 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:So here's the thing about Scotland. If the SNP are elected there on the basis of a promise to represent the left, then they're as trapped by that narrative as any other MPs. It means that, for all we know the SNP are not lefties, the people who elected them will mean they can't avoid supporting the left.

And there are far worse things than this outcome. After all, a government who had its agenda forced by the left is something that would be far better - and a far longer time coming - for ordinary people than any government of the last 40 years.

People forget that the SNP are as trapped by their populist narrative as those they oppose are. An SNP elected on the promise of opposing the right still has to live up to its own promise. A love of the left depends on the right policies winning not on a certain party winning. Wouldn't it be fantastic to see the SNP trapped by something they tried to co-opt?

Edit: typos because tipsy.
But the SNP have got a complete free lunch at Westminster- they just have to see what Labour wants to do and attack it from the left. That they've done the opposite in Holyrood will barely be of interest to anyone. It'll be "look at weaky old Labour".

They already have powers to make Scotland distinctly social democratic. There are tax powers they never use and stop other people using. And while debt's OK for councils and Westminster, Sturgeon was asked 8 times before she suggested it might have a role in Holyrood.

I hate the SNP - but they've never been so visible, and therefore so accountable, outside Scotland. If politics is changing south of the border, don't forget it's reciprocal. After all, UKIP are just discovering that a higher profile works both ways. Why wouldn't that be the same for the SNP?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:43 pm

goodnight, comrades
love
cJA

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:47 pm

Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 15h15 hours ago
Some lads in my train carriage (who are admittedly drinking beers at 8.30 in the morning) just toasted Ed Miliband

..and on that I'll say goodnight - hoping for a better day tomorrow (personally that is, I'm really down at the moment)

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 17 Apr, 2015 11:53 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:So here's the thing about Scotland. If the SNP are elected there on the basis of a promise to represent the left, then they're as trapped by that narrative as any other MPs. It means that, for all we know the SNP are not lefties, the people who elected them will mean they can't avoid supporting the left.

And there are far worse things than this outcome. After all, a government who had its agenda forced by the left is something that would be far better - and a far longer time coming - for ordinary people than any government of the last 40 years.

People forget that the SNP are as trapped by their populist narrative as those they oppose are. An SNP elected on the promise of opposing the right still has to live up to its own promise. A love of the left depends on the right policies winning not on a certain party winning. Wouldn't it be fantastic to see the SNP trapped by something they tried to co-opt?

Edit: typos because tipsy.
But the SNP have got a complete free lunch at Westminster- they just have to see what Labour wants to do and attack it from the left. That they've done the opposite in Holyrood will barely be of interest to anyone. It'll be "look at weaky old Labour".

They already have powers to make Scotland distinctly social democratic. There are tax powers they never use and stop other people using. And while debt's OK for councils and Westminster, Sturgeon was asked 8 times before she suggested it might have a role in Holyrood.
I hate the SNP - but they've never been so visible, and therefore so accountable, outside Scotland. If politics is changing south of the border, don't forget it's reciprocal. After all, UKIP are just discovering that a higher profile works both ways. Why wouldn't that be the same for the SNP?

The problem is OBM, we don't have time for play politics, too many people will suffer real hardship if that bunch of clowns get back in.
I'll be fine, in fact I'll probably better off under the tory's, but I'm the kind of person who on finding a wallet with 100k in it "would" hand it into the police because my first thought would be OMG they must be devastated to have lost this!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 18 Apr, 2015 12:45 am

AngryAsWell wrote:Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 15h15 hours ago
Some lads in my train carriage (who are admittedly drinking beers at 8.30 in the morning) just toasted Ed Miliband

..and on that I'll say goodnight - hoping for a better day tomorrow (personally that is, I'm really down at the moment)

Wishing you a better day for tomorrow, AAW.