Once again, a member of my family has handed me a prediction form to fill in for her work, this time for the Rugby World Cup. I seem to recall falling flat on my face four years ago after sticking to the form guide too closely, but then I'm never one to depart too far from a losing strategy. As ever, though, I'm erring on the side of pessimism with Scotland - on paper the crunch game with Argentina could go either way, so I'm naturally taking it as read that we'll lose. It was of course Argentina that knocked us out last time, after an intensely frustrating quarter-final that with a bit more confidence we could possibly have salvaged at the death.
Anyway, here is what I've come up with -
Group A
New Zealand to beat Tonga by 15 or more
France to beat Japan by 15 or more
Canada to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Japan by 15 or more
France to beat Canada by 15 or more
Japan to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat France by less than 15
Japan to beat Canada by less than 15
France to beat Tonga by 15 or more
New Zealand to beat Canada by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. New Zealand (Q)
2. France (Q)
3. Japan
4. Canada
5. Tonga
Group B
Scotland to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Argentina by less than 15
Scotland to beat Georgia by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Georgia by 15 or more
England to beat Romania by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Scotland by less than 15
Georgia to beat Romania by less than 15
England to beat Scotland by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Georgia by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. England (Q)
2. Argentina (Q)
3. Scotland
4. Georgia
5. Romania
Group C
Australia to beat Italy by 15 or more
Ireland to beat USA by 15 or more
USA to beat Russia by less than 15
Australia to beat Ireland by less than 15
Italy to beat Russia by 15 or more
Australia to beat USA by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Russia by 15 or more
Italy to beat USA by 15 or more
Australia to beat Russia by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Italy by less than 15
FINAL TABLE
1. Australia (Q)
2. Ireland (Q)
3. Italy
4. USA
5. Russia
Group D
Fiji to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Wales by less than 15
Samoa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Fiji by 15 or more
Wales to beat Samoa by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
Samoa to beat Fiji by less than 15
Wales to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Samoa by 15 or more
Wales to beat Fiji by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. South Africa (Q)
2. Wales (Q)
3. Samoa
4. Fiji
5. Namibia
Quarter-finals
Australia to beat Wales by less than 15
England to beat France by less than 15
South Africa to beat Ireland by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Argentina by 15 or more
Semi-finals
Australia to beat England by less than 15
New Zealand to beat South Africa by less than 15
Third place play-off
South Africa to beat England by less than 15
Final
New Zealand to beat Australia by less than 15
FINAL STANDINGS
Winners - New Zealand
2nd - Australia
3rd - South Africa
4th - England
New Zealand easily won the inaugural World Cup way back in 1987, but since then it's fair to say no-one has got rich by backing the All Blacks. Their semi-final loss to Australia in 1991 wasn't unexpected, but in subsequent tournaments they have suffered some truly jaw-dropping defeats, most notably in the bizarre games against France in 1999 and 2007, and the legendary final against South Africa in 1995. However, with their current form, and with the tournament on home soil, it's very hard to see past them.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Time for a bit more factual accuracy from Francesca Preece
The last day of August brings a completely random Jock-bashing rant from Francesca Preece at Total Politics, entitled "It is time for Scotland to stand on its own two feet". Where to begin?
"This September, students will be packing their pots and pans to live in university digs. But while some will beg, steal or borrow the £9k-a-year fees, others will get it for free - simply because of their place of birth."
No, they won't. They'll get it because of their place of residence.
"Yet while help is at hand in the Highlands, there is little assistance for English students, despite there being no guarantee whatsoever that any single English student is better able to pay the fees."
Well, here's a thought, Francesca - if free education is as much a priority for those south of the border as it is for Scots, what is preventing them from electing a government that actually reflects that priority? No-one forced Middle England to vote Tory or New Labour.
"Don’t get me wrong, I think this is fantastic for Scottish students and I can’t criticise money being used in such a beneficial way – but how is it fair that a minority is receiving this at the expense of a majority?"
They aren't receiving it at the 'expense of the majority'. Scotland receives a fixed block grant and the money cannot be spent twice - so free tuition is actually coming at the expense of other areas of Scottish public spending, not English students.
"...give First Minister Alex Salmond his wish: independence. If Wee Eck truly believes he can achieve the same results without the contribution of the Treasury, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?"
Well, this is a novel suggestion - unilateral expulsion from the UK without a referendum. Suits me - let's see if the Treasury can stand on its own two feet without Scotland's huge contribution of natural resources, shall we?
"You may accuse me of being a Little Englander but the favouritism and preferential treatment Scotland receives hasn’t gone unnoticed south of the border."
It certainly hasn't gone uninvented south of the border, Francesca.
"This September, students will be packing their pots and pans to live in university digs. But while some will beg, steal or borrow the £9k-a-year fees, others will get it for free - simply because of their place of birth."
No, they won't. They'll get it because of their place of residence.
"Yet while help is at hand in the Highlands, there is little assistance for English students, despite there being no guarantee whatsoever that any single English student is better able to pay the fees."
Well, here's a thought, Francesca - if free education is as much a priority for those south of the border as it is for Scots, what is preventing them from electing a government that actually reflects that priority? No-one forced Middle England to vote Tory or New Labour.
"Don’t get me wrong, I think this is fantastic for Scottish students and I can’t criticise money being used in such a beneficial way – but how is it fair that a minority is receiving this at the expense of a majority?"
They aren't receiving it at the 'expense of the majority'. Scotland receives a fixed block grant and the money cannot be spent twice - so free tuition is actually coming at the expense of other areas of Scottish public spending, not English students.
"...give First Minister Alex Salmond his wish: independence. If Wee Eck truly believes he can achieve the same results without the contribution of the Treasury, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?"
Well, this is a novel suggestion - unilateral expulsion from the UK without a referendum. Suits me - let's see if the Treasury can stand on its own two feet without Scotland's huge contribution of natural resources, shall we?
"You may accuse me of being a Little Englander but the favouritism and preferential treatment Scotland receives hasn’t gone unnoticed south of the border."
It certainly hasn't gone uninvented south of the border, Francesca.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Why Scotland probably won't be a Third World country by 2030
Yesterday, Paul Togneri kindly forwarded me the details of John Swinney's rebuttal of the suggestion that Scotland is headed towards being a "third-world country" by 2030, along with a reminder of the Scottish government's rebuttal of a similar suggestion two years ago. I didn't get round to writing a blogpost on it, so instead here are the rebuttals in full -
“This is a deeply flawed report, which contains a series of basic mistakes. For example, the real figures show that public spending in Scotland is equivalent to 47.3 per cent of GDP in 2009/10 – actually LESS than the 47.6 per cent for the UK economy.
“Under an SNP Government, Scotland now has lower unemployment, higher employment and lower economic inactivity rates than the UK as a whole – and the latest figures show the remarkable situation that 24,000 of the 25,000 new jobs across the UK in the quarter April to June were created in Scotland – which means that Scotland accounts for 96 per cent of the aggregate increase in UK employment.
“The official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures for 2009/10 show that Scotland has now been in a stronger financial position that the UK as a whole for each of the last five years. For example, Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population – the equivalent of £1,000 extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
“This flawed report is of course a commentary on the constitutional status quo – the key to lifting the Scottish economy onto a higher growth level is securing the powers of financial responsibility and independence so that we can, for example, boost economic activity and revenue by having lower Corporation Tax than England.”
Sunday 8 March 2009
The Scottish Government criticised two inaccurate reports by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in the Sunday Times – one calling for Scottish spending to be cut by £5 billion.
SCOTTISH SPENDING
A spokesperson for Finance Secretary John Swinney said:
“This is another deeply political and deeply flawed report from the CEBR, which contains a whole series of elementary errors.
“The real figures in the Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report proves exactly the opposite – that the flow of resources is from Scotland to the rest of the UK, not from London to Scotland. Spending per head is higher in London than it is in Scotland.
“The most recent GERS report for 2006/07 shows Scotland with a current budget surplus, and in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole. The GERS figures put Scotland's current surplus at £837 million – compared with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion at that time.
