Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Prime Minister Ed McMiliband? It's pure fantasy
Salmond and Sturgeon are not floating the idea of a deal with Miliband to help Labour. They’re floating it because they want to destroy Labour


By Dan Hodges12:21PM GMT 31 Dec 2014 Comments1116 Comments
So the narrative shifts. Again. As 2014 draws to a close, the bookmakers have now officially installed David Cameron as favourite to be prime minister after the general election in May.
Tony Blair agrees with them. We are facing an election where a “traditional Left-wing party competes with a traditional Right-wing party, with the traditional result,” he told The Economist. Yesterday, the Spectator’s political panel dispensed its wisdom for 2015. Not a single columnist could foresee Ed Miliband in Downing Street.
The narrative will shift again. Narratives do that. A couple of opinion polls showing Labour in the lead and the punters will punt in a different direction. The conventionally wise will again begin pointing to the Ukip insurgency, and the Ashcroft marginal polling and the boundaries.
But as things stand it is the Conservative Party’s election to lose. Which of itself represents a pretty amazing transformation from where we were this time last year, never mind New Year’s Eve 2012.
As a result, where the Labour Party once expected to enter 2015 reaching for power, it is instead desperately clutching at straws. Or rather, it is desperately clutching at Nicola Sturgeon.


Over the last couple of weeks the SNP have suddenly – and rather bizarrely – emerged as Ed Miliband’s new, last hope. Ask any Labour MP, and all thoughts of a Labour majority have gone. Hopes of a pact with the Liberal Democrats are also fading. “The party and the unions wouldn’t wear it,” one Labour frontbencher told me.
So a new scenario is being openly discussed. One involving Prime Minister McMiliband.
The door to a possible deal between Labour and he SNP was first opened – tentatively – by Alex Salmond a couple of weeks ago, when he announced he would be prepared to “listen to other counsel” on the issue of voting on English legislation to prop up a future Labour government. His comments followed a speech by his successor, in which Sturgeon told her party "Scotland could well hold the balance of power in a Westminster parliament with no overall majority. If that happens, I promise our country this. You won't need to have voted Labour to keep the Tories out, because that's what we'll do.”



The idea of a “Nat Pact” has become the talk of Westminster. The odds on Sturgeon entering the cabinet have been slashed to 6-1. Labour’s dire poll ratings in Scotland suddenly don’t seem so dire after all, presaging possible seat transfer within an informal Labour-SNP coalition, rather than an outright loss.
Unfortunately, it’s also a fantasy. The Labour-SNP pact is not going to happen.



Salmond and Sturgeon are not floating the idea of a deal with Miliband to help Labour. They’re floating it because they want to destroy Labour. By hinting they would prop up a Labour government they are hoping to remove the final obstacle to an SNP landslide. “Vote SNP, and you can have the best of both worlds,” they are saying. “You will give Scotland maximum negotiating leverage in the event of a hung parliament, but you also have an insurance policy against a Tory government.”
It’s clever politics. But it’s also ruthless politics. Or, Scottish politics.



Those speculating about a Labour/SNP deal do not understand the basic psychology of how politics operates north of the border. It isn’t business, it’s personal. Scottish Labour politicians hate the SNP far more than they hate the Conservative Party, and the feeling is reciprocated.



Any political deal has to built on some sort of basic foundation of trust. No such foundation exists between the Scottish leadership of the Labour Party and the SNP leadership. Jim Murphy would hurl himself from the battlements of Edinburgh Castle before even countenancing such a deal.
Another issue is that, from the SNP’s perspective, the 2015 general election does not represent the main event. Yes, Sturgeon sees a huge opportunity to redraw the Scottish political map next year, and in so doing keeping the flame of independence burning. But she will not do anything to jeopardise her party’s chances of maintaining power after the Scottish parliamentary elections which follow in 2016. To win those elections she needs to maintain clear yellow and black water between herself and Labour, and she has no intention of becoming Scotland’s Nick Clegg.


And then there is the price Sturgeon would extract for handing Miliband the keys to Downing Street. Before Parliament rose for Christmas recess, Sturgeon set out her demands. In fact, it was primarily one demand. No renewal of Trident.
“For me [Trident] would be pretty fundamental. I make no bones about this,” she said. “In principle I am opposed to nuclear weapons but renewing Trident is also economic lunacy at a time when we’re facing the scale of public sector cuts.”



The SNP have already – very publicly – set out their main red line for supporting Labour. And it’s a red line Ed Miliband cannot cross. Labour’s leader cannot even kick the issue into the long grass. Even Miliband – fond though he is of his flights of student political fancy – isn’t going to put Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent up for grabs before he’s even accepted the prime ministerial seals of office.
So as a new dawn breaks, it may indeed break upon a year where the bookies are proven wrong. A year where Blair’s famously accurate political antennae fail him. A year where we commentators predicting a Cameron election victory end up with egg on our faces.
But one thing is certain. If Ed Miliband is going to prove his doubters wrong, he will have to do so without the help of Nicola Sturgeon.

I do prefer Cameron in power to the previous lot.....but it's far from perfect....Milliband would just be a return to Labour's excesses I fear....and doing away with Trident is crazy ...we live in an insecure world....

Happy New Year rf! Scotland Scotland!! :0)

Same to you Chris,...They do the new year in style up there...

The trend is clear!

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21637431-former-labour-leader-casts-doubt-his-partys-chances-winning-next-election-dont-go

INTERVENTIONS by former prime ministers less than six months or so before a general election tend to be couched in hints and insinuations, rather than full-throated advice. But Tony Blair, who as leader of the Labour Party between 1994 and 2007 led it to three election victories, is more outspoken. In an interview with The Economist, Mr Blair says that he fears that the next election, due to take place in May 2015, could be a rerun of those before his ascent to the leadership, which regularly ended in disaster for his party.

The result in 2015, he quips, could well be an election “in which a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”. Asked if he means a Tory win, Mr Blair confirms: “Yes, that is what happens.” Although Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, has spoken of a shift in economic thinking since the financial crisis of 2007-08, Mr Blair firmly denies that Britain’s centre ground has shifted. “I see no evidence for that. You could argue that it has moved to the right, not left.” Mr Blair says that the 2010 election (in which David Cameron defeated Mr Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown), was a “classic tax-and-spend election”, and that turned out to the Conservatives’ advantage.

Hey Goebbels,


LATEST UNS Labour PROJECTION 26 Majority

Does UNS stand for Useless Nutter's Statistics?

it's an approximate anglicised acronym for
ra'bochiye vse'vo 'mira, obyedi'nyaytes

Рабочие всего мира, объединяйтесь

It is in English on Karl Marx's memorial near me in Highgate Cemetery.

Marx was another champagne socialist. Privately educated from a wealthy family. He was a member of several drinking clubs who used to generally cause trouble and damage, similar to the Bullingdon Club. When he moved to London, he was known as a notorious drunk in the Soho area.

Considering he was on the surface, a believer in the distribution of wealth, he managed to leave $5m dollars in 1895. That would be a huge amount of money these days. He didn't inherit money, it was all made from his writings.

All these so-called socialists/left wingers want to drink champagne and live the champagne lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that - if they would just stop the silly pretence and own up !

would that they preached for others to aspire to the same
however, aspiration breeds competition breeds failure as well as success ..... and of course it is unjust that those who are successful should benefit from same .... so let's level downwards

There's still hope for Fred !:-)


By Agency
10:57AM GMT 01 Jan 2015
A constipated goldfish escapes his untimely demise as owner splashes out £300 on life-saving operation

A devoted pet owner splashed out £300 - to save the life of his constipated goldfish.

The man took the tiddler to vets to ease its discomfort after noticing it was struggling to poo.

He hoped after a simple procedure the fish would be back happily swimming in his office tank.

But the company boss was in for a shock when staff at the Toll Barn Veterinary Centre told him the delicate surgery would cost £300.

He turned down the treatment and left his fish to its fate - but had a change of mind 10 minutes later and went back to give the go-ahead.

Vet Faye Bethell, 29, was then tasked with carefully administering anesthetic before using tiny instruments to remove a lump close to the fish's anus.

A second lump was removed from his dorsal fin before the pet was returned to water and handed back to his grateful owner.

