The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Mr. X, thank you for that excellent quote, which helps reinforce the (correct) idea that Macedon was not, contrary to revisionists on Wikipedia, a Greek kingdom or that Alexander was a Greek king.
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Still...
So you're saying that with the rise of UKIP, people realise Tories are not that bad after all?
If "Shy Tories" still exist and my guess is that they probably do, their shyness is more likely to be manifested in Ashcroft's phone poll, rather than in participating in an anonymous internet equivalent.
Clicking on the "change" button of the chart is very theraputic.
BTW, is anyone aware of the correlation (if any) between party affiliation and IQ. It's been covered in the US a few times (mostly by smug Democrats), but I don't recall any similar research in the UK.
A bit old (From 2008) but Greens and Lib Dems have the highest IQ, UKIP and BNP at the bottom.
It's more likely that more people with higher IQs tend to move to London and work in white collar jobs and therefore a greater proportion of them drift into a metropolitan mindset
Alternatively, it could be that voting LibDem actually *adds* IQ points...
And improves your chances with the opposite sex...
Mr. Eagles, many would say the Ancient Greeks were more intelligent than the Romans, and almost all would agree they were more intelligent than the Macedonians.
They were good at different things, so there is no basis for comparison. I would say though that Philip and Αlexander took Greece so easily because the Greeks had been utterly pointlessly beating the shit out of each other in the Peloponnesian wars for over half a century in a way which says "Milwall supporter" rather than "Mensa".
Demosthenes of Athens was a splendid proto-Farage though; in the third Philippic he points out that Philip of Macedon "is not only not Greek and not related to the Greeks, but not even from a decent barbarian country - from ghastly Macedonia, a country from which you could never even buy a decent slave."
Yes. but the Greeks could cope with the middle tense as well as the active and passive tenses ... and IIRC they also had different noun/adjectival inflections for singular, two, plural or am I imagining that last?
You are right - there is a dual as well as singular and plural. But educated Macedonians all had Greek as a second language - Aristotle was personal tutor to Alexander the Great.
Indeed. As well as being a very fine philosopher and biologist (in a sense the first modern biologist perhaps). I'm still amazed how the Greeks managed to do so well intellectually from such unpromising roots.
The Kippers seem to have retreated into the examination of semantics and other minutiae. It's not wholly convincing.
Yes, quibbling about the date your jailed crooks got elected is perhaps not the smartest way to distract attention from the record.
But they just can't see it. The only acceptable percentage of its MEPs in jail that a NOTA protest party can have is 0%. These aren't unvetted, unscrutinised nobodies who've slipped in - they're your public face, your bloody MEPs.
Why they are still flogging St Nigel in the cockpit of his Spitfire as the man to save us is just baffling.
Actually Nigel is less a Spitfire pilot, more of a Captain Kirk. The Star Trek episodes about Sulu or Chekhov were rubbish, the Miami Vice episodes about Swytek were rubbish and the X Files episodes without Mulder in them were rubbish. It is this that explains why we only ever see Nigel. If you're asked for an interviewee and your party's a one-trick pony, you don't send along a duck.
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Still...
Con aren't winning, Lab are losing.
The tories are1 year out from an election and approximately 1.5% away from the support they got against Brown (!) in 2010. That looks pretty much like winning to me.
If they get the same or a higher level of support as in 2010 and UKIP is, say, 10% they will win. Their vote will be vastly more efficient and Labour will be pretty much at the same level of support as they were the last time with Lib Dem/tory seats up for grabs.
It could all change yet but right now things are looking good.
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
No temper, just enjoying proving you wrong.
So in fact the two MEPs you are talking about who were jailed and one of those who had to repay expenses are not even amongst the 13 UKIP MEPS elected in 2009 - 3 of the names you mention are from previous Parliaments. That means that your 4 out of 13 is actually 1 out of 13.
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
The Kippers seem to have retreated into the examination of semantics and other minutiae. It's not wholly convincing.
Yes, quibbling about the date your jailed crooks got elected is perhaps not the smartest way to distract attention from the record.
But they just can't see it. The only acceptable percentage of its MEPs in jail that a NOTA protest party can have is 0%. These aren't unvetted, unscrutinised nobodies who've slipped in - they're your public face, your bloody MEPs.
Why they are still flogging St Nigel in the cockpit of his Spitfire as the man to save us is just baffling.
Actually Nigel is less a Spitfire pilot, more of a Captain Kirk. The Star Trek episodes about Sulu or Chekhov were rubbish, the Miami Vice episodes about Swytek were rubbish and the X Files episodes without Mulder in them were rubbish. It is this that explains why we only ever see Nigel. If you're asked for an interviewee and your party's a one-trick pony, you don't send along a duck.
"The only acceptable percentage of its MEPs in jail that a NOTA protest party can have is 0%"
If enough people think most of the MPs at the time of the expenses scandal should have gone to jail then they'll make allowances for parties that might act as a Guy Fawkes.
So do you agree with me that UKIP are a grossly corrupt and self-serving party? Good, we're making progress. I do not, however, say that the Tories are better - I say everyone is better than UKIP, who are by a country mile the worst.
And that's why UKIP is obviously the most corrupt.
So you are basing the principle of corruption on either being jailed or having to pay back expenses.
If we are looking at that as the basis for corruption in the Tory party we see that 114 of your MPs prior to the last election including many of the MPs who are now cabinet ministers and one who is now Prime Minister had to pay back monies that they should not have claimed. Does that mean you consider David Cameron and his 113 Tory colleagues to be corrupt? By my reckoning that 114 is a far higher percentage of the total Tory presence in Parliament at that time than the percentage of UKIP MEPs who you are calling dishonest.
By the way, you keep quoting 2 UKIP MEPs jailed out of the 13 elected. Who were they?
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
Sounds like bollocks, you are either bent or NOT bent. You have been found to be talking horse manure and manipulating numbers badly, stop digging and admit you were wrong.
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Still...
Con aren't winning, Lab are losing.
The tories are1 year out from an election and approximately 1.5% away from the support they got against Brown (!) in 2010. That looks pretty much like winning to me.
If they get the same or a higher level of support as in 2010 and UKIP is, say, 10% they will win. Their vote will be vastly more efficient and Labour will be pretty much at the same level of support as they were the last time with Lib Dem/tory seats up for grabs.
It could all change yet but right now things are looking good.
The Kippers seem to have retreated into the examination of semantics and other minutiae. It's not wholly convincing.
Yes, quibbling about the date your jailed crooks got elected is perhaps not the smartest way to distract attention from the record.
But they just can't see it. The only acceptable percentage of its MEPs in jail that a NOTA protest party can have is 0%. These aren't unvetted, unscrutinised nobodies who've slipped in - they're your public face, your bloody MEPs.
Why they are still flogging St Nigel in the cockpit of his Spitfire as the man to save us is just baffling.
Actually Nigel is less a Spitfire pilot, more of a Captain Kirk. The Star Trek episodes about Sulu or Chekhov were rubbish, the Miami Vice episodes about Swytek were rubbish and the X Files episodes without Mulder in them were rubbish. It is this that explains why we only ever see Nigel. If you're asked for an interviewee and your party's a one-trick pony, you don't send along a duck.
I agree that the only acceptable percentage is 0. MEPs (or other political representatives) who commit acts of financial dishonesty deserve everything they get. But that acceptable percentage applies across the board.
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
No temper, just enjoying proving you wrong.
So in fact the two MEPs you are talking about who were jailed and one of those who had to repay expenses are not even amongst the 13 UKIP MEPS elected in 2009 - 3 of the names you mention are from previous Parliaments. That means that your 4 out of 13 is actually 1 out of 13.
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
Phew, so that's all right then - they haven't been caught lately.
Sorry Richard but it's pathetic. 2 in 13, 1 in 13 - why isn't it none?
So do you agree with me that UKIP are a grossly corrupt and self-serving party? Good, we're making progress. I do not, however, say that the Tories are better - I say everyone is better than UKIP, who are by a country mile the worst.
And that's why UKIP is obviously the most corrupt.
So you are basing the principle of corruption on either being jailed or having to pay back expenses.
If we are looking at that as the basis for corruption in the Tory party we see that 114 of your MPs prior to the last election including many of the MPs who are now cabinet ministers and one who is now Prime Minister had to pay back monies that they should not have claimed. Does that mean you consider David Cameron and his 113 Tory colleagues to be corrupt? By my reckoning that 114 is a far higher percentage of the total Tory presence in Parliament at that time than the percentage of UKIP MEPs who you are calling dishonest.
By the way, you keep quoting 2 UKIP MEPs jailed out of the 13 elected. Who were they?
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
Sounds like bollocks, you are either bent or NOT bent. You have been found to be talking horse manure and manipulating numbers badly, stop digging and admit you were wrong.
Ah yes, the loony Nat steps up to defend the other loony Nats.
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Still...
So you're saying that with the rise of UKIP, people realise Tories are not that bad after all?
Well yes, I suppose I am. When you look at the trendy nonsense thrown at the tories at the last (and pretty much every election) it really is much more difficult to make it stick with UKIP further out there.
But compare it with reality: "public spending cut overnight" nope "homophobia". Nope gay marriage "cutting health care". Nope protected (unlike in Wales). "shooting foxes". Nope. "cutting taxes". Overall quite the opposite actually although there are PR issues with the top rate.
This government has been centre right with the emphasis on centre. I like it. And so do a lot of others apparently. We could do with some more of this.
(I appreciate that the Lib Dems are due credit too. They certainly are but they are not getting it.)
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
A ridiculous idea I know. Pretty much everyone on here except Richard Nabavi is persuaded that Cameron is a political incompetent who specialises in losing elections, even those he won near 100 additional seats in.
Still...
Con aren't winning, Lab are losing.
The tories are1 year out from an election and approximately 1.5% away from the support they got against Brown (!) in 2010. That looks pretty much like winning to me.
If they get the same or a higher level of support as in 2010 and UKIP is, say, 10% they will win. Their vote will be vastly more efficient and Labour will be pretty much at the same level of support as they were the last time with Lib Dem/tory seats up for grabs.
It could all change yet but right now things are looking good.
Alternatively, it could be that voting LibDem actually *adds* IQ points...
And improves your chances with the opposite sex...
I see you and I raise you Michael Gove
Earlier this month, Gove, the education secretary, surprised the cabinet when he suggested that young businessmen and women flock to London because there are ‘more opportunities for success and sex’
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
Richard, you are being ridiculous. Two UKIP MEPs have gone to jail. Zero Conservative MEPs, and zero Conservative MPs since the 1990s, have gone to jail. That is despite the fact that the number of Conservative MEPs + MPs is, what, something like twenty times greater than UKIP's.
By all means argue that your crooks were not typical of the party as a whole and that things have been cleaned up since. But arguing that UKIP's record since 2000 is better than the Tories' is just bat-shit crazy bonkers. In fact, the Tories are the only major party whose record on jailed MPs and MEPs since the start of the century is zero.
What makes it even more difficult for you is that your crooks campaigned specifically on an anti-sleaze ticket. Hypocrisy to match Labour's.
Well if nothing else this poll should knock the complacency of left leaning posters. Only a few months ago Nick Palmer was saying Labour 5% ahead and voters seemed to have made up their minds.. Its more likely they are looking more carefully at Ed Miliband and saying .. I don't think so. His polling figures are terrible.
Few things are more amusing than British political parties attempting to claim that the others are more corrupt. Of course, in the classical sense, they are all corrupt, promoting their own interest rather than that of the common good. Nevertheless, it is absurd to see the parties of Chaytor, Morley, Devine, Illsley, Moran, Hanningfield, Taylor of Warwick, and Huhne claiming to be whiter than white.
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
No temper, just enjoying proving you wrong.
So in fact the two MEPs you are talking about who were jailed and one of those who had to repay expenses are not even amongst the 13 UKIP MEPS elected in 2009 - 3 of the names you mention are from previous Parliaments. That means that your 4 out of 13 is actually 1 out of 13.
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
Phew, so that's all right then - they haven't been caught lately.
Sorry Richard but it's pathetic. 2 in 13, 1 in 13 - why isn't it none?
It should be none. But then it should not be 114 out of 198 (58%) Tory MPs either.
Try cleaning up your own house before starting to moan about other people's.
Or at least get your facts right before you start a silly little smear campaign which is so easily debunked.
So do you agree with me that UKIP are a grossly corrupt and self-serving party? Good, we're making progress. I do not, however, say that the Tories are better - I say everyone is better than UKIP, who are by a country mile the worst.
And that's why UKIP is obviously the most corrupt.
So you are basing the principle of corruption on either being jailed or having to pay back expenses.
If we are looking at that as the basis for corruption in the Tory party we see that 114 of your MPs prior to the last election including many of the MPs who are now cabinet ministers and one who is now Prime Minister had to pay back monies that they should not have claimed. Does that mean you consider David Cameron and his 113 Tory colleagues to be corrupt? By my reckoning that 114 is a far higher percentage of the total Tory presence in Parliament at that time than the percentage of UKIP MEPs who you are calling dishonest.
By the way, you keep quoting 2 UKIP MEPs jailed out of the 13 elected. Who were they?
Temper temper Richard - don't do a Farage and blow your cover.
The two UKIP MEPs jailed were Tom Wise and Ashley Mote. The two forced to give money back were Graham Booth and Derek Clark.
Did the 114 Tories have to pay back a five figure sum each? I doubt it. They're bent too, of course, but marginally less bent. Most expected actually have to do something for their money, unlike UKIP who quite openly just trough. Also unlike UKIP, they don't dishonestly solicit votes on the basis that they are NOTA. UKIP categorically are The Above.
As I've said, the charge of exceptional corruption is supported not merely on the percentage of UKIP MEPs on the fiddle - although it is damning - but on the fact that, among those aspiring to be MEPs, they couldn't find even 13 that were clean. Every other party manages to find several hundred or even several thousand, and none, unlike UKIP, would tolerate the likes of Neil Hamilton.
Sounds like bollocks, you are either bent or NOT bent. You have been found to be talking horse manure and manipulating numbers badly, stop digging and admit you were wrong.
Ah yes, the loony Nat steps up to defend the other loony Nats.
Inshallah we will soon be shot of all of you.
Only seems to be one loony here and it certainly ain't me , you are not the full shilling.
PS I presume you are one of Charle's high IQ people that migrate to London .........LOL Tories you just could not make it up.
Few things are more amusing than British political parties attempting to claim that the others are more corrupt. Of course, in the classical sense, they are all corrupt, promoting their own interest rather than that of the common good. Nevertheless, it is absurd to see the parties of Chaytor, Morley, Devine, Illsley, Moran, Hanningfield, Taylor of Warwick, and Huhne claiming to be whiter than white.
after the LBC Fiasco I wonder if Farage should let some of UKIP's other voices take centre stage for a little while.It's something, so I've read, that he's generally not keen on.
I think our very own @isam would be a good mouthpiece for them. The central issue is - how palatable not to say reasonable is it to say that you don't want the character of your homeland to change? Sam has said this many times on the interminable "white flight" debates here; Farage said this during The Interview when he said he didn't like the fact that he couldn't hear English spoken on the train.
It is a legitimate debate. If we were talking about the Kwazoo Indians* there would be no issue - every man jack of us in particular Seaumas Milne would be lining up on the side of the Kwazoo Indians.
No modern day successful political party has come to terms with how to frame the debate. From not talking about it (Lab/Con) to hitting it head on and attracting charges of racism. As I have said, looking at the election literature, it is just nasty and harks back to the worst of the BNP/NF.
Plus of course if that (immigration) is it (as it seems to be for UKIP) then they will peter out pretty quickly.
One thing however is for sure - if there is an answer to the how to solve this question, then Nigel ain't it.
Actually what I would like to stress is that it isn't just about England/White flight or whatever... The principle applies to any community anywhere in the world of any creed or colour. If the pace of change is considered to be too fast by the existing community, then it is too fast.
If the whole of Hornchurch moved to Bucharest over a period of four or five years, no doubt the Romanians would be complaining about people like me, my friends and family.. and I would fully understand that, no matter how nice I think we are.
One point that hasnt been commented on re Farage and LBC was that if a group of 5-6 men rent the house next door, it wouldnt matter which country they were from, they could be British and I would still raise an eyebrow... if they came from a poor country with a high crime rate it is common sense for the eyebrow to be raised even further IMO
Of course O Brien and all the media whores know this, but just extrapolate one part and use it as a stick to beat Farage with
Lastly, I have tried to articulate some of my feelings on this matter into a blog and hopefully it will be published before Thursday.. watch this space!
The tories on 35 with UKIP on 14%. Doesn't matter how many times you see it, it still seems counter-intuitive and downright weird.
This is of course blasphemy but is it possible, just possible, that contrary to all the predictions to the contrary Cameron and Osborne have found support in the centre ground that pretty much outweighs what they have lost to the right?
That is precisely what the data tables show is happening.
The problem, in this poll, for the "Left" is that UKIP and the Conservatives are picking up slightly more 2010 Lib Dems than Labour are [66 - 64] and Labour lose a further wodge of support to UKIP.
It begins to look possible for the 2015 GE to be an even more shattering psychological defeat for Labour and the "Left" than 1992. I wouldn't say likely yet, but you can see the way in which it might happen.
I wonder: with Mr Natrass be the real beneficiary of the flurry of anti-UKIP stories?
Theory: these stories about UKIP do nothing to diminish people's dislike of the EU. People want to cast their vote against said institution. But quite a few people will have been put off by the last few days. (A lot of supporters will be energised by the anti-EU stories, of course.)
Natrass - who's at the top of the ballot, and who has got out a (quite sensible) election leaflet to a lot of people - would seem to be a logical anti-Farage, anti-EU vote.
Maybe AIFE could pick up a seat or two? They might even beat the LibDems in a region or two.
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
Richard, you are being ridiculous. Two UKIP MEPs have gone to jail. Zero Conservative MEPs, and zero Conservative MPs since the 1990s, have gone to jail. That is despite the fact that the number of Conservative MEPs + MPs is, what, something like twenty times greater than UKIP's.
By all means argue that your crooks were not typical of the party as a whole and that things have been cleaned up since. But arguing that UKIP's record since 2000 is better than the Tories' is just bat-shit crazy bonkers. In fact, the Tories are the only major party whose record on jailed MPs and MEPs since the start of the century is zero.
What makes it even more difficult for you is that your crooks campaigned specifically on an anti-sleaze ticket. Hypocrisy to match Labour's.
Bond's criteria for corruption was having gone to jail or having had to pay back expenses. Argue with him if you are bothered about the definition.
I consider the Tory party to be just as corrupt as any other party and these attempts to claim moral superiority are just farcical. A lot of your MPs should have been in jail for their actions in the last Parliament. Another should be on charges now for taking payments. You are just as bad as all the rest. Bond was just stupid enough to try and pretend the Tories were any different.
I wonder: with Mr Natrass be the real beneficiary of the flurry of anti-UKIP stories?
Theory: these stories about UKIP do nothing to diminish people's dislike of the EU. People want to cast their vote against said institution. But quite a few people will have been put off by the last few days. (A lot of supporters will be energised by the anti-EU stories, of course.)
Natrass - who's at the top of the ballot, and who has got out a (quite sensible) election leaflet to a lot of people - would seem to be a logical anti-Farage, anti-EU vote.
Maybe AIFE could pick up a seat or two? They might even beat the LibDems in a region or two.
Only if no one looks at the quality of their MEP candidates with the various Ex UKIP members who were thrown out for racism or former BNP members. He has made a big mistake picking those bedfellows.
This government has been centre right with the emphasis on centre. I like it. And so do a lot of others apparently. We could do with some more of this.
(I appreciate that the Lib Dems are due credit too. They certainly are but they are not getting it.)
There's nothing centre-right about the snooper's charter, GCHQ spying on the content of our communications, the abolition of long-standing protections against arrest with the EAW, etc...
@isam: the unit of consideration should always be the individual. When you start subordinating individual rights to group rights, then you are stepping down a dangerous path.
To my mind, there are only individual rights. Groups or communities cannot and should not have rights.
That's an excellent letter. Clarifying his comments to defend against racism while not shying away from his point.
It is an extremely ignorant letter, Socrates.
Let us just take the statement on ATM crime.
Fullfact.org states as follows:
The claim that 90% of crime at ATMs (or cash machines) is the work of Romanian gangs has often been repeated in the press as far back as early 2012.
It can be traced back to DCI Paul Barnard, then head of the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) – a police unit run in partnership with banks and financial services companies. DCI Barnard told ITV1’s ‘Fraud Squad’ programme that:
“The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals.”