“This ridiculous and hostile report – and the UK Labour Government’s plans to slash Scottish spending by £500 million a year – demonstrate exactly why Scotland needs to be responsible for all of our own resources, with an independent Parliament controlling revenue and spending in Scotland.”
NOTES:
* The last CEBR report falsely claimed that last year public spending in Scotland accounted for 56% of GDP. According to Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS), in 2006-07 the ratio of public expenditure to GDP is 41.3% of Scottish GDP, including a geographical share of the North Sea, compared to 41.5% for the UK.
* The most recent Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report for 2006/07 shows Scotland with a current budget surplus, and in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole. The GERS figures show that, with a geographical share of North Sea revenues, Scotland had a current budget surplus in 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2006/07, Scotland's current surplus is estimated at £837 million, or 0.7% of GDP. This compares with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion, or 0.3% of GDP.
* GERS also estimates Scotland's fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. This also shows Scotland in a substantially stronger position than the UK as a whole. Compared to a UK deficit in 2006/07 of 2.3% of GDP, the Scottish figure is 2.1% - which equates to the OECD average.
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that spending per head is now 22% higher in Scotland than England. However, the most recent GERS publication shows that in 2006-07 total public spending per capita is 13 per cent higher is Scotland than the UK, identifiable spending per capita 16 per cent higher in Scotland than the UK.
* The HM Treasury publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (2008) shows that for 2006-07 Scotland received less (identifiable) public spending per capita than Northern Ireland and slightly less than London. Furthermore, such figures do not include so-called ‘non-identifiable’ expenditures which generate significant benefits for the location in which they are spent. For example, it is forecast that expenditure on the London Olympics will rise to approximately £1.5 billion a year for each year in 2008-09 to 2010-11.
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that expenditure on social protection accounts for 32% of Scottish GDP. In fact in accounts for 32% of public expenditure. As a share of GDP, excluding North Sea revenues, social protection accounted for approximately 16%
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that 381,000 of Glasgow’s population is “NEET”. That is nearly the entire working age population of Glasgow City. The correct figure for Scotland, under the standard definition (16-19 year olds) is 32,000.
* In Scotland between Q3 1999 and Q3 2008 public sector employment has increased by 9% (47,500), over the same period, private sector employment increased by 10.6% (190,100). Comparable figures for the UK indicate that public sector employment increased by 11.1% (574,000) and private sector employment increased by 7.7% (1,687,000).
“This is a deeply flawed report, which contains a series of basic mistakes. For example, the real figures show that public spending in Scotland is equivalent to 47.3 per cent of GDP in 2009/10 – actually LESS than the 47.6 per cent for the UK economy.
“Under an SNP Government, Scotland now has lower unemployment, higher employment and lower economic inactivity rates than the UK as a whole – and the latest figures show the remarkable situation that 24,000 of the 25,000 new jobs across the UK in the quarter April to June were created in Scotland – which means that Scotland accounts for 96 per cent of the aggregate increase in UK employment.
“The official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures for 2009/10 show that Scotland has now been in a stronger financial position that the UK as a whole for each of the last five years. For example, Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population – the equivalent of £1,000 extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
“This flawed report is of course a commentary on the constitutional status quo – the key to lifting the Scottish economy onto a higher growth level is securing the powers of financial responsibility and independence so that we can, for example, boost economic activity and revenue by having lower Corporation Tax than England.”
Sunday 8 March 2009
The Scottish Government criticised two inaccurate reports by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in the Sunday Times – one calling for Scottish spending to be cut by £5 billion.
SCOTTISH SPENDING
A spokesperson for Finance Secretary John Swinney said:
“This is another deeply political and deeply flawed report from the CEBR, which contains a whole series of elementary errors.
“The real figures in the Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report proves exactly the opposite – that the flow of resources is from Scotland to the rest of the UK, not from London to Scotland. Spending per head is higher in London than it is in Scotland.
“The most recent GERS report for 2006/07 shows Scotland with a current budget surplus, and in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole. The GERS figures put Scotland's current surplus at £837 million – compared with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion at that time.
“This ridiculous and hostile report – and the UK Labour Government’s plans to slash Scottish spending by £500 million a year – demonstrate exactly why Scotland needs to be responsible for all of our own resources, with an independent Parliament controlling revenue and spending in Scotland.”
NOTES:
* The last CEBR report falsely claimed that last year public spending in Scotland accounted for 56% of GDP. According to Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS), in 2006-07 the ratio of public expenditure to GDP is 41.3% of Scottish GDP, including a geographical share of the North Sea, compared to 41.5% for the UK.
* The most recent Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report for 2006/07 shows Scotland with a current budget surplus, and in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole. The GERS figures show that, with a geographical share of North Sea revenues, Scotland had a current budget surplus in 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2006/07, Scotland's current surplus is estimated at £837 million, or 0.7% of GDP. This compares with a UK deficit of £4.3 billion, or 0.3% of GDP.
* GERS also estimates Scotland's fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. This also shows Scotland in a substantially stronger position than the UK as a whole. Compared to a UK deficit in 2006/07 of 2.3% of GDP, the Scottish figure is 2.1% - which equates to the OECD average.
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that spending per head is now 22% higher in Scotland than England. However, the most recent GERS publication shows that in 2006-07 total public spending per capita is 13 per cent higher is Scotland than the UK, identifiable spending per capita 16 per cent higher in Scotland than the UK.
* The HM Treasury publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (2008) shows that for 2006-07 Scotland received less (identifiable) public spending per capita than Northern Ireland and slightly less than London. Furthermore, such figures do not include so-called ‘non-identifiable’ expenditures which generate significant benefits for the location in which they are spent. For example, it is forecast that expenditure on the London Olympics will rise to approximately £1.5 billion a year for each year in 2008-09 to 2010-11.
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that expenditure on social protection accounts for 32% of Scottish GDP. In fact in accounts for 32% of public expenditure. As a share of GDP, excluding North Sea revenues, social protection accounted for approximately 16%
* The CEBR report falsely claimed that 381,000 of Glasgow’s population is “NEET”. That is nearly the entire working age population of Glasgow City. The correct figure for Scotland, under the standard definition (16-19 year olds) is 32,000.
* In Scotland between Q3 1999 and Q3 2008 public sector employment has increased by 9% (47,500), over the same period, private sector employment increased by 10.6% (190,100). Comparable figures for the UK indicate that public sector employment increased by 11.1% (574,000) and private sector employment increased by 7.7% (1,687,000).
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Harry Potter syndrome?
This post has nothing whatever to do with politics, but I must just note in passing my horror that I seem to have unwittingly agreed with Tom Harris about something on Twitter. Observe...
Kate Higgins : I'm kinda struggling with #drwho these days. Have they forgotten that it's actually a kids' programme and we adults are just incidental?
Me : I think it's really supposed to be a family show - adults and children are equally important.
Sophia Pangloss : Ah think ye underestimate the weans there. Plenty fer them tae laugh at an get feared o in there.
Tom Harris : It's not a kids' programme - it's a *family* programme aimed at kids and adults.
Kate Higgins : @TomHarrisMP @JamesKelly @SophiaPangloss Almost identical responses - methinks you all protest too much. It's Harry Potter syndrome...
I presume what Kate means is that all three of us are adults who like watching Doctor Who, but I don't think any of us are actually 'protesting' about that. I was a young child when I first got the bug, and I'm absolutely certain I would have found the programme a good deal less exciting if I hadn't been aware that it was partly aimed at adults. That's the paradox of appealing to children - they don't like being talked down to, which is why they often prefer to watch programmes that are intended for an adult audience, let alone a family one.
Personally, I find it quite dismaying that so many people (including some in the TV industry itself) don't seem to get the concept of a genuinely family audience - it appears the attitude is that if something is accessible to children, it must by definition be exclusively for children. That was an assumption Doctor Who suffered from terribly during its original 26-year-run - whenever it occasionally degenerated (if I can use that word) into a programme aimed mainly at seven-year-olds, audiences of all ages deserted it in droves. All of the best stories from the 'classic series' (with a few honourable exceptions such as The Curse of Peladon) are actually very adult - and that includes the early shows from 1963/4 that first got the public hooked. Indeed, the original characters reflected the broad-ranging audience that was being sought - the Doctor as played by William Hartnell was the elderly 'grandfather' figure, two of his companions were substitute 'parent' figures in their thirties, and there was just one 'child'. And even she was fifteen!
Kate Higgins : I'm kinda struggling with #drwho these days. Have they forgotten that it's actually a kids' programme and we adults are just incidental?
Me : I think it's really supposed to be a family show - adults and children are equally important.
Sophia Pangloss : Ah think ye underestimate the weans there. Plenty fer them tae laugh at an get feared o in there.
Tom Harris : It's not a kids' programme - it's a *family* programme aimed at kids and adults.
Kate Higgins : @TomHarrisMP @JamesKelly @SophiaPangloss Almost identical responses - methinks you all protest too much. It's Harry Potter syndrome...
I presume what Kate means is that all three of us are adults who like watching Doctor Who, but I don't think any of us are actually 'protesting' about that. I was a young child when I first got the bug, and I'm absolutely certain I would have found the programme a good deal less exciting if I hadn't been aware that it was partly aimed at adults. That's the paradox of appealing to children - they don't like being talked down to, which is why they often prefer to watch programmes that are intended for an adult audience, let alone a family one.
Personally, I find it quite dismaying that so many people (including some in the TV industry itself) don't seem to get the concept of a genuinely family audience - it appears the attitude is that if something is accessible to children, it must by definition be exclusively for children. That was an assumption Doctor Who suffered from terribly during its original 26-year-run - whenever it occasionally degenerated (if I can use that word) into a programme aimed mainly at seven-year-olds, audiences of all ages deserted it in droves. All of the best stories from the 'classic series' (with a few honourable exceptions such as The Curse of Peladon) are actually very adult - and that includes the early shows from 1963/4 that first got the public hooked. Indeed, the original characters reflected the broad-ranging audience that was being sought - the Doctor as played by William Hartnell was the elderly 'grandfather' figure, two of his companions were substitute 'parent' figures in their thirties, and there was just one 'child'. And even she was fifteen!
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Sorry, Duncan, but the people have spoken...
Well, blow me down with a feather. I can confirm that our poll to decide whether Duncan Hothersall was right or wrong was conducted to the most rigorous scientific standards of online self-selection, and the result was overwhelming...
Wrong 90%
Right 9%
In true "Bomber Admin" style, I hereby certify the question well and truly ANSWERED.
Wrong 90%
Right 9%
In true "Bomber Admin" style, I hereby certify the question well and truly ANSWERED.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
VOTE NOW : Does calling Tom Harris a toad make me a "nasty Cybernat"?
We've learned a lot of intriguing things about Tom Harris recently, most notably that he wants to be First Minister. We also learned at the weekend from his exchange with Kate Higgins on Twitter that one thing he really detests (almost as much as teenage mothers) is online, self-selecting polls. So I thought the time could hardly be better to hold an online, self-selecting poll all about Tom Harris...
On the last thread, Labour Hame contributer Duncan Hothersall complained that by calling Tom Harris a toad (in the context of the whimsical observation that he wasn't so much a "King Over The Water" as a "Toad Over The Puddle"), I had taken a "step too far" if I didn't want to be considered "just another nasty Cybernat".
Question : Is Duncan Hothersall right, or wrong?
You'll find the voting form at the top of the sidebar. Vote wisely!
On the last thread, Labour Hame contributer Duncan Hothersall complained that by calling Tom Harris a toad (in the context of the whimsical observation that he wasn't so much a "King Over The Water" as a "Toad Over The Puddle"), I had taken a "step too far" if I didn't want to be considered "just another nasty Cybernat".
Question : Is Duncan Hothersall right, or wrong?
You'll find the voting form at the top of the sidebar. Vote wisely!
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
"Admin" for First Minister?
It seems we've solved the mystery of what these cryptic words on Twitter at the weekend were all about -
Bella Caledonia : Sorry to butt in but how's that leadership debate coming along? Found anyone who wants the job yet?
Tom Harris : Apparently.
Bella Caledonia : A big hitter?
Tom Harris : Wait and see.
Yes, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Tom sees the prospect of him leading Scottish Labour from Westminster as the equivalent of Alex Salmond doing the same for the SNP for three years, but I'm not sure "Admin for First Minister" is going to have quite the same punch as the slogan the Nationalists were able to use.
Not so much a King Over The Water as a Toad Over The Puddle.
Bella Caledonia : Sorry to butt in but how's that leadership debate coming along? Found anyone who wants the job yet?
Tom Harris : Apparently.
Bella Caledonia : A big hitter?
Tom Harris : Wait and see.
Yes, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Tom sees the prospect of him leading Scottish Labour from Westminster as the equivalent of Alex Salmond doing the same for the SNP for three years, but I'm not sure "Admin for First Minister" is going to have quite the same punch as the slogan the Nationalists were able to use.
Not so much a King Over The Water as a Toad Over The Puddle.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The ache for Hame lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.
The southern part of Glasgow will be dismayed to learn that its beloved member of parliament has gone all bashful again, and has unaccountably felt the need to publish his latest comic masterpiece - an "interview with Kenny MacAskill" to mark the second anniversary of Megrahi's release - under his "Bomber Admin" pseudonym. Here are a couple of highlights...
"KM: Er… Look, Gordon Brown wanted him released as well – not just me!
LH: And did you consult the then Prime Minister about your decision to release Al-Megrahi?
KM: Are you joking? Of course I didn’t!
LH: So what difference does it make wherther Gordon Brown wanted him released or not?"
Well, I suppose one difference it makes is that it causes some of us to wonder how on earth a Labour website has the brass neck to continue making criticisms of Megrahi's release when even the dogs on the street know that, if a Labour administration had been in power at Holyrood, he would still have been released - but on Gordon Brown's say-so, and for the good of British business, rather than according to the due process of Scots Law.
"LH: And Iain Gray objected to the release, didn’t he? He disagreed with Gordon Brown."
Ah, I think I see where you're going astray here, Tom/"LH"/"Admin". Nominal disobedience to a UK Labour Prime Minister for tactical reasons is a luxury open to a Scottish Labour leader, but only in opposition. Perhaps that's why Iain Gray showed such eagerness to stay there?
"KM: Er… Look, Gordon Brown wanted him released as well – not just me!
LH: And did you consult the then Prime Minister about your decision to release Al-Megrahi?
KM: Are you joking? Of course I didn’t!
LH: So what difference does it make wherther Gordon Brown wanted him released or not?"
Well, I suppose one difference it makes is that it causes some of us to wonder how on earth a Labour website has the brass neck to continue making criticisms of Megrahi's release when even the dogs on the street know that, if a Labour administration had been in power at Holyrood, he would still have been released - but on Gordon Brown's say-so, and for the good of British business, rather than according to the due process of Scots Law.
"LH: And Iain Gray objected to the release, didn’t he? He disagreed with Gordon Brown."
Ah, I think I see where you're going astray here, Tom/"LH"/"Admin". Nominal disobedience to a UK Labour Prime Minister for tactical reasons is a luxury open to a Scottish Labour leader, but only in opposition. Perhaps that's why Iain Gray showed such eagerness to stay there?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Hoey's howler
Whatever anyone might think about the wisdom of the Speaker's wife taking part in Celebrity Big Brother, it has to be said that the intervention of rent-a-quote Labour MP Kate Hoey on the subject was extremely poorly-judged. She demanded that Sally Bercow hand a portion of her appearance fee to "the taxpayer" - but as I understand it Ms Bercow has already announced that she is donating her entire £100,000 fee to an autism charity.
Are autistic people the wrong kind of taxpayers in Kate Hoey's eyes?
Are autistic people the wrong kind of taxpayers in Kate Hoey's eyes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)