The vet said the three inch fish made a full recovery after the 50-minute operation and it would have died if it was left untreated.

She said: "I have never done a procedure like that on a goldfish, although I have done it before on more valuable fish like a carp.

"The actual surgery is quite straightforward but administering the anesthetic is quite complicated.

"The issue was the fish couldn't poo and it would have eventually become toxic and it would have died.

"There was nothing special about the fish. He just liked it a lot. People love their pets - but that was an expensive little goldfish."

The delicate procedure involved introducing a carefully-measured anaesthetising agent into the fish's water at the practice in North Walsham, Norfolk.

It was then removed from its tank and placed on a waterproof drape before anaesthetic water was introduced into its mouth via a tube and bubbled over its gills.

The vet then used a miniature heart-rate monitor to check that the fish was properly "under" before using a mini scalpel to remove the lumps.

She then sewed each cut with three stitches before using a special "glue" to cover and waterproof the fish's scales before it was gradually re-awakened.

Goldfish can live up to 10 years and this ailing pet was two years and 10 months old at the time of its operation.

The Toll Barn practice opened a year ago and specialises in exotic animals as well as the more usual pets.

Faye Bethell revealed that in the past year she has carried out a string of bizarre operations, including the removal of a 12g skin tumour from a two-inch long hognose snake.

She has also successfully taken out a stone from the 5mm-wide ureter of a guinea pig and last week castrated a skunk.

If the bookies are right, how many seats would each party win in Scotland in May? – alittleecon 01/01/2015

There have been a lot of stories recently about opinion polls north of the border showing a huge surge in SNP support at the expense of Labour. This article in the Guardian last week is a good example, which predicted that the SNP could win up to 45 of the 59 Scottish seats next May, writes Alex Little.

With this in mind, I thought it would be interesting to see whether the bookies (and their punters) agreed with these dire (for Labour) predictions.

The current odds don’t reflect the polls… The headline numbers don’t look too bad for Labour. They have 40 seats at the moment and remain favourites to win in 33 of those in May. They current odds suggest they will lose just 7 seats to the SNP, who in turn will all but wipe out the Lib Dems, leaving them with just 3 seats, while the Tories retain their only Scottish seat. In a further 3 seats, Ladbrokes have the SNP tied with Labour.

A closer look at the odds though should give Labour less cause for complacency however.

Give alittleecon a visit to see the full article, but Alex’s parting words are well-chosen: These are only the current odds of course, and they will undoubtedly change before election day. So will the polls though. The SNP are doing fantastically well in the polls are the moment, but surely they will narrow somewhat between now and May? It seems fairly set in stone now that the Lib Dems will be almost wiped out in Scotland in May, while for Labour, it could still go either way.

Odds are less reliable than polls. Odds are just a reflection of what people will bet on. This is limited to the group of people who bet. This is hardly a demographically chosen set of people.

Then Manuel, Haze and Db4 can put their money where their mouths are and bet against the odds.

Why I Hate Religion And You Should Too
Posted: 01/01/2015 16:46 GMT Updated: 4 hours ago

Share 5
Tweet 12
Comment 8

Share on Google+

My uncle a life long atheist recently converted Catholicism, he decided to send me a letter outlining his beliefs and I thought I would share my reply.

Religion, Faith & God are three independent but uniquely intertwined beliefs that I have struggled with over the last few years. I have actively sought out to come to terms with what I believe when it comes to these three beliefs, I can't say I am 100% ardent in all aspects of my position but I feel pretty content at this moment in time.

I am a big believer in a wide base of reading on a topic as it leads to knowledge and I often find the words of others much smarter than myself deeply resonate. However I also believe if you want to truly understand something it has to be experiential. What I have found that often the conceiving of an idea can be attractive on paper, but for want of a better phrase the epiphanies I have had, have all been physically in the moment of experiencing varying forms of 'faith'. Over the last 18 months I have spent time with Islamic extremists, Mormons, Scientologists and New age Evangelicals.

Firstly I will start with a particular poignant quote, "If there is a God, he will have to beg my forgiveness" this was etched into a wall inside Mauthausen concentration camp. To me this helps justify my two fold position; firstly Religion with an interventionist God, the idea that not only God exists but instructs us what to do via rules and regulations on how we should live our lives to me, must be untrue. I believe the philosopher Epicurus defined the paradox of religion to near perfection, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent, is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God". The idea that if we subscribe to a particular dogma set out by God salvation is our reward to me is awful, usually at this point religious people cite 'free will' but this is the greatest insult of all. Yes I have a choice as to whether I adhere to the rules of God, but I am still born a pawn in a game I didn't ask to play, I may not abide by the rules but I still face the repercussions when the game ends.

Secondly, let us consider that the dogmatic approach the Roman Catholic Church propagates to be true. Arguably for me to tacitly comply with its teachings is what perpetuates poverty, injustice, inequality etc. Now that is not to say that there are many fine Catholics who do wonderful selfless things in the name of their religion, (a good example would be the current pope who I consider to be a good person) but consider the teachings without the human element. Teachings which include the banning of condoms, homosexuality and continued subjugation of women, in which clearly the teachings place them beneath men in stature (at the very least makes true gender equality impossible) and robbed of the 'free will' we too often hear about when it comes to decisions over their own body, i.e. abortion (In some cases enforced by law). I also don't accept faux modernization to stay relevant to society, what about those families who lost children in by gone centuries before baptism believing their child damned in limbo, to be told a few hundred years later 'Oh we don't believe that anymore'.

C.S Lewis although a Christian, stated, "Jesus told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured". To him this only made sense if God was personally wounded with every sin, however to return to the paradox of an interventionist God, if he cares and has the power to alleviate suffering why doesn't he? The thing about free will is that often the most oppressed, poverty stricken and helpless people in the world have no choice, they are victims of circumstance from birth until death.

The idea that one can live a terrible life, inflicting countless suffering on others and on their death bed decide to genuinely subscribe to the idea of a celestial dictatorship doesn't sit well with me. If Hitler had repented in his bunker should he be allowed redemption?

Religion was a pre-cursor to science a way of explaining the world in terms that both comforted mans yearning to belong, offered a sense of importance to ones life and allowed us to come to terms with being finite organisms. Freud aptly said "Religion suffers from one incurable deficiency it was too clearly derived from our desire to escape from or survive death'. I used to think I was pretty clear in my convictions, but when I spent time living with evangelical Christians for the sake of a documentary I realised just how impressionable and malleable I am. A yearning to belong is intensified with the sensation of being an outsider, self doubt and a herd mentality are innate human facets, have you considered why my most religious people simply follow the religion of their parents or were born into?

Religion essentially tells us we are born ill, impure and must give thanks eternally for something we had no control or choice over; these are the fundamental principles of a dictatorship. One must forget his individuality to conform to a constructed collectivist way of living and behaving, or you'll be damned If you don't.

Moving away from the idea of a dogmatic sense of Religion and God does contemplating the existence of God count as a form of belief in some way on the spectrum. In answer to this, in short I don't know, Deism conveys the idea of a designer who takes no active interest in our lives. The problem I have with that if it to be true, much like a mother abandoning a child we consider to be immoral, where does our sense of morality stem from?

I suppose it comes from evolution and understanding that animals' working together is more conducive to survival then on your own. I struggle with deism and concede it is a possibility, however I take comfort from the words of Robert Ingersoll 'The Great Agnostic'- " I would rather live and love where death is king then have eternal life where love is not", and it seems to me a creator with no interest in human affairs is a creator devoid of love.

Finally the idea of faith, I think faith is a necessity of man and takes many forms whether it is religion or something else. Graham Greene wrote in the Comedians "If you have abandoned one faith, do not abandon all faith. There is always an alternative to faith the faith we lose, or is it the same faith under another mask?"

I choose to my put my faith in humanity, I don't feel the need for a creator to make sense of the world whether he takes an active interest or not. For me the trick is to be content in the not knowing bit, I don't know and I probably never will categorically know...

I leave with you a particular quote that sums up my position better than I ever could from Dostoyevsky

"It's life that matters, nothing but life, the process of discovering the everlasting and perpetual process, not the discovery itself, at all"