We spoke to the DCPCU hoping to find out more, but were told that DCI Barnard was no longer head of the unit, and that no further details were held on this particular claim.
Although a spokesperson did tell us that the figure was based on “police intelligence at the time”, he also said that no statistics were available on the issue. [factcheck.org]
So a statistic that the originating Met Police unit is not prepared to back up.
Luckily statistics on ATM fraud are available. The first pertinent fact to note is that, relative to total payment card fraud and transaction value, ATM fraud is minimal. In the whole of Europe in 2012, there were 22,450 reported incidents accounting for €265 million in reported losses.
85% of losses occurred on cards issued in Europe but used in ATMs located outside Europe. [The reason for this is that the US, Latin America and Asia have not adopted 'PIN and chip' verification in their ATMs leaving them vulnerable to 'skimming' attack. Skimming is a technique used to copy data encoded on the magnetic stripe of a card.]
So losses from European cards used in European ATMs were €39.75 million in 2012. Given that Europe had a population of 412,799 ATMs on average during 2012, this means that ATM fraud losses averaged €96.29 per ATM annually or €0.26 per day. [A good clue as to why the US, Asia and Latin America have not implemented 'PIN and Chip' technology].
And the trend in fraud loss is relentlessly downward: from €485 million in 2008 to €265 million in 2012.
The top three locations for such losses were the USA, the Dominican Republic and Brazil. [european-atm-security.eu]
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Louis Van Gaal appointed Manchester United boss on a three year deal and Giggs assistant boss.
Bloody foreigners coming over here managing our football teams....
I don't think anyone has had a problem with high-earning people coming here.
Of course, let us not forget that if you (say) start allowing people with higher degrees to come to the UK, but disallow people without, then you are implicitly reducing the benefits to becoming educated. If the salary you get as a person with a higher degree is lower thanks to foreign competition, you will be less likely to bother getting an education.
Should government policy be to discourage its citizens from getting an education?
This government has been centre right with the emphasis on centre. I like it. And so do a lot of others apparently. We could do with some more of this.
(I appreciate that the Lib Dems are due credit too. They certainly are but they are not getting it.)
There's nothing centre-right about the snooper's charter, GCHQ spying on the content of our communications, the abolition of long-standing protections against arrest with the EAW, etc...
You're right. It sounds quite New Labour when you put it like that.
Speaking personally I gave the government great credit for cancelling the national ID system and restraining the maximum absurdities of our moral panic driven anti terrorist legislation but credit can be exhausted and some of these policies need a rethink.
I consider the Tory party to be just as corrupt as any other party and these attempts to claim moral superiority are just farcical. A lot of your MPs should have been in jail for their actions in the last Parliament. Another should be on charges now for taking payments. You are just as bad as all the rest. Bond was just stupid enough to try and pretend the Tories were any different.
Yes, your anti-Tory prejudice is so overwhelming that, despite the fact that precisely zero of its hundreds of MPs and MEPs have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty in recent years, you think the party is as corrupt as UKIP (two out of, what, some twenty individuals in total), Labour (five if memory serves me correctly) or the LibDems (one).
I wouldn't mind if UKIP weren't trying to claim that they represent a contrast to what they call the LibLabCon 'corruption'. In fact their record is proportionately the worst, followed by Labour. Maybe that is not statistically significant, maybe they are all the same - if you said that, and were careful to include UKIP in the list, I might have some respect for your argument. But this ludicrous pretence that UKIP politicians are 'different' really sticks in the gullet.
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Answers on a postcard please.
I think a police inspector's public statement about the crime area they are looking at to be a perfectly credible source. It's certainly a lot more credible than the three million jobs lie - but for some reason you've never complained about that.
It's also Channel 4's own left-wing bias to say Farage is trying to "scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants". He did nothing of the sort.
I wonder: with Mr Natrass be the real beneficiary of the flurry of anti-UKIP stories?
Theory: these stories about UKIP do nothing to diminish people's dislike of the EU. People want to cast their vote against said institution. But quite a few people will have been put off by the last few days. (A lot of supporters will be energised by the anti-EU stories, of course.)
Natrass - who's at the top of the ballot, and who has got out a (quite sensible) election leaflet to a lot of people - would seem to be a logical anti-Farage, anti-EU vote.
Maybe AIFE could pick up a seat or two? They might even beat the LibDems in a region or two.
Anecdote alert. My 89 year old stepfather told me he'd voted UKIP by post. I asked him about An Independence from Europe, and he said he'd just looked straight at the bottom of the ballot paper for UKIP, before putting a tick in the box. Of course, he comes from a generation where only the names of the candidates were put on the ballot paper, so you had to concentrate hard on what you were ticking.
Last time round, there was another spoiler party, called UK First, which hoped to pick up UKIP votes, but got very few.
What would help AIFE (and be very funny) is if left wing voters back them in the hope this will damage UKIP. They'd be damaging UKIP much more if the voted Labour, Lib Dem, or Green.
Louis Van Gaal appointed Manchester United boss on a three year deal and Giggs assistant boss.
Bloody foreigners coming over here managing our football teams....
I don't think anyone has had a problem with high-earning people coming here.
Of course, let us not forget that if you (say) start allowing people with higher degrees to come to the UK, but disallow people without, then you are implicitly reducing the benefits to becoming educated. If the salary you get as a person with a higher degree is lower thanks to foreign competition, you will be less likely to bother getting an education.
Should government policy be to discourage its citizens from getting an education?
I disagree. Given changing economic structures, I think more high skilled talent actually brings new activity to the economy as international firms look to base themselves here.
Basil puts them back down again......standing around waiting to pick them back up again. Do we have another poll today apart from the Yougov. I am sure he could be burying nuts for the next seven or so hours.
@isam: the unit of consideration should always be the individual. When you start subordinating individual rights to group rights, then you are stepping down a dangerous path.
To my mind, there are only individual rights. Groups or communities cannot and should not have rights.
Hmmm. I rather like the idea of all UK citizens above the age of 18 having the right to vote rather than it being handed out individually.
I consider the Tory party to be just as corrupt as any other party and these attempts to claim moral superiority are just farcical. A lot of your MPs should have been in jail for their actions in the last Parliament. Another should be on charges now for taking payments. You are just as bad as all the rest. Bond was just stupid enough to try and pretend the Tories were any different.
Yes, your anti-Tory prejudice is so overwhelming that, despite the fact that precisely zero of its hundreds of MPs and MEPs have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty in recent years, you think the party is as corrupt as UKIP (two out of, what, some twenty individuals in total), Labour (five if memory serves me correctly) or the LibDems (one).
I wouldn't mind if UKIP weren't trying to claim that they represent a contrast to what they call the LibLabCon 'corruption'. In fact their record is proportionately the worst, followed by Labour. Maybe that is not statistically significant, maybe they are all the same - if you said that, and were careful to include UKIP in the list, I might have some respect for your argument. But this ludicrous pretence that UKIP politicians are 'different' really sticks in the gullet.
Who says that UKIP politicians are "different?" Their policies are different, but I dont hear them saying "vote for me because on a personal level I am different" other than perhaps Farage having had a real job.
Louis Van Gaal appointed Manchester United boss on a three year deal and Giggs assistant boss.
Bloody foreigners coming over here managing our football teams....
I don't think anyone has had a problem with high-earning people coming here.
Of course, let us not forget that if you (say) start allowing people with higher degrees to come to the UK, but disallow people without, then you are implicitly reducing the benefits to becoming educated. If the salary you get as a person with a higher degree is lower thanks to foreign competition, you will be less likely to bother getting an education.
Should government policy be to discourage its citizens from getting an education?
I disagree. Given changing economic structures, I think more high skilled talent actually brings new activity to the economy as international firms look to base themselves here.
Mr Socrates: it's very simple. If you increase the supply of something - whether it is labour or anything else - then the price of that commodity will fall.
You know this. I know this.
The consequence of the fall in price is that it brings supply and demand into equilibrium. (At lower price levels, there will be more demand for labour or Ferraris or ice creams.)
But that same argument can be used for less skilled labour too. If I am sure of the supply of people willing to work for £6.50/hour, I'll be more likely to build a factory. If I'm unsure about the ability to find people who'll work for £6.50 an hour, I'll build the factory somewhere where I'm more sure about the supply of cheap labour.
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Answers on a postcard please.
Because it's a crime that scares people.
They are unprotected and have their back turned to their aggressors.
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Answers on a postcard please.
I think a police inspector's public statement about the crime area they are looking at to be a perfectly credible source. It's certainly a lot more credible than the three million jobs lie - but for some reason you've never complained about that.
It's also Channel 4's own left-wing bias to say Farage is trying to "scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants". He did nothing of the sort.
That will cost the Tories some funding before the electon. What has the world come to when a Tory leader wont publically stand up for big business. The worlds gone mad.
In Holloway this morning (St George's ward IIRC) I had what appeared to be a two-page handwritten letter with handwritten envelope from my local LD councillor (it's a split 2-1 LD/Lab ward), asking for local votes regardless of our national preferences - on closer inspection I think it's all computer-generated, but it's quite an impressive work of art. Are these popping up elsewhere too? (I've voted by post so any chance of swaying me has sadly passed.)
To my mind, there are only individual rights. Groups or communities cannot and should not have rights.
I tend to agree, but once you go down that road, it is the death of the limited liability corporation and the trade union, two particularly popular and covetous forms of conspiracy in restraint of trade...
When I was at (an all boys') school, one of my classmates was looking for an excuse to skive off games. He was persuaded that he had glands in his throat called the menstres, and that a suitable ailment for getting off games would be "menstrual pain". He duly trotted off to the school nurse and gave her what was no doubt her favourite party story for that particular month.
Louis Van Gaal appointed Manchester United boss on a three year deal and Giggs assistant boss.
Bloody foreigners coming over here managing our football teams....
I don't think anyone has had a problem with high-earning people coming here.
Of course, let us not forget that if you (say) start allowing people with higher degrees to come to the UK, but disallow people without, then you are implicitly reducing the benefits to becoming educated. If the salary you get as a person with a higher degree is lower thanks to foreign competition, you will be less likely to bother getting an education.
Should government policy be to discourage its citizens from getting an education?
I disagree. Given changing economic structures, I think more high skilled talent actually brings new activity to the economy as international firms look to base themselves here.
