Metropol

How long is a generation nowadays?

Gavin Scott wrote:

bilky asko wrote:If the SNP didn't want the decision to be once in a generation, they shouldn't have said it would be.

I do agree it was a poor choice of thing to say and its made a rod for their own back media-wise; but that doesn't alter the fact that its not in one man's gift to make such a determination.

I think it'd be best if the SNP took the attitude (as section whatever of the referendum agreement implied they agreed to) that they should attempt working constructively as part of the United Kingdom. If that's not successful, that'd be the time to head towards a referendum. But surely any time in the next 5 years is going to be too soon to have had a fair crack at it.

WillPS wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:

bilky asko wrote:If the SNP didn't want the decision to be once in a generation, they shouldn't have said it would be.

I do agree it was a poor choice of thing to say and its made a rod for their own back media-wise; but that doesn't alter the fact that its not in one man's gift to make such a determination.

I think it'd be best if the SNP took the attitude (as section whatever of the referendum agreement implied they agreed to) that they should attempt working constructively as part of the United Kingdom. If that's not successful, that'd be the time to head towards a referendum. But surely any time in the next 5 years is going to be too soon to have had a fair crack at it.

It might surprise you to hear this but I think you're right. Moreover there's everything to be gained by demonstrating that both countries are more likely to succeed economically (and in broader ways) when attention is given to their particular needs through a some kind of parliamentary partnership, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach of traditional majority governments, of which I have lost faith.

In spite of the torrents of column inches warning of the desire to cause ruination and destruction, the general hopes and expectations of SNP supporters is the "common weal" - social and economic equality, vibrancy and a high quality of life. I don't think that runs contrary to some kind of union - just not the London-centric one we're used to. The stated aim of the SNP won't go away, but independence won't happen through brute force or even through referendum fatigue - if it is achieved it will be because the majority are convinced that its the right thing to do; but that clearly wasn't last year and may not be this decade.

And that's all right with me.

Critique wrote:Considering people rarely update their Twitter bios, I've been quite impressed to see that all MPs I've seen have changed their bios to reflect that they are now just candidates for the job, with those who had 'MP' in their @username either removing it or stating in their bio how they are not an MP and that they made the account when they were. Is there some sort of rule that means you have to stop referring to yourself as the MP for a constituency after the dissolution of Parliament, other than obviously stopping if you lose the seat!

Does anyone know to whom might complain if they saw, say, a politican's office with a sign above the door still describing them as an MP?

http://www.parliament.uk/pcs - although I think actual building signage might be excepted since it's expensive to replace and there could be planning issues.

An interesting piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -encounter

Not really that uncommon, is it? Politicians from all parties stage manage events to stop known agitators from causing a scene.

It only becomes newsworthy when they let one through, surely?

Latest Ashcroft Poll:

Thanet South : CON 34, UKIP 32 (Farage)

Sheffield Hallam : LAB 37, LIBD 36 (Clegg)

Alexia wrote:Latest Ashcroft Poll:

Thanet South : CON 34, UKIP 32 (Farage)

Sheffield Hallam : LAB 37, LIBD 36 (Clegg)

Both would be good results as far as I'm concerned, but I'm yet to be convinced by the accuracy of Lord Ashcroft's polls. I guess this election will be an acid test.

I think the "Milibrand" interview has the potential to be a gamechanger, and one which the pollsters probably wont see since they generally don't seek the views of people who have (or had) no intention of voting.

I think it will do more harm than good. More people find Russell Brand repulsive than like him.

Miliband didn't exactly say anything new, or anything big enough to tempt someone who wasn't going to vote. I suppose non-specific measures to "tackle tax avoidance" and "take on Murdoch" etc etc will chime with some but overall, he just comes across as out of his depth.

I dont think it will do any harm, at least Ed complained to Russell about not voting.

For David C to open his nasty gob and complain.... well he seems to kept worse company: