Mr. Jessop, ah, my mistake, I thought he was firmly on the engineering side.
Mr. Max, isn't much of the car done? Obviously development changes things but bringing in Brawn will take time to change things. I wonder if he has to take a certain amount of time off due to contractual obligations with Mercedes.
I do think Brawn at McLaren would be a positive change. It would also make it likelier for Hamilton to return. I suspect Dennis also agrees with Brawn's view that a single leader (unlike the Mercedes management committee approach) is best.
The Lib Dems should compromise over Rennard - instead of an apology they should just subject him to years of groping by fat, drunk, middle-age sleazebags as a punishment. Actually with the insight that would bring an apology might even be forthcoming as well.
Are you volunteering....though I wouldn't say you were fat?
I'm willing to play my part. But I was thinking Brian Coleman...
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
Of course, he is a Westminster MP for a constituency in Scotland. So Mr Alexander (or Mr Carmichael, or ...) might not do too well in any leadership challenge before the result of the indy referendum is known. Why risk electing a leader who has a good chance of having his seat evaporate under him? Even if one assumes he could get an EWNI seat (and be reelected), or given a peerage, elements of the EWNI electorate might view with misgiving a Caledonian candidate for PM.
I'm certainly no fan of Ed Miliband, but what is the evidence that the rich will move away from the UK in large enough numbers to negate an increase in rates? I'm sure individual examples can be found, but of a sufficient number to make a tangible macroeconomic effect? I haven't seen anything.
"You go into politics and you accept the notion of a collective agreement for the greater good. After 15 years working in the Lib Dems I realised there's no greater good, just everyone doing a shit job.
"Parliament is a place of blind ignorance, stuffed with racists and sexists and they are all idiots and they are accepted. And that's why I walked away. I was actually wasting my time."
She attacked the "intellectual sexist culture and endemic sleazy culture of Westminster". She said: "When I worked in the whips' office I had 10 male MPs who behaved completely inappropriately to me. It's far from unusual for researchers to have their bottoms pinched and to be kissed on the lips."
It sounds like a neanderthal workplace in the Seventies, I cannot see her and the others being happy with Rennard Lording it over the party again.
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
Of course, he is a Westminster MP for a constituency in Scotland. So Mr Alexander (or Mr Carmichael, or ...) might not do too well in any leadership challenge before the result of the indy referendum is known. Why risk electing a leader who has a good chance of having his seat evaporate under him? Even if one assumes he could get an EWNI seat (and be reelected), or given a peerage, elements of the EWNI electorate might view with misgiving a Caledonian candidate for PM.
You can simplify a little - if (unlikely) Scotland votes to leave then a Scottish candidate for PM of the remaining UK would be completely unacceptable for a major party.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
I despair at what many so-called Conservatives expect of Cameron. If they had not noticed, he is PM of a coalition government, not a Conservative one. If he had gone full ahead with what some seem to want, that coalition would have lasted six months at most, and we'd have a Labour (probably Miliband) government.
Cameron's navigating a very tricky course fairly well IMHO. He is in coalition, in difficult times for the country. He cannot do everything he'd want, or probably even say what he'd want, either.
What some Conservative supporters seem to want is the reanimated corpse of Maggie. Except her legend is much firmer than her actualite.
They would have given the party David Davis as leader, and a loss at 2010 against Brown.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
They would have given the party David Davis as leader, and a loss at 2010 against Brown.
For the long term health of this country, it is not even facetious for Conservatives to argue it would have been far better for Labour to be made to face the music, than get straight back in after 5 years with their cretinous voter base still living in la la land.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
I despair at what many so-called Conservatives expect of Cameron. If they had not noticed, he is PM of a coalition government, not a Conservative one. If he had gone full ahead with what some seem to want, that coalition would have lasted six months at most, and we'd have a Labour (probably Miliband) government.
Cameron's navigating a very tricky course fairly well IMHO. He is in coalition, in difficult times for the country. He cannot do everything he'd want, or probably even say what he'd want, either.
What some Conservative supporters seem to want is the reanimated corpse of Maggie. Except her legend is much firmer than her actualite.
They would have given the party David Davis as leader, and a loss at 2010 against Brown.
I think what you are failing to realise Josias is that the world is not as many tories want it to be and this is extremely unsatisfactory. People do not believe what they should believe, facts are not what they ought to be and policies which are no more than common sense don't work and are extremely unpopular to boot.
Who could possibly be to blame for this unsatisfactory state of the real world? Well, anyone and everyone who is not willing to pretend that it is otherwise.
That damned Cameron and the other leaders insist on living in the real world where they have to deal with real problems and simplistic and naive policies simply will not work. Of course it is his fault. If he would only shut his eyes, his ears and switch off his brain everything would be fine.
We had 13 years of this tosh after 1997 whilst the worst government in our history ran riot with no effective opposition. It is the sort of smug, delusional self satisfaction one might expect from a Liberal Democrat who never expected to be in power or to have to make real decisions. And insults to real tories don't come much worse than that.
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
Of course, he is a Westminster MP for a constituency in Scotland. So Mr Alexander (or Mr Carmichael, or ...) might not do too well in any leadership challenge before the result of the indy referendum is known. Why risk electing a leader who has a good chance of having his seat evaporate under him? Even if one assumes he could get an EWNI seat (and be reelected), or given a peerage, elements of the EWNI electorate might view with misgiving a Caledonian candidate for PM.
You can simplify a little - if (unlikely) Scotland votes to leave then a Scottish candidate for PM of the remaining UK would be completely unacceptable for a major party.
Hmm, that's a good point - but rests on whether he IS then Scottish. The implication of being able to stand for party leader is that Mr Alexander would presumably have become or credibly about to become of EWNI nationality then, either by naturalization or by part or wholly EWNI parentage if this applies in this case (though in the absence of a detailed proposal by the London Gmt for what happens in indy, comparable to the Scottish White Paper, we are completely in the dark as to what the rules might be).
In that case, to exclude Mr A just because he used to be Scots, (or may still be, if of dual nationality) would surely be prejudice, and LDs don't do that, so the problem reverts to a seat in the Commons or Lords? Which would not be resolved till the 2015 GE (or 2016 if it is deferred).
(I am uncertain of the nationality qualification to become a MP, though this could well change as a new EWNI Parliament would have to be set up at least technically though not physically).
Edit: not aimed at Mr A personally - it also affects other LD and Labour MPs especially (and the odd Tory, of course).
Very strong statement on Rennard by Danny Alexander in an interview screened on Sky TV.
The Lib Dems have a real statesman-in-waiting in Danny. Tough and competent liberalism.
Of course, he is a Westminster MP for a constituency in Scotland. So Mr Alexander (or Mr Carmichael, or ...) might not do too well in any leadership challenge before the result of the indy referendum is known. Why risk electing a leader who has a good chance of having his seat evaporate under him? Even if one assumes he could get an EWNI seat (and be reelected), or given a peerage, elements of the EWNI electorate might view with misgiving a Caledonian candidate for PM.
You can simplify a little - if (unlikely) Scotland votes to leave then a Scottish candidate for PM of the remaining UK would be completely unacceptable for a major party.
Hmm, that's a good point - but rests on whether he IS then Scottish. The implication of being able to stand for party leader is that Mr Alexander would presumably have become or credibly about to become of EWNI nationality then, either by naturalization or by part or wholly EWNI parentage if this applies in this case (though in the absence of a detailed proposal by the London Gmt for what happens in indy, comparable to the Scottish White Paper, we are completely in the dark as to what the rules might be).
In that case, to exclude Mr A just because he used to be Scots, (or may still be, if of dual nationality) would surely be prejudice, and LDs don't do that, so the problem reverts to a seat in the Commons or Lords? Which would not be resolved till the 2015 GE (or 2016 if it is deferred).
(I am uncertain of the nationality qualification to become a MP, though this could well change as a new EWNI Parliament would have to be set up at least technically though not physically).
Edit: not aimed at Mr A personally - it also affects other LD and Labour MPs especially (and the odd Tory, of course).
In the event of vote to leave, I can't see it taking long for Salmond to antagonise the average English voter with an unreasonable negotiation position, or for that antagonism to rapidly lead to general hostility towards Scottish people. Lib Dems may not do prejudice but a Scottish leader in that scenario makes tuition fees feel like retail politics.
I think what you are failing to realise Josias is that the world is not as many tories want it to be and this is extremely unsatisfactory. People do not believe what they should believe, facts are not what they ought to be and policies which are no more than common sense don't work and are extremely unpopular to boot.
Who could possibly be to blame for this unsatisfactory state of the real world? Well, anyone and everyone who is not willing to pretend that it is otherwise.
That damned Cameron and the other leaders insist on living in the real world where they have to deal with real problems and simplistic and naive policies simply will not work. Of course it is his fault. If he would only shut his eyes, his ears and switch off his brain everything would be fine.
We had 13 years of this tosh after 1997 whilst the worst government in our history ran riot with no effective opposition. It is the sort of smug, delusional self satisfaction one might expect from a Liberal Democrat who never expected to be in power or to have to make real decisions. And insults to real tories don't come much worse than that.
I dunno, I finish off the fish pie for dinner, and there's only been a handful of posts. Where are we all? Have PBers all of a sudden got a life on this long, dark teatime of the soul?
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Fortunately, most of the right-wing loonies are going over to UKIP, where they can howl in the wilderness about gay marriage (*) and the EU. (**)
Long term, the Conservatives will be better off without them. The country's moving on under clear green signals, leaving them S/U in a derelict siding. Labour needs to go through a similar process; sadly, they've got a loony as a leader.
(*) Like a certain poster on here, who wouldn't say why he felt one section of the population should have less rights than others.
(**) I actually have some sympathy with their anti-EU views. But not with the way they put it.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
I despair at what many so-called Conservatives expect of Cameron. If they had not noticed, he is PM of a coalition government, not a Conservative one. If he had gone full ahead with what some seem to want, that coalition would have lasted six months at most, and we'd have a Labour (probably Miliband) government.
Cameron's navigating a very tricky course fairly well IMHO. He is in coalition, in difficult times for the country. He cannot do everything he'd want, or probably even say what he'd want, either.
What some Conservative supporters seem to want is the reanimated corpse of Maggie. Except her legend is much firmer than her actualite.
They would have given the party David Davis as leader, and a loss at 2010 against Brown.
"... the voters are just going to think he [Cameron]'s full of shit."
No!. Nobody could think that about Cameron, surely. The fact that his party's membership is in free-fall and he has, and probably will again, haemorrhaged voters is due to changing demographics, peculiarities of our voting system, world-wide trends, phases of the moon, anything other than the fact that an awful of members and voters have twigged that he is full of shit and is as trustworthy as Arthur Daley.
If they had their way they'd probably lose the likes of me as a voter along the way. The people who voted Blair, but preferred Cameron to Brown, the middle ground. He hasn't got everything done that I would have liked but he's done most of it, which considering the constraints of coalition with a junior partner that wets itself if it has to make a tough decision has been outstanding.
"Some have been pushed and some have jumped," he explained.
"Politics needs people with personality and backgrounds and they will all have one or two flaws.
"I have my own red lines on this. That is real extremism and nastiness."
Fair enough from Farage, people are always going to have one or two oddball ideas/personality quirks but the comments were clearly bonkers and insulting.
In 1993, he was credited for the launch of "tactical voting", which helped the party win a series of by-elections. The most notable success came at Christchurch in Dorset, where a by-election saw the Liberal Democrats unseat the Conservative Party (whose popularity had slumped since the Black Wednesday economic debacle in September 1992) by the largest swing against any UK government since 1918.[3]
Concerning the 2001 general election, one frontbench Lib Dem is reported as saying:
"Last time people didn't follow Chris [Rennard's] instructions and the difference between those who did and who didn't – like in the Isle of Wight [which the party lost] – was very clear. The message got through."[4]
Rennard is credited with pioneering the successful Lib Dem election strategy of claiming narrow majorities when in second or even third place and ruthlessly squeezing third party votes in Tory – Lib Dem and Labour – Lib Dem marginals.
He is clearly a loss to the Lib Dem electoral strategy as well as involving them in the embarrasing farce of a sitution they are in now.
Many thanks to @DavidL for the interesting response. You say that it would not be competent for an Advocate Depute to move for sentence in respect of a lesser offence, but does not Hume say that:
The Lord Advocate is master of his instance in this other sense, that even after he has brought his libel into court, it is a matter at his discretion, to what extent or effect he will insist against the pannel; and he may freely, at any period of the process, before return of the verdict, nay after it has been returned, restrict his libel to an arbitrary punishment, in the clearest case even of a capital crime. [Commentaries, II, 134, quoted by the Privy Council in Montgomery v HM Advocate[2000] UKHL D1, [2003] 1 AC 641, 661]
As for the law of corroboration, it is one of the few areas in which Scots law values the liberty of the subject to a greater extent than the law of England. The day it is abolished will be a sad day indeed, but my suspicion is that the lobby for watering down the rights of the accused (particularly in sex cases) will prevail in the long run.
Forget the issue of Scottish independence, Danny Alexander has virtually no chance of becoming Lib Dem leader anyway. He's spent four years being George's little helper at the Treasury, so we near enoiugh write him off (at least in 2015). The biggest problem for him though is being tied at the hip to Clegg. If the lib Dems stay in government after 2015, Clegg resumbly stays as leader. Perhaos after a further erosion of members after another coalition with the Tories will leave the Party ready to embrace Danny. But if they get rid of Clegg in 2015, why replace him with Danny?
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron. I've just spoken with the fourth left-leaning, Tory-hating friend who agrees with it. I think the polling is going to come back very well.
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron. I've just spoken with the fourth left-leaning, Tory-hating friend who agrees with it. I think the polling is going to come back very well.
Anecdote time: at a citizenship ceremony, you must read out an affirmation or oath of allegiance. At Mrs J's ceremony, a few people's English were so poor that the words were not understandable. Including one woman who hardly even tried. Then again, someone thought I was the immigrant as Mrs J's English was so good ...
A little bit of the Ed Miliband interview with Marr I picked up on was that he said Ed Balls was safe as Shadow Chancellor up until the election.Marr did not pick him up on that but I guess Ed M,'s response would have been that is the same for all Shadow Ministers.As has been suggested here at PB in the past,if he is not going to have Balls as Chancellor,which Ed seems to imply, why does he have him as Shadow Chancellor?From a betting point of view it is worth having a look at Next Chancellor markets on the basis that after Ed's comments, Balls is-to use horse racing parlance-a false favourite.Therefore,there will be value. Rachel Reeves at 16-1 appeals as she does not have the toxic link to the last Labour government.Her background in economics means she has the intellectual capacity to understand the issues.Amongst her other qualifications is that she is a young mum-Mumsnet is a constituency that Tories just do not understand. Accepting a Labour majority as a given,Yvette Cooper,particularly, at 10-1 and Alistair Darling,steady-pair-of-hands candidate, at 16-1 might be other attractive candidates.However,a saver is in order on Douglas Alexander,perhaps Ed's strongest ally,at a very attractive 50-1.
Interesting thoughts there, Mr. Jessop. I don't know what the Conservative party membership is like where you are but around here it is literally dying out - I went to a fund raiser a few years ago and I was the youngest person there (save for the grand-children of one of the members) and one member pegged out during the entertainment, and I am already drawing my pension.
Who knows what the current membership figure is? The last I heard it was in the region of 100,000 and still declining. Vote share has held remarkably solid since 2010, if the polls are to be believed, but it is still down and a long way short of where it needs to be if the Conservatives are to win a majority.
Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters, having shed those you regard as ideologically impure for the 21st century. Fair enough but where is the evidence that new, "up to date" people are moving in to fill the gaps? Without those new voters, if not members, the Conservative party is doomed to irrelevance if not extinction. Yet those new voters/members don't seem to be attracted by Mr Cameron. Why? Could it be they feel he is full of shit? Maybe a leader who alienates his own supporters without attracting a greater number of new people is certainly full of something and it ain't strategic nous.
Fish pie on a Sunday? What sort of right winger are you? Roast beef for me once Chelsea have stopped torturing United.
The local pub's Sunday roast is horrible - cold, uncooked veg and they even managed to burn the Yorkshire puds last time out (*). Mrs J's a pescetarian, and as she treated me to a day in London yesterday (including a nine-mile walk and the theatre) I thought I'd cook. And my fish pie is much talked about locally. (**)
She cooks me a Sunday roast every so often. Which, for a vegetarian who has only turned to the dark side to eat fish for health reasons, is beyond the call of duty.
(*) I'm hoping someone - UKIP? - will propose a law that anyone killing a Sunday roast should be jailed for life. Or tortured.
Anecdote time: at a citizenship ceremony, you must read out an affirmation or oath of allegiance. At Mrs J's ceremony, a few people's English were so poor that the words were not understandable. Including one woman who hardly even tried. Then again, someone thought I was the immigrant as Mrs J's English was so good ...
There was a fairly high profile double murder trial at the Crown Court at Oxford before Mr Justice Supperstone and a jury in May 2012. One member of the jury could not read the oath (or seemingly anything at all for that matter) and it had to be administered orally in the 'repeat after me' fashion, while another was required by the judge to repeat the oath three times because she had a penchant for altering or omitting words from the text prescribed by law. [I should add that the ethnicity of both was "White British".] Don't necessarily assume it is only immigrants who have difficulty understanding English...
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron...
Will it ever happen, though Mr Socrates? I'd risk a modest wager that it won't. Indeed I'd go further and bet that the required legislation is never even laid before the house.
These sort of reports end up just feeding the narrative that Cameron is full of shit.
Interesting thoughts there, Mr. Jessop. I don't know what the Conservative party membership is like where you are but around here it is literally dying out - I went to a fund raiser a few years ago and I was the youngest person there (save for the grand-children of one of the members) and one member pegged out during the entertainment, and I am already drawing my pension.
Who knows what the current membership figure is? The last I heard it was in the region of 100,000 and still declining. Vote share has held remarkably solid since 2010, if the polls are to be believed, but it is still down and a long way short of where it needs to be if the Conservatives are to win a majority.
Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters, having shed those you regard as ideologically impure for the 21st century. Fair enough but where is the evidence that new, "up to date" people are moving in to fill the gaps? Without those new voters, if not members, the Conservative party is doomed to irrelevance if not extinction. Yet those new voters/members don't seem to be attracted by Mr Cameron. Why? Could it be they feel he is full of shit? Maybe a leader who alienates his own supporters without attracting a greater number of new people is certainly full of something and it ain't strategic nous.
I must say how much I'm enjoying your posts.
In a democracy the votes of the ideologically impure count for just as much as the up to date.
Had the LDs handled this properly when the complaints were first raised, and Rennard a party employee, the employee disciplinary action might have led to some sort of resolution and stopped the thing in its tracks.
Unfortunately it wasn't and in an effort to hush the thing up, Rennard was eased out.
In a democracy the votes of the ideologically impure count for just as much as the up to date.
The irony, of course, is that the Conservative Party is an ideological dog's breakfast, with no coherent intellectual philosophy at all. When, therefore, members of the Conservative Party tell the "ideologically impure" to jump ship, what they actually mean is that those who don't conform to the latest caprice of the leader are unwelcome.
Another weekend's worth of doorstep anecedotes, but basically no change visible. However, it's noticeable that people who voted Tory last time and plan to do so again are starting to cite the economy as the reason. So Osborne's message is getting through to the loyalists. Plenty of UKIP in a C1/C2 estate that voted marginally Tory last May. Labour making progress at LibDem expense, as nationally, especially in AB demographics. Nobody mentioned Rennard, though.
The cost of providing translating services in the NHS is quite significant, and I am sure the same goes for other state services.
It would be difficult to eliminate for emergency services, but quite possible to implement for non-emergencies, with the onus on the non-English (or Welsh) speaker to provide a translator.
The £30 000 pound bill for translators in the recent Peterborough sex ring case would be difficult to save on without risk of miscarriages of justice though.
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron...
Will it ever happen, though Mr Socrates? I'd risk a modest wager that it won't. Indeed I'd go further and bet that the required legislation is never even laid before the house.
These sort of reports end up just feeding the narrative that Cameron is full of shit.
A little bit of the Ed Miliband interview with Marr I picked up on was that he said Ed Balls was safe as Shadow Chancellor up until the election.Marr did not pick him up on that but I guess Ed M,'s response would have been that is the same for all Shadow Ministers.As has been suggested here at PB in the past,if he is not going to have Balls as Chancellor,which Ed seems to imply, why does he have him as Shadow Chancellor?From a betting point of view it is worth having a look at Next Chancellor markets on the basis that after Ed's comments, Balls is-to use horse racing parlance-a false favourite.Therefore,there will be value. Rachel Reeves at 16-1 appeals as she does not have the toxic link to the last Labour government.Her background in economics means she has the intellectual capacity to understand the issues.Amongst her other qualifications is that she is a young mum-Mumsnet is a constituency that Tories just do not understand. Accepting a Labour majority as a given,Yvette Cooper,particularly, at 10-1 and Alistair Darling,steady-pair-of-hands candidate, at 16-1 might be other attractive candidates.However,a saver is in order on Douglas Alexander,perhaps Ed's strongest ally,at a very attractive 50-1.
I've had a look back and every single Shadow Chancellor became Chancellor when there was a change of Government. I don't see why Ed Miliband will break that tradition.
Ed Balls may last months or years as Chancellor, but he should be there long enough for the bookies to pay out on next chancellor bets if Labour win... I hope !
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron. I've just spoken with the fourth left-leaning, Tory-hating friend who agrees with it. I think the polling is going to come back very well.
Anecdote time: at a citizenship ceremony, you must read out an affirmation or oath of allegiance. At Mrs J's ceremony, a few people's English were so poor that the words were not understandable. Including one woman who hardly even tried. Then again, someone thought I was the immigrant as Mrs J's English was so good ...
Something that's truly outrageous, as that's not just for residency, it's for full-on citizenship. That means someone who still can't speak English properly has barely attempted to integrate at all.
Frankly, I think fluent English (or Welsh, if resident in North Wales) should be needed for citizenship.
UKIP have got themselves into a fair old mess over this plague-and-pestilence bloke. I had some sympathy with the initial line that everyone is entitled to make theological utterances no matter how deranged. But now we learn that this man was ordered to keep his opinions to himself and has been suspended for blabbing. At best it sounds as if UKIP are pandering to the sensibilities of the metrosexual establishment; at worst, that they have a hidden agenda that they're too terrified to reveal to the rest of us. It's a real muddle to be sure!
It does have the feel of a Libdem Leadership battle, but one where certain individual Libdem Lords are trying to prove that they are by far the most powerful section of the party rather than its elected Leader or general membership.
Dear me, our LibDem friends seem to have got themselves in a right pickle, and it's hard to see how they can extricate themselves without further collateral damage.
Since, clearly, the best thing from the party's point of view would be for everyone to shut up, the fact that they are not doing so suggests that this has become a proxy battle for something else: the idealists versus the pragmatists, perhaps?
Mr. Nabavi
Hiding behind a double negative, am I not incorrect that you are suggesting the Lib Lords revolt on Rennard's treatment might be a proxy for a leadership battle?
Perhaps Lord Rennard is plotting to put Sarah Teather on top?
UKIP have got themselves into a fair old mess over this plague-and-pestilence bloke. I had some sympathy with the initial line that everyone is entitled to make theological utterances no matter how deranged. But now we learn that this man was ordered to keep his opinions to himself and has been suspended for blabbing. At best it sounds as if UKIP are pandering to the sensibilities of the metrosexual establishment; at worst, that they have a hidden agenda that they're too terrified to reveal to the rest of us. It's a real muddle to be sure!
Really? It sounds to me like the person was a nutjob, and UKIP did exactly the right thing.
UKIP have got themselves into a fair old mess over this plague-and-pestilence bloke. I had some sympathy with the initial line that everyone is entitled to make theological utterances no matter how deranged. But now we learn that this man was ordered to keep his opinions to himself and has been suspended for blabbing. At best it sounds as if UKIP are pandering to the sensibilities of the metrosexual establishment; at worst, that they have a hidden agenda that they're too terrified to reveal to the rest of us. It's a real muddle to be sure!
In theory I agree, but in practise I don't think people consider the principles behind stuff like this that closely. I think lots of people will agree with the apparent UKIP view "people have a right to say what they think, but there are limits" even if it doesn't technically make sense. Also, this isn't that big a story anyway.
In the years leading up to 2007/8, bank competition and rivalry was so fierce that pesonal and commercial lending was made at interest rates far too low for the risks involved.
Subsequently, banks had insufficient profit margins to cope with the bad debts which arose. In turn the losses meant that banks had insufficient capital. Without enough capital, banks found they could not borrow on the wholesale market and had liquidity problems.
The competition commission has had many inquiries n the past twenty years and found only minor problems with the market. It did find that the acquisition of HBOS by Lloyds was uncompetitive but the Government decided that a bust HBOS would not help competition so allowed the rescue. Subsequently the EU required Lloyds to reduce its market share by hiving off branches into a new TSB. This inproves competition not by making TSB a strong competitor but by reducing Llots market share to the same level as RBS, Barclays, HSBC and Santander (for mortgages).
Having five large bank competitors is perfectly capable of providing a competitive market. What would be uncompetitive is having one big player with only small players up against it.
The Cola market is very competitive with only Coca Cola and Pepsi as big players. Their rivalry is intense.
So Ed Miliband is wrong to suggest the bank markey is uncompetitive and breaking up Lloyds and RBS would make it more competitive.
Another weekend's worth of doorstep anecedotes, but basically no change visible. However, it's noticeable that people who voted Tory last time and plan to do so again are starting to cite the economy as the reason. So Osborne's message is getting through to the loyalists. Plenty of UKIP in a C1/C2 estate that voted marginally Tory last May. Labour making progress at LibDem expense, as nationally, especially in AB demographics. Nobody mentioned Rennard, though.
I can't think why the man on the street would mention Rennard to be honest. The whole thing doesn't affect their lives, LD policy or in truth a major sign of the leadership of the party. It's a classic Westminster bubble story for better or for worse. Thanks for the anecdotes NP, always good to get the doorstep perspective deliver with good context.
Many thanks to @DavidL for the interesting response. You say that it would not be competent for an Advocate Depute to move for sentence in respect of a lesser offence, but does not Hume say that:
The Lord Advocate is master of his instance in this other sense, that even after he has brought his libel into court, it is a matter at his discretion, to what extent or effect he will insist against the pannel; and he may freely, at any period of the process, before return of the verdict, nay after it has been returned, restrict his libel to an arbitrary punishment, in the clearest case even of a capital crime. [Commentaries, II, 134, quoted by the Privy Council in Montgomery v HM Advocate[2000] UKHL D1, [2003] 1 AC 641, 661]
As for the law of corroboration, it is one of the few areas in which Scots law values the liberty of the subject to a greater extent than the law of England. The day it is abolished will be a sad day indeed, but my suspicion is that the lobby for watering down the rights of the accused (particularly in sex cases) will prevail in the long run.
I have never heard of an AD reducing a charge which gets to the jury. He may drop a charge but I reduce it? I just can't imagine how or why that would happen. In the real world an AD's discretion is much reduced these days and they are much more accountable to Crown Office than they used to be, especially in relation to sex cases.
Just playing around on electoral calculus I reckon for Tory/Labour to be equal in terms of seats it would have to be around 37/33% vote share split. If Labour can get 34%, the coalition will have little chance of a majority. Lab minority or Lib/Lab pact would be the only viable option.
Are we still waiting for the data from the ICM monthly poll? Why do they take so long?
UKIP have proved themselves to be pretty much bullet proof so the opinions of this biblical nutter won't harm them. Everyone agrees that it's comical rather than sinister. That's because it's OK to take the piss out Christianity. However, had it been a muslim citing the quran literally, then none of the media class would be laughing. They'd be too busy turning a blind eye.
The cost of providing translating services in the NHS is quite significant, and I am sure the same goes for other state services.
It would be difficult to eliminate for emergency services, but quite possible to implement for non-emergencies, with the onus on the non-English (or Welsh) speaker to provide a translator.
The £30 000 pound bill for translators in the recent Peterborough sex ring case would be difficult to save on without risk of miscarriages of justice though.
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron...
Will it ever happen, though Mr Socrates? I'd risk a modest wager that it won't. Indeed I'd go further and bet that the required legislation is never even laid before the house.
These sort of reports end up just feeding the narrative that Cameron is full of shit.
One of the consequences of immigration recently, is just the sheer number of languages that you are faced with. Just like you in the NHS, we tend to meet a lot of people who might be hurt, frightened, under stress, so they tend to talk in their own language, and fast! A lot of us now have little hand written crib sheets, with a few stock phrases, that help break the ice, calm things down a bit. We also find that google translate on a big screen smartphone is a useful tool, and saves us no end of time.
UKIP have got themselves into a fair old mess over this plague-and-pestilence bloke. I had some sympathy with the initial line that everyone is entitled to make theological utterances no matter how deranged. But now we learn that this man was ordered to keep his opinions to himself and has been suspended for blabbing. At best it sounds as if UKIP are pandering to the sensibilities of the metrosexual establishment; at worst, that they have a hidden agenda that they're too terrified to reveal to the rest of us. It's a real muddle to be sure!
Really? It sounds to me like the person was a nutjob, and UKIP did exactly the right thing.
The problem is that UKIP initially played the freedom card by saying that all views, no matter how odd, were tolerated. Now the line is that who can hold such views but you'll get suspended if you reveal them to the public and make us look bad. Apart from anything else that is deeply patronizing to the electorate.
Santander pulled out of a deal to buy up some RBS branches, perhaps it was still trying to sort out its takeovers of Bradford and Bingley and Alliance Leicester, or it was just not able to afford another deal. Spain's banking system may not be so healthy after all.
Co-Op was Miliband's flavour of the month, but months before Rev Flowers made the front pages, it was showing signs that it too was incapable of becoming a main player in the retail bank market - buying spree faults coming home to roost. Threw large sums of cash at IT and failed.
Where does Miliband think that the new players are going to come from, the remains of the existing high street banks, or is he thinking of opening up the UK retail banks to EU or USA banks?
Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters, having shed those you regard as ideologically impure for the 21st century. Fair enough but where is the evidence that new, "up to date" people are moving in to fill the gaps? Without those new voters, if not members, the Conservative party is doomed to irrelevance if not extinction. Yet those new voters/members don't seem to be attracted by Mr Cameron. Why? Could it be they feel he is full of shit? Maybe a leader who alienates his own supporters without attracting a greater number of new people is certainly full of something and it ain't strategic nous.
I have no idea what the Conservative Party is like in my local area. I'm not a member; this is something I'm quite glad of, as it means I won't have to meet Lansley. ;-) All I can say is that the Conservative Party - by accepting things like gay marriage - is following a long-term trend in public opinion.
"Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters,"
That's not what I'm saying. Time changes, and so do political parties. You are making the assumption that the only way of keeping the Conservative Party full of members is for it to stay in aspic, when the reality is that's a sure-fire way for it to die out. The Conservative Party values of the 1980s were very different to those of the 1960s, yet alone the 1900s, just as the population was very different. In the same manner, the Conservative Party of 2020 will be very different to that of 1980, and for the same reason.
As I said, Cameron's in coalition. You cannot expect the government - or him - to have a full Conservative agenda when the Lib Dems are sitting around the table with them. He has to run the country; if 'his own supporters' do not like that, then they can look forward to being in permanent opposition.
Indeed, they are hardly 'his own supporters'. Many (although not all, there are several people on here who make very valid criticisms of the current party from a right-wing viewpoint) of the anti-Cameron crowd seem to want Maggie resurrected. Only she will ever satisfy them, and then only because they've fallen for the myth rather than the reality.
The people who will destroy the Conservative Party are the people who want no change. That does not mean everything has to change, but there has to be a gentle evolution rather than revolution. And what is more conservative (with a small 'c') than that?
"Some have been pushed and some have jumped," he explained.
"Politics needs people with personality and backgrounds and they will all have one or two flaws.
"I have my own red lines on this. That is real extremism and nastiness."
Fair enough from Farage, people are always going to have one or two oddball ideas/personality quirks but the comments were clearly bonkers and insulting.
Unfortunately, he has, by some miracle, turned out to be correct.
UKIP have got themselves into a fair old mess over this plague-and-pestilence bloke. I had some sympathy with the initial line that everyone is entitled to make theological utterances no matter how deranged. But now we learn that this man was ordered to keep his opinions to himself and has been suspended for blabbing. At best it sounds as if UKIP are pandering to the sensibilities of the metrosexual establishment; at worst, that they have a hidden agenda that they're too terrified to reveal to the rest of us. It's a real muddle to be sure!
In theory I agree, but in practise I don't think people consider the principles behind stuff like this that closely. I think lots of people will agree with the apparent UKIP view "people have a right to say what they think, but there are limits" even if it doesn't technically make sense. Also, this isn't that big a story anyway.
There is a difference between "people have a right to say what they think" and "elected UKIP members have a right to say what they think, if what they say and think is so bizarre or offensive that it would cause the party serious damage if we didn't do something".
This "must speak English" rule for benefits is looking like a real political winner for Cameron. I've just spoken with the fourth left-leaning, Tory-hating friend who agrees with it. I think the polling is going to come back very well.
Anecdote time: at a citizenship ceremony, you must read out an affirmation or oath of allegiance. At Mrs J's ceremony, a few people's English were so poor that the words were not understandable. Including one woman who hardly even tried. Then again, someone thought I was the immigrant as Mrs J's English was so good ...
Something that's truly outrageous, as that's not just for residency, it's for full-on citizenship. That means someone who still can't speak English properly has barely attempted to integrate at all.
Frankly, I think fluent English (or Welsh, if resident in North Wales) should be needed for citizenship.
It shocked me a little; indeed, I felt it was wrong, and none of the officials at the ceremony batted an eyelid. Goodness knows how the ones with poor language skills (and particularly the woman) passed the test.
But we have to be careful: what about people like me with speech defects, or ones who are blind, or deaf? Or people who are just incredibly nervous at having to read in public, which seemed to be the case for one man - he talked fairly well, if accented, afterwards.
It was well worth going to a citizenship ceremony (I've been to two now): on one hand, some of the language skills were shocking, but they were very much in the minority.
On the other hand, there was a great deal of love for the UK amongst most of the newly-minted citizens I talked to. It was a moment of pride for most - indeed, the other (not Mrs J) has her photo with the official in a frame on her wall, alongside those of her wedding.
I'd recommend people to attend one with an open mind.
I am with JosiasJessop on this issue. The fact that most of these former Conservative malcontent's have flounced off while their party is in Coalition Government, and to UKIP who don't have a hope in hell of being elected as a Government rather makes his point.
Interesting thoughts there, Mr. Jessop. I don't know what the Conservative party membership is like where you are but around here it is literally dying out - I went to a fund raiser a few years ago and I was the youngest person there (save for the grand-children of one of the members) and one member pegged out during the entertainment, and I am already drawing my pension.
Who knows what the current membership figure is? The last I heard it was in the region of 100,000 and still declining. Vote share has held remarkably solid since 2010, if the polls are to be believed, but it is still down and a long way short of where it needs to be if the Conservatives are to win a majority.
Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters, having shed those you regard as ideologically impure for the 21st century. Fair enough but where is the evidence that new, "up to date" people are moving in to fill the gaps? Without those new voters, if not members, the Conservative party is doomed to irrelevance if not extinction. Yet those new voters/members don't seem to be attracted by Mr Cameron. Why? Could it be they feel he is full of shit? Maybe a leader who alienates his own supporters without attracting a greater number of new people is certainly full of something and it ain't strategic nous.
I must say how much I'm enjoying your posts.
In a democracy the votes of the ideologically impure count for just as much as the up to date.
I have never heard of an AD reducing a charge which gets to the jury. He may drop a charge but I reduce it? I just can't imagine how or why that would happen. In the real world an AD's discretion is much reduced these days and they are much more accountable to Crown Office than they used to be, especially in relation to sex cases.
I think the power was seldom used, even when the death penalty was still in force. The Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953, Parliamentary Papers [1952-1953] VII (677), p. 7, note 3 says that:
'The Lord Advocate also has the power, even after the verdict has been pronounced, to "restrict the pains of the law". This has the effect that, in a case where a capital sentence would ordinarily be passed, the court is restricted to imposing a sentence other than death.'
The Commission did observe that the power was not often used in modern times. In theory, however, it would be open to the Advocate Depute, after the accused was convicted of say murder, to restrict the pains of the law such that the court could only punish him for assault to injury?
'Ukip chair claims Glasgow Council for 'gays, Catholics, communists' in online rant. Misty Thackeray also said Catholicism was based on "fascist ideology" and complained of a "suffocating culture of anti-loyalism" in Scotland's largest city. He criticised attempts to curb a protest by the far-right Scottish Defence League.'
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
You make the assumption that people believe the political parties have improved and protected the world. Like the British empire politicians have done some good things they have also done some hugely bad things.
If you made the same argument and replaced political party with organised religion people would be quick to deride it, possibly even yourself. However organised religion could point to the good things it has done for the world just as easily
I think what you are failing to realise Josias is that the world is not as many tories want it to be and this is extremely unsatisfactory. People do not believe what they should believe, facts are not what they ought to be and policies which are no more than common sense don't work and are extremely unpopular to boot.
Who could possibly be to blame for this unsatisfactory state of the real world? Well, anyone and everyone who is not willing to pretend that it is otherwise.
That damned Cameron and the other leaders insist on living in the real world where they have to deal with real problems and simplistic and naive policies simply will not work. Of course it is his fault. If he would only shut his eyes, his ears and switch off his brain everything would be fine.
We had 13 years of this tosh after 1997 whilst the worst government in our history ran riot with no effective opposition. It is the sort of smug, delusional self satisfaction one might expect from a Liberal Democrat who never expected to be in power or to have to make real decisions. And insults to real tories don't come much worse than that.
I dunno, I finish off the fish pie for dinner, and there's only been a handful of posts. Where are we all? Have PBers all of a sudden got a life on this long, dark teatime of the soul?
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Fortunately, most of the right-wing loonies are going over to UKIP, where they can howl in the wilderness about gay marriage (*) and the EU. (**)
Long term, the Conservatives will be better off without them. The country's moving on under clear green signals, leaving them S/U in a derelict siding. Labour needs to go through a similar process; sadly, they've got a loony as a leader.
(*) Like a certain poster on here, who wouldn't say why he felt one section of the population should have less rights than others.
(**) I actually have some sympathy with their anti-EU views. But not with the way they put it.
Nice trolling.
I 'm not howling in the wilderness about anything... All I said was, if pushed I would be against it, as it happens it has been introduced and I haven't done, and don't plan to do, anything about it because I don't really care
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
Many charities do more good in improving and protecting the world around them than political parties, which often, especially near the top, tend to be inclusive societies.
Hmmm, not so long ago it was quite the norm, - at university it was an extended drinking club and an opportunity to meet likeminded people and get laid – for older married couples, the annual bash was a chance to dress up and mingle – why on earth anyone today would cough out good money just to wave a membership cards as anything meaningful, defeats me.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
I think what you are failing to realise Josias is that the world is not as many tories want it to be and this is extremely unsatisfactory. People do not believe what they should believe, facts are not what they ought to be and policies which are no more than common sense don't work and are extremely unpopular to boot.
Who could possibly be to blame for this unsatisfactory state of the real world? Well, anyone and everyone who is not willing to pretend that it is otherwise.
That damned Cameron and the other leaders insist on living in the real world where they have to deal with real problems and simplistic and naive policies simply will not work. Of course it is his fault. If he would only shut his eyes, his ears and switch off his brain everything would be fine.
We had 13 years of this tosh after 1997 whilst the worst government in our history ran riot with no effective opposition. It is the sort of smug, delusional self satisfaction one might expect from a Liberal Democrat who never expected to be in power or to have to make real decisions. And insults to real tories don't come much worse than that.
I dunno, I finish off the fish pie for dinner, and there's only been a handful of posts. Where are we all? Have PBers all of a sudden got a life on this long, dark teatime of the soul?
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Fortunately, most of the right-wing loonies are going over to UKIP, where they can howl in the wilderness about gay marriage (*) and the EU. (**)
Long term, the Conservatives will be better off without them. The country's moving on under clear green signals, leaving them S/U in a derelict siding. Labour needs to go through a similar process; sadly, they've got a loony as a leader.
(*) Like a certain poster on here, who wouldn't say why he felt one section of the population should have less rights than others.
(**) I actually have some sympathy with their anti-EU views. But not with the way they put it.
Nice trolling.
I 'm not howling in the wilderness about anything... All I said was, if pushed I would be against it, as it happens it has been introduced and I haven't done, and don't plan to do, anything about it because I don't really care
Why be so melodramatic?! Really pathetic
Not trolling at all.
It's a genuine question you don't seem able to answer: if you don't really care about the issue, then why are you against it? If you have no religious issue with it (presumably, because if you did you'd probably be firmly for or against) then what is your reasoning?
Or is it your position to restrict rights from people for no reason?
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
An interesting description of clubs of people with shared sets of prejudices.
UKIP are now reporting the weather on Twitter UkipWeather @UkipWeather 10h A morning kiss between two consenting adults will lead to drizzle on higher ground
The trouble I have with joining a political party is that there isn't a party that I agree with enough to actually want to be a member. Now, you can argue that you can join, and try and influence from the inside, but we all know that that isn't going to happen in reality. Anyway, I'm in agreement with Groucho Marx's view on joining clubs.
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
An interesting description of clubs of people with shared sets of prejudices.
I'm surprised at how many people can have a deep interest in politics and passionate opinions on many issues without wanting to do one of the most effective things open to them to influence outcomes (campaigning for a political party). Obviously there's much to be cynical about and all political parties involve significant compromises but joining up is a lot more productive than just venting about things we dont like!
An interesting description of clubs of people with shared sets of prejudices.
You ought to come to one of our (very active) Sussex Conservative Policy Forum meetings. It would broaden your mind. Certainly you'd find some of the prejudices you'd expect, but you'd also find some very unexpected views as well.
Santander pulled out of a deal to buy up some RBS branches, perhaps it was still trying to sort out its takeovers of Bradford and Bingley and Alliance Leicester, or it was just not able to afford another deal. Spain's banking system may not be so healthy after all.
Co-Op was Miliband's flavour of the month, but months before Rev Flowers made the front pages, it was showing signs that it too was incapable of becoming a main player in the retail bank market - buying spree faults coming home to roost. Threw large sums of cash at IT and failed.
Where does Miliband think that the new players are going to come from, the remains of the existing high street banks, or is he thinking of opening up the UK retail banks to EU or USA banks?
I don't think anyone thinks Spain's banking system was healthy. In 2012 and 2013, the banks wrote off over €200 billion of loans. And that's on top of fairly significant write-downs in previous years. Of the 40 Caixa (regional savings banks), 38 have now been closed, with the healthy bit transferred to either private banks, or the remaining two Caixa. Santander - which is really more of a South American bank, than a Spanish one, these days - sold off a ton of their assets. It's a similar story at the other banks there.
Regarding banking, and regarding loans to small businesses that gets Alanbrooke and other worked up: there's a really good reason why banks aren't lending to small businesses:
Small businesses aren't very good at repaying their loans.
Which ever way you cut it, there's a good reason why it's hard to get business credit, and that's because monitoring businesses is expensive and difficult, and the margins (interest) you get is pretty meager. Default rates are an order of magnitude worse than in mortgages (for example), and physical collateral has a habit of disappearing out the door.
In Germany, and many of the places lauded for supporting their small businesses, there are local banks that get cheap funding and are not fully commercial entities. (The best analog for these would be the Caixa in Spain.)
The problem is that - almost inevitably - these banks will make bad loans at some point or another, and will need to be bailed out. At which point those people who made the most fuss about businesses needing to be supported, now complain about fat cat bankers being bailed out.
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
An interesting description of clubs of people with shared sets of prejudices.
I'm surprised at how many people can have a deep interest in politics and passionate opinions on many issues without wanting to do one of the most effective things open to them to influence outcomes (campaigning for a political party). Obviously there's much to be cynical about and all political parties involve significant compromises but joining up is a lot more productive than just venting about things we dont like!
You are neglecting the fact that many of those people do not join a party because they believe political parties are one of the biggest problems in british politics and we would be better off without them
Why would anyone want to drift through their entire life without joining any group of people seeking to improve and protect the world around them? What a waste of a life!
At least the LibDems and UKIP members get a strong say on policy. As a LD member I am also hoping to get a vote on the next leader and coalition document.
It is not just parties that have declining membership. Our local BMA branch could meet in a telephone box, so no wonder it is run by a few swivel eyed loons intent on banning anything that is fun.
It is inevitable that party affiliation and kembership is lower in a more individualist and less ideological age.
Hmmm, not so long ago it was quite the norm, - at university it was an extended drinking club and an opportunity to meet likeminded people and get laid – for older married couples, the annual bash was a chance to dress up and mingle – why on earth anyone today would cough out good money just to wave a membership cards as anything meaningful, defeats me.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
I am sure that you are right. SMEs have a very high failure rate in the first few years, so start ups must have a significant risk of default.
They do also have significant promise of good returns. It may well be that better sources of finance are either the owners own assets (I know a number of businesses set up by a second mortgage on the family home) or by private equity investment. While it does make for sleepless nights, if theoperators have skin in the game, the level of scruitiny and oversight is much more.
Santander pulled out of a deal to buy up some RBS branches, perhaps it was still trying to sort out its takeovers of Bradford and Bingley and Alliance Leicester, or it was just not able to afford another deal. Spain's banking system may not be so healthy after all.
Co-Op was Miliband's flavour of the month, but months before Rev Flowers made the front pages, it was showing signs that it too was incapable of becoming a main player in the retail bank market - buying spree faults coming home to roost. Threw large sums of cash at IT and failed.
Where does Miliband think that the new players are going to come from, the remains of the existing high street banks, or is he thinking of opening up the UK retail banks to EU or USA banks?
I don't think anyone thinks Spain's banking system was healthy. In 2012 and 2013, the banks wrote off over €200 billion of loans. And that's on top of fairly significant write-downs in previous years. Of the 40 Caixa (regional savings banks), 38 have now been closed, with the healthy bit transferred to either private banks, or the remaining two Caixa. Santander - which is really more of a South American bank, than a Spanish one, these days - sold off a ton of their assets. It's a similar story at the other banks there.
Regarding banking, and regarding loans to small businesses that gets Alanbrooke and other worked up: there's a really good reason why banks aren't lending to small businesses:
Small businesses aren't very good at repaying their loans.
Which ever way you cut it, there's a good reason why it's hard to get business credit, and that's because monitoring businesses is expensive and difficult, and the margins (interest) you get is pretty meager. Default rates are an order of magnitude worse than in mortgages (for example), and physical collateral has a habit of disappearing out the door.
In Germany, and many of the places lauded for supporting their small businesses, there are local banks that get cheap funding and are not fully commercial entities. (The best analog for these would be the Caixa in Spain.)
The problem is that - almost inevitably - these banks will make bad loans at some point or another, and will need to be bailed out. At which point those people who made the most fuss about businesses needing to be supported, now complain about fat cat bankers being bailed out.
Another weekend's worth of doorstep anecedotes, but basically no change visible. However, it's noticeable that people who voted Tory last time and plan to do so again are starting to cite the economy as the reason. So Osborne's message is getting through to the loyalists. Plenty of UKIP in a C1/C2 estate that voted marginally Tory last May. Labour making progress at LibDem expense, as nationally, especially in AB demographics. Nobody mentioned Rennard, though.
I can't think why the man on the street would mention Rennard to be honest. The whole thing doesn't affect their lives, LD policy or in truth a major sign of the leadership of the party. It's a classic Westminster bubble story for better or for worse. Thanks for the anecdotes NP, always good to get the doorstep perspective deliver with good context.
It is the top story on BBC News and prominent in the Sundays. Maybe not fanciful to believe that some people will hear about it and it will subliminally affect their willingness to vote Lib Dem, even if they can't quote chapter and verse
It does seem that as well as a number of culprits there was a blind eye turned both organisationally and individually. A resemblence to another story in the news perhaps.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
In the event of vote to leave, I can't see it taking long for Salmond to antagonise the average English voter with an unreasonable negotiation position, or for that antagonism to rapidly lead to general hostility towards Scottish people. Lib Dems may not do prejudice but a Scottish leader in that scenario makes tuition fees feel like retail politics.
What evidence do you have that the Scottish Government, or the Commissioners for Scotland [I suspect in reality] would be unreasonable (unless, of course, one thinks it unreasonable for the Scots even to vote for indy)?
The pro-indy side has made almost all the running in the reasonable, helpful stakes. It is the London Government (after Mr C started well with the Edinburgh Agreement, in part thanks to Michael Moore) who refused to discuss the implications of yes and no (contra the Electoral Commission), or consult the EU to resolve the effects of indy, or discuss the sterling issue etc. etc. And who take the extreme - and untenable - position that the Scots must pay their share of the debt but can't have their share of the assets, certainly including Sterling.
At present, the SNP/SG position is for a basic reasonable agreement based on fair shares. To expect any great deviation from that agreement is as much as to deny the very validity of an independence referendum. EWNI intransigence would force the SG to the fallback position of a new state without assets or debts and with its own currency in due course. But the point here is that the Scots are already offering a reasonable position, give or take the details. In contrast Mr Cameron et al have been coming out with formal statement papers suggesting that Scotland was extinguished in 1707, would be a new state, and so on - which immediately triggers the worse (for everyone) option of new state sans debts or assets. I do notice, however, that the London Gmt has been backtracking - keeping its options open on sterling with the recent announcements and with Mr Hague's FO document this last week suddenly, mirabile dictu, omitting any hint that Scotland wouldn't be allowed in the EU per se.
Mr Cameron is in great danger of painting himself into a corner with his rhetoric of unreason if he is unlucky and loses the referendum. Either he has to backtrack very quickly and be seen to make concessions (with the political impact that has on his position), or he adopts an unreasonable position just to survive. I have a horrible feeling that you are right about the xenophobia that would be whipped up - but from rather different premises.
What is interesting about all this is that I honestly cannot see any problem about an English incomer being First Minister fo Scotland - not just me personally but in general. That the opposite should be held to be self-evident in EWNI I find a remarkable indication of the divergence between the two political cultures.
Santander pulled out of a deal to buy up some RBS branches, perhaps it was still trying to sort out its takeovers of Bradford and Bingley and Alliance Leicester, or it was just not able to afford another deal. Spain's banking system may not be so healthy after all.
Co-Op was Miliband's flavour of the month, but months before Rev Flowers made the front pages, it was showing signs that it too was incapable of becoming a main player in the retail bank market - buying spree faults coming home to roost. Threw large sums of cash at IT and failed.
Where does Miliband think that the new players are going to come from, the remains of the existing high street banks, or is he thinking of opening up the UK retail banks to EU or USA banks?
I don't think anyone thinks Spain's banking system was healthy. In 2012 and 2013, the banks wrote off over €200 billion of loans. And that's on top of fairly significant write-downs in previous years. Of the 40 Caixa (regional savings banks), 38 have now been closed, with the healthy bit transferred to either private banks, or the remaining two Caixa. Santander - which is really more of a South American bank, than a Spanish one, these days - sold off a ton of their assets. It's a similar story at the other banks there.
Regarding banking, and regarding loans to small businesses that gets Alanbrooke and other worked up: there's a really good reason why banks aren't lending to small businesses:
Small businesses aren't very good at repaying their loans.
Which ever way you cut it, there's a good reason why it's hard to get business credit, and that's because monitoring businesses is expensive and difficult, and the margins (interest) you get is pretty meager. Default rates are an order of magnitude worse than in mortgages (for example), and physical collateral has a habit of disappearing out the door.
In Germany, and many of the places lauded for supporting their small businesses, there are local banks that get cheap funding and are not fully commercial entities. (The best analog for these would be the Caixa in Spain.)
The problem is that - almost inevitably - these banks will make bad loans at some point or another, and will need to be bailed out. At which point those people who made the most fuss about businesses needing to be supported, now complain about fat cat bankers being bailed out.
Goldman Sachs favours big banks shock.
Mr. Brooke
Wondered where you were.
I was told you were out working your allotment creating new asparagus and strawberry beds to challenge the cabbages.
It does seem that as well as a number of culprits there was a blind eye turned both organisationally and individually. A resemblence to another story in the news perhaps.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
I am sure that you are right. SMEs have a very high failure rate in the first few years, so start ups must have a significant risk of default.
Surely that is what interest rates are for. If you set interest at 10% per annum, you can afford for 10% of your borrowers to default. Or something like that.
OT, to some degree: a most interesting analysis of Mr Cameron's and Mr Hague's attacks on the SNP and how it compares to their own EU ambitions can be seen in Ian Bell's article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday. It is well worth reading by anyone interested in the wider issue of a UK exit, not just the Scottish bit (though it s good for that too).
The trouble I have with joining a political party is that there isn't a party that I agree with enough to actually want to be a member. Now, you can argue that you can join, and try and influence from the inside, but we all know that that isn't going to happen in reality. Anyway, I'm in agreement with Groucho Marx's view on joining clubs.
Saw your comment about language issues earlier you may find the link useful if you are not already aware of them.
I am sure that you are right. SMEs have a very high failure rate in the first few years, so start ups must have a significant risk of default.
They do also have significant promise of good returns. It may well be that better sources of finance are either the owners own assets (I know a number of businesses set up by a second mortgage on the family home) or by private equity investment. While it does make for sleepless nights, if theoperators have skin in the game, the level of scruitiny and oversight is much more.
Most bank lending to SMEs is in the form of 'core funding', i.e. overdrafts, bank loans and credit cards. These can be provided as extensions to core consumer products, using centralised 'behavioural credit scoring' systems to manage risk and consumer account processing to deliver product.
And I am not convinced by Robert's suggestion that such lending carries much higher risks or has greater levels of default than household lending.
The fall in lending to SMEs since the recession has resulted as much from the uncertain economic outlook and suppressed demand than it has from the banking sector limiting supply.
Recent statistics from the BoE (its Credit Conditions and Bank Liabilities reports) suggest that all of economic optimism, credit availability and SME loan applications are on the increase, with funding spreads, arrangement fees and defaults falling.
An upturn in lending to small businesses will be determined far more by cyclical upturn as the economy recovers from recession than any impact banking sector structure has on competition.
It does seem that as well as a number of culprits there was a blind eye turned both organisationally and individually. A resemblence to another story in the news perhaps.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
I am sure that you are right. SMEs have a very high failure rate in the first few years, so start ups must have a significant risk of default.
They do also have significant promise of good returns. It may well be that better sources of finance are either the owners own assets (I know a number of businesses set up by a second mortgage on the family home) or by private equity investment. While it does make for sleepless nights, if theoperators have skin in the game, the level of scruitiny and oversight is much more.
Most bank lending to SMEs is in the form of 'core funding', i.e. overdrafts, bank loans and credit cards. These can be provided as extensions to core consumer products, using centralised 'behavioural credit scoring' systems to manage risk and consumer account processing to deliver product.
And I am not convinced by Robert's suggestion that such lending carries much higher risks or has greater levels of default than household lending.
The fall in lending to SMEs since the recession has resulted as much from the uncertain economic outlook and suppressed demand than it has from the banking sector limiting supply.
Recent statistics from the BoE (its Credit Conditions and Bank Liabilities reports) suggest that all of economic optimism, credit availability and SME loan applications are on the increase, with funding spreads, arrangement fees and defaults falling.
An upturn in lending to small businesses will be determined far more by cyclical upturn as the economy recovers from recession than any impact banking sector structure has on competition.
And you were doing so well until the last sentence. What is it about the Brown banking settlement that inspires you so much ? Ed Lympe Pole.
Comments
Mr. Max, isn't much of the car done? Obviously development changes things but bringing in Brawn will take time to change things. I wonder if he has to take a certain amount of time off due to contractual obligations with Mercedes.
I do think Brawn at McLaren would be a positive change. It would also make it likelier for Hamilton to return. I suspect Dennis also agrees with Brawn's view that a single leader (unlike the Mercedes management committee approach) is best.
Cameron's navigating a very tricky course fairly well IMHO. He is in coalition, in difficult times for the country. He cannot do everything he'd want, or probably even say what he'd want, either.
What some Conservative supporters seem to want is the reanimated corpse of Maggie. Except her legend is much firmer than her actualite.
They would have given the party David Davis as leader, and a loss at 2010 against Brown.
Who could possibly be to blame for this unsatisfactory state of the real world? Well, anyone and everyone who is not willing to pretend that it is otherwise.
That damned Cameron and the other leaders insist on living in the real world where they have to deal with real problems and simplistic and naive policies simply will not work. Of course it is his fault. If he would only shut his eyes, his ears and switch off his brain everything would be fine.
We had 13 years of this tosh after 1997 whilst the worst government in our history ran riot with no effective opposition. It is the sort of smug, delusional self satisfaction one might expect from a Liberal Democrat who never expected to be in power or to have to make real decisions. And insults to real tories don't come much worse than that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25802437
In that case, to exclude Mr A just because he used to be Scots, (or may still be, if of dual nationality) would surely be prejudice, and LDs don't do that, so the problem reverts to a seat in the Commons or Lords? Which would not be resolved till the 2015 GE (or 2016 if it is deferred).
(I am uncertain of the nationality qualification to become a MP, though this could well change as a new EWNI Parliament would have to be set up at least technically though not physically).
Edit: not aimed at Mr A personally - it also affects other LD and Labour MPs especially (and the odd Tory, of course).
I pretty much agree with all of the above. Fortunately, most of the right-wing loonies are going over to UKIP, where they can howl in the wilderness about gay marriage (*) and the EU. (**)
Long term, the Conservatives will be better off without them. The country's moving on under clear green signals, leaving them S/U in a derelict siding. Labour needs to go through a similar process; sadly, they've got a loony as a leader.
(*) Like a certain poster on here, who wouldn't say why he felt one section of the population should have less rights than others.
(**) I actually have some sympathy with their anti-EU views. But not with the way they put it.
Fish pie on a Sunday? What sort of right winger are you? Roast beef for me once Chelsea have stopped torturing United."Politics needs people with personality and backgrounds and they will all have one or two flaws.
"I have my own red lines on this. That is real extremism and nastiness."
Fair enough from Farage, people are always going to have one or two oddball ideas/personality quirks but the comments were clearly bonkers and insulting.
Rennard-gate gets messier by the moment.
Also from Wiki:
In 1993, he was credited for the launch of "tactical voting", which helped the party win a series of by-elections. The most notable success came at Christchurch in Dorset, where a by-election saw the Liberal Democrats unseat the Conservative Party (whose popularity had slumped since the Black Wednesday economic debacle in September 1992) by the largest swing against any UK government since 1918.[3]
Concerning the 2001 general election, one frontbench Lib Dem is reported as saying:
"Last time people didn't follow Chris [Rennard's] instructions and the difference between those who did and who didn't – like in the Isle of Wight [which the party lost] – was very clear. The message got through."[4]
Rennard is credited with pioneering the successful Lib Dem election strategy of claiming narrow majorities when in second or even third place and ruthlessly squeezing third party votes in Tory – Lib Dem and Labour – Lib Dem marginals.
He is clearly a loss to the Lib Dem electoral strategy as well as involving them in the embarrasing farce of a sitution they are in now.
A double whammy.
Rachel Reeves at 16-1 appeals as she does not have the toxic link to the last Labour government.Her background in economics means she has the intellectual capacity to understand the issues.Amongst her other qualifications is that she is a young mum-Mumsnet is a constituency that Tories just do not understand.
Accepting a Labour majority as a given,Yvette Cooper,particularly, at 10-1 and Alistair Darling,steady-pair-of-hands candidate, at 16-1 might be other attractive candidates.However,a saver is in order on Douglas Alexander,perhaps Ed's strongest ally,at a very attractive 50-1.
Who knows what the current membership figure is? The last I heard it was in the region of 100,000 and still declining. Vote share has held remarkably solid since 2010, if the polls are to be believed, but it is still down and a long way short of where it needs to be if the Conservatives are to win a majority.
Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters, having shed those you regard as ideologically impure for the 21st century. Fair enough but where is the evidence that new, "up to date" people are moving in to fill the gaps? Without those new voters, if not members, the Conservative party is doomed to irrelevance if not extinction. Yet those new voters/members don't seem to be attracted by Mr Cameron. Why? Could it be they feel he is full of shit? Maybe a leader who alienates his own supporters without attracting a greater number of new people is certainly full of something and it ain't strategic nous.
She cooks me a Sunday roast every so often. Which, for a vegetarian who has only turned to the dark side to eat fish for health reasons, is beyond the call of duty.
(*) I'm hoping someone - UKIP? - will propose a law that anyone killing a Sunday roast should be jailed for life. Or tortured.
(**) Yes, that can mean several things.
These sort of reports end up just feeding the narrative that Cameron is full of shit.
In a democracy the votes of the ideologically impure count for just as much as the up to date.
It would be difficult to eliminate for emergency services, but quite possible to implement for non-emergencies, with the onus on the non-English (or Welsh) speaker to provide a translator.
The £30 000 pound bill for translators in the recent Peterborough sex ring case would be difficult to save on without risk of miscarriages of justice though.
Ed Balls may last months or years as Chancellor, but he should be there long enough for the bookies to pay out on next chancellor bets if Labour win... I hope !
Frankly, I think fluent English (or Welsh, if resident in North Wales) should be needed for citizenship.
Subsequently, banks had insufficient profit margins to cope with the bad debts which arose. In turn the losses meant that banks had insufficient capital. Without enough capital, banks found they could not borrow on the wholesale market and had liquidity problems.
The competition commission has had many inquiries n the past twenty years and found only minor problems with the market. It did find that the acquisition of HBOS by Lloyds was uncompetitive but the Government decided that a bust HBOS would not help competition so allowed the rescue. Subsequently the EU required Lloyds to reduce its market share by hiving off branches into a new TSB. This inproves competition not by making TSB a strong competitor but by reducing Llots market share to the same level as RBS, Barclays, HSBC and Santander (for mortgages).
Having five large bank competitors is perfectly capable of providing a competitive market. What would be uncompetitive is having one big player with only small players up against it.
The Cola market is very competitive with only Coca Cola and Pepsi as big players. Their rivalry is intense.
So Ed Miliband is wrong to suggest the bank markey is uncompetitive and breaking up Lloyds and RBS would make it more competitive.
I have never heard of an AD reducing a charge which gets to the jury. He may drop a charge but I reduce it? I just can't imagine how or why that would happen. In the real world an AD's discretion is much reduced these days and they are much more accountable to Crown Office than they used to be, especially in relation to sex cases.
Are we still waiting for the data from the ICM monthly poll? Why do they take so long?
A lot of us now have little hand written crib sheets, with a few stock phrases, that help break the ice, calm things down a bit. We also find that google translate on a big screen smartphone is a useful tool, and saves us no end of time.
Santander pulled out of a deal to buy up some RBS branches, perhaps it was still trying to sort out its takeovers of Bradford and Bingley and Alliance Leicester, or it was just not able to afford another deal. Spain's banking system may not be so healthy after all.
Co-Op was Miliband's flavour of the month, but months before Rev Flowers made the front pages, it was showing signs that it too was incapable of becoming a main player in the retail bank market - buying spree faults coming home to roost. Threw large sums of cash at IT and failed.
Where does Miliband think that the new players are going to come from, the remains of the existing high street banks, or is he thinking of opening up the UK retail banks to EU or USA banks?
"Now, you say the Conservative party will be better off with fewer members and fewer voters,"
That's not what I'm saying. Time changes, and so do political parties. You are making the assumption that the only way of keeping the Conservative Party full of members is for it to stay in aspic, when the reality is that's a sure-fire way for it to die out. The Conservative Party values of the 1980s were very different to those of the 1960s, yet alone the 1900s, just as the population was very different. In the same manner, the Conservative Party of 2020 will be very different to that of 1980, and for the same reason.
As I said, Cameron's in coalition. You cannot expect the government - or him - to have a full Conservative agenda when the Lib Dems are sitting around the table with them. He has to run the country; if 'his own supporters' do not like that, then they can look forward to being in permanent opposition.
Indeed, they are hardly 'his own supporters'. Many (although not all, there are several people on here who make very valid criticisms of the current party from a right-wing viewpoint) of the anti-Cameron crowd seem to want Maggie resurrected. Only she will ever satisfy them, and then only because they've fallen for the myth rather than the reality.
The people who will destroy the Conservative Party are the people who want no change. That does not mean everything has to change, but there has to be a gentle evolution rather than revolution. And what is more conservative (with a small 'c') than that?
A good anecdote.
Mesurier on tour in an unfamiliar town approaches a policeman:
Mesurier: Excuse me, Officer, but you wouldn't happen to know where I might find the local branch of Alcoholics Anonymous?
Policeman [eyeing up Mesurier]: Are you wanting to join, Sir?
Mesurier: No. I am wanting to resign.
The story seems to link into the exchanges between Messrs. Fear and Llama on membership in the Conservative Party.
But we have to be careful: what about people like me with speech defects, or ones who are blind, or deaf? Or people who are just incredibly nervous at having to read in public, which seemed to be the case for one man - he talked fairly well, if accented, afterwards.
It was well worth going to a citizenship ceremony (I've been to two now): on one hand, some of the language skills were shocking, but they were very much in the minority.
On the other hand, there was a great deal of love for the UK amongst most of the newly-minted citizens I talked to. It was a moment of pride for most - indeed, the other (not Mrs J) has her photo with the official in a frame on her wall, alongside those of her wedding.
I'd recommend people to attend one with an open mind.
'Ukip chair claims Glasgow Council for 'gays, Catholics, communists' in online rant.
Misty Thackeray also said Catholicism was based on "fascist ideology" and complained of a "suffocating culture of anti-loyalism" in Scotland's largest city. He criticised attempts to curb a protest by the far-right Scottish Defence League.'
http://tinyurl.com/q5zz8zf
Scottish UKIP surge still at the planning stage obviously.
An inquiry led by Dame Janet Smith, a former court of appeal judge, is expected to find the corporation turned a blind eye on the former DJ and presenter’s offending, allowing him to rape and sexually assault hundreds of victims over five decades.
Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) charity, which has been consulted on the inquiry, said: "I think the 1,000 figure is based on 50 years of him offending. It has been said that he didn't have a quiet day in his life.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10582351/BBC-turned-blind-eye-to-Savile-sex-offences-on-up-to-1000-boys-and-girls.html
To protect the vulnerable, CBeebies and BBC Radio 1 could form the foundations for building new competition.
I believe Ed and Chuka are planning an announcement next week.
If you made the same argument and replaced political party with organised religion people would be quick to deride it, possibly even yourself. However organised religion could point to the good things it has done for the world just as easily
I 'm not howling in the wilderness about anything... All I said was, if pushed I would be against it, as it happens it has been introduced and I haven't done, and don't plan to do, anything about it because I don't really care
Why be so melodramatic?! Really pathetic
It's a genuine question you don't seem able to answer: if you don't really care about the issue, then why are you against it? If you have no religious issue with it (presumably, because if you did you'd probably be firmly for or against) then what is your reasoning?
Or is it your position to restrict rights from people for no reason?
UkipWeather @UkipWeather 10h
A morning kiss between two consenting adults will lead to drizzle on higher ground
Anyway, I'm in agreement with Groucho Marx's view on joining clubs.
Regarding banking, and regarding loans to small businesses that gets Alanbrooke and other worked up: there's a really good reason why banks aren't lending to small businesses:
Small businesses aren't very good at repaying their loans.
Which ever way you cut it, there's a good reason why it's hard to get business credit, and that's because monitoring businesses is expensive and difficult, and the margins (interest) you get is pretty meager. Default rates are an order of magnitude worse than in mortgages (for example), and physical collateral has a habit of disappearing out the door.
In Germany, and many of the places lauded for supporting their small businesses, there are local banks that get cheap funding and are not fully commercial entities. (The best analog for these would be the Caixa in Spain.)
The problem is that - almost inevitably - these banks will make bad loans at some point or another, and will need to be bailed out. At which point those people who made the most fuss about businesses needing to be supported, now complain about fat cat bankers being bailed out.
It is not just parties that have declining membership. Our local BMA branch could meet in a telephone box, so no wonder it is run by a few swivel eyed loons intent on banning anything that is fun.
It is inevitable that party affiliation and kembership is lower in a more individualist and less ideological age.
Considering that the BBC is a public corporation, shouldn't the UK Government follow the Holy See into the dock at Geneva?
Even the Observer is starting to notice:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/18/bbc-whistleblowers-newsnight-savile-scandal
Mr. Smithson, you used to work in BBC News, didn't you?
I think you owe us all a comment on this article.
I am sure that you are right. SMEs have a very high failure rate in the first few years, so start ups must have a significant risk of default.
They do also have significant promise of good returns. It may well be that better sources of finance are either the owners own assets (I know a number of businesses set up by a second mortgage on the family home) or by private equity investment. While it does make for sleepless nights, if theoperators have skin in the game, the level of scruitiny and oversight is much more.
The pro-indy side has made almost all the running in the reasonable, helpful stakes. It is the London Government (after Mr C started well with the Edinburgh Agreement, in part thanks to Michael Moore) who refused to discuss the implications of yes and no (contra the Electoral Commission), or consult the EU to resolve the effects of indy, or discuss the sterling issue etc. etc. And who take the extreme - and untenable - position that the Scots must pay their share of the debt but can't have their share of the assets, certainly including Sterling.
At present, the SNP/SG position is for a basic reasonable agreement based on fair shares. To expect any great deviation from that agreement is as much as to deny the very validity of an independence referendum. EWNI intransigence would force the SG to the fallback position of a new state without assets or debts and with its own currency in due course. But the point here is that the Scots are already offering a reasonable position, give or take the details. In contrast Mr Cameron et al have been coming out with formal statement papers suggesting that Scotland was extinguished in 1707, would be a new state, and so on - which immediately triggers the worse (for everyone) option of new state sans debts or assets. I do notice, however, that the London Gmt has been backtracking - keeping its options open on sterling with the recent announcements and with Mr Hague's FO document this last week suddenly, mirabile dictu, omitting any hint that Scotland wouldn't be allowed in the EU per se.
Mr Cameron is in great danger of painting himself into a corner with his rhetoric of unreason if he is unlucky and loses the referendum. Either he has to backtrack very quickly and be seen to make concessions (with the political impact that has on his position), or he adopts an unreasonable position just to survive. I have a horrible feeling that you are right about the xenophobia that would be whipped up - but from rather different premises.
What is interesting about all this is that I honestly cannot see any problem about an English incomer being First Minister fo Scotland - not just me personally but in general. That the opposite should be held to be self-evident in EWNI I find a remarkable indication of the divergence between the two political cultures.
Wondered where you were.
I was told you were out working your allotment creating new asparagus and strawberry beds to challenge the cabbages.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/hagues-view-on-eu-ignores-scotlands-unique-situation.23189871)
http://www.pocketcomms.co.uk/
And I am not convinced by Robert's suggestion that such lending carries much higher risks or has greater levels of default than household lending.
The fall in lending to SMEs since the recession has resulted as much from the uncertain economic outlook and suppressed demand than it has from the banking sector limiting supply.
Recent statistics from the BoE (its Credit Conditions and Bank Liabilities reports) suggest that all of economic optimism, credit availability and SME loan applications are on the increase, with funding spreads, arrangement fees and defaults falling.
An upturn in lending to small businesses will be determined far more by cyclical upturn as the economy recovers from recession than any impact banking sector structure has on competition.