Mr Socrates: it's very simple. If you increase the supply of something - whether it is labour or anything else - then the price of that commodity will fall.
You know this. I know this.
The consequence of the fall in price is that it brings supply and demand into equilibrium. (At lower price levels, there will be more demand for labour or Ferraris or ice creams.)
But that same argument can be used for less skilled labour too. If I am sure of the supply of people willing to work for £6.50/hour, I'll be more likely to build a factory. If I'm unsure about the ability to find people who'll work for £6.50 an hour, I'll build the factory somewhere where I'm more sure about the supply of cheap labour.
In my experience, when international companies need to base a location for high skilled labour, their primary concern is the quantity of talent available in the location, not the cost of it. Thus what is bringing the extra economic activity here isn't the wage depressing effect of high skilled immigration - and that small wage depressing effect will be quickly overcome by the benefits of the extra investment. Benefits that then continue to accumulate.
This is a very different situation to low skilled labour, where location decisions are based almost entirely on cost. Thus should the extra activity brought in by the wage depressing effect ever compensate for it, you would no longer get further extra activity.
Those approval ratings for Ed are looking awful, at this rate he will be neck and neck with Clegg soon, and that is after he has fired several recent attempts are pushing populist policies.
Imagine if he had been banging on about the reality of the situation i.e elect me and we are still going to have to impose a load of cuts.
To my mind, there are only individual rights. Groups or communities cannot and should not have rights.
I tend to agree, but once you go down that road, it is the death of the limited liability corporation and the trade union, two particularly popular and covetous forms of conspiracy in restraint of trade...
Not sure of that LIAMT. Limited liability is based on separate legal personality, which seems to implicitly assume that the group of corporators cannot otherwise legally hold lights on their own account.
Apropos recent threads, this quote from Orwell seems apposite - “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...
A pity that the same has developed with the word "racism". It means that too many of us can get hideously over-excited over some silly statement while ignoring very real instances of racist behaviour and activity.
Funny Pfizer didn't go hostile. Maybe they didn;t want the markets to realise nobody wants their shares after their p8sspoor performance in destroying value with other takeovers.
This was make or break for Pfizer. It wouldn't surprise me if they became a break up target themselves at some point.
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Answers on a postcard please.
I think a police inspector's public statement about the crime area they are looking at to be a perfectly credible source. It's certainly a lot more credible than the three million jobs lie - but for some reason you've never complained about that.
It's also Channel 4's own left-wing bias to say Farage is trying to "scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants". He did nothing of the sort.
Just the usual Europhile smears.
Are 26 million foreigners really after my job?
I think I recall you saying you were a top rate tax payer and a director of a firm, so I wouldnt say the 26m Bulgarians and Romanians eligible to work in the UK were capable of doing your job.
But if you were an unskilled worker on the minimum wage, your job would be available to anyone of a working age in the EU, which I think is closer to 480m, and I guess the adverts were aimed at those people.
Apropos recent threads, this quote from Orwell seems apposite - “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...
A pity that the same has developed with the word "racism". It means that too many of us can get hideously over-excited over some silly statement while ignoring very real instances of racist behaviour and activity.
Ooh careful... that sort of common sense doesnt go down well with some on here
This morning I decided to walk from the Stockholm ferry terminal to Gamla Stan instead of shelling out on a taxi, but although it was fine weather to begin with, unfortunately it started raining heavily about half way through the walk and I got totally drenched. But you do get a good idea of where things are by walking around.
Labour has for some time been dominated by the Fabian/Islington/right-on/trendy-lefty tendency. The intellectual champagne socialists. This group pretty much revile the WWC they purport to represent, certainly the true blue-collar white van man. However, they have also assumed that the WWC are lefties in the traditional trade unions sense and had nowhere else to go.
But the WWC has as many utterly un-PC opinions that would horrify Harriet Harman as it does class warriors and militants. It's this half of LAbour's taken for granted base that UKIP are tapping into.
People always say UKIP are 'right wing' - whatever that really means. I think in BBC talk it just means 'bad'. But UKIP have some fairly statist non-libertarian interventionist views which will accord with the half of the WWC they are peeling away from Ed. If Farage cmes up with some lefty sounding domestic policy sound bites as well as the EU/immigration stuff he will attract more of this group.
Ed Microband needs to learn to drink pints and drop the odd swear word 'by mistake'. (Will Dave saying 'drop the green crap' have done him any harm whatever? I think not!)
Getting a bit bored with debating every sentence Farage utters, and not convinced it's an election-winning tactic for the rest of us. Support for UKIP may be slightly off the boil but the other parties aren't really working hard at presenting alternative EU policies.
Instead of the usual adverts at the top of PB I'm currently getting one saying "Sveriges utbyte med EU. Granska land for land in an du roster. ekonomifakta". Whatever that means.
I'm going off UKIP a bit, especially after the survey showing their supporters to be quite left-wing and statist on a lot of issues.
Putting aside all the party inspired rubbish from the Tories on here and the idiotic claims of racism, that is a very good reason to question supporting them.
With UKIP seemingly determined to become the nasty party, the Conservatives almost by default seem less nasty. Oddly, this has first been commented upon by the Kippers, upset that the Tories have declined a slice of roasted baby on this occasion.
Instead of the usual adverts at the top of PB I'm currently getting one saying "Sveriges utbyte med EU. Granska land for land in an du roster. ekonomifakta". Whatever that means.
Sweden's relationship with the EU. View land for land in an you roster. Economic facts
With UKIP seemingly determined to become the nasty party, the Conservatives almost by default seem less nasty. Oddly, this has first been commented upon by the Kippers, upset that the Tories have declined a slice of roasted baby on this occasion.
Criticism among my friends on Twitter and Facebook is dominated by #1 The Daily Mail and #2 UKIP. Before the 2010 election, the Conservatives took a large slice.
Comments
BBC Politics ✔ @BBCPolitics
UKIP says the longer-established parties are not facing scrutiny over the behaviour of candidates and councillors. http://bbc.in/1ggapTw
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27472380#
And improves your chances with the opposite sex...
http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/local-news/update-men-from-dewsbury-and-heckmondwike-jailed-for-human-trafficking-1-6615353
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/01/14/romanians-in-hard-times-on-benefits-street/
Why they are still flogging St Nigel in the cockpit of his Spitfire as the man to save us is just baffling.
Actually Nigel is less a Spitfire pilot, more of a Captain Kirk. The Star Trek episodes about Sulu or Chekhov were rubbish, the Miami Vice episodes about Swytek were rubbish and the X Files episodes without Mulder in them were rubbish. It is this that explains why we only ever see Nigel. If you're asked for an interviewee and your party's a one-trick pony, you don't send along a duck.
If they get the same or a higher level of support as in 2010 and UKIP is, say, 10% they will win. Their vote will be vastly more efficient and Labour will be pretty much at the same level of support as they were the last time with Lib Dem/tory seats up for grabs.
It could all change yet but right now things are looking good.
So in fact the two MEPs you are talking about who were jailed and one of those who had to repay expenses are not even amongst the 13 UKIP MEPS elected in 2009 - 3 of the names you mention are from previous Parliaments. That means that your 4 out of 13 is actually 1 out of 13.
Compare that with the ranks of Tories who had to repay expenses and we start to see that it is the Tory party who are the party of corruption far more than UKIP.
If enough people think most of the MPs at the time of the expenses scandal should have gone to jail then they'll make allowances for parties that might act as a Guy Fawkes.
Sorry Richard but it's pathetic. 2 in 13, 1 in 13 - why isn't it none?
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC
Louis Van Gaal confirmed as new Man Utd manager, Ryan Giggs will be assistant manager
Inshallah we will soon be shot of all of you.
One of the funniest videos at the last election was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKFTtYx2OHc
But compare it with reality:
"public spending cut overnight" nope
"homophobia". Nope gay marriage
"cutting health care". Nope protected (unlike in Wales).
"shooting foxes". Nope.
"cutting taxes". Overall quite the opposite actually although there are PR issues with the top rate.
This government has been centre right with the emphasis on centre. I like it. And so do a lot of others apparently. We could do with some more of this.
(I appreciate that the Lib Dems are due credit too. They certainly are but they are not getting it.)
Earlier this month, Gove, the education secretary, surprised the cabinet when he suggested that young businessmen and women flock to London because there are ‘more opportunities for success and sex’
http://www.london24.com/news/boris_claims_sex_makes_london_successful_is_this_true_1_3578729
By all means argue that your crooks were not typical of the party as a whole and that things have been cleaned up since. But arguing that UKIP's record since 2000 is better than the Tories' is just bat-shit crazy bonkers. In fact, the Tories are the only major party whose record on jailed MPs and MEPs since the start of the century is zero.
What makes it even more difficult for you is that your crooks campaigned specifically on an anti-sleaze ticket. Hypocrisy to match Labour's.
Try cleaning up your own house before starting to moan about other people's.
Or at least get your facts right before you start a silly little smear campaign which is so easily debunked.
PS I presume you are one of Charle's high IQ people that migrate to London .........LOL Tories you just could not make it up.
"you are not the full shilling"
A "shill"?
Actually what I would like to stress is that it isn't just about England/White flight or whatever... The principle applies to any community anywhere in the world of any creed or colour. If the pace of change is considered to be too fast by the existing community, then it is too fast.
If the whole of Hornchurch moved to Bucharest over a period of four or five years, no doubt the Romanians would be complaining about people like me, my friends and family.. and I would fully understand that, no matter how nice I think we are.
One point that hasnt been commented on re Farage and LBC was that if a group of 5-6 men rent the house next door, it wouldnt matter which country they were from, they could be British and I would still raise an eyebrow... if they came from a poor country with a high crime rate it is common sense for the eyebrow to be raised even further IMO
Of course O Brien and all the media whores know this, but just extrapolate one part and use it as a stick to beat Farage with
Lastly, I have tried to articulate some of my feelings on this matter into a blog and hopefully it will be published before Thursday.. watch this space!
The problem, in this poll, for the "Left" is that UKIP and the Conservatives are picking up slightly more 2010 Lib Dems than Labour are [66 - 64] and Labour lose a further wodge of support to UKIP.
It begins to look possible for the 2015 GE to be an even more shattering psychological defeat for Labour and the "Left" than 1992. I wouldn't say likely yet, but you can see the way in which it might happen.
Theory: these stories about UKIP do nothing to diminish people's dislike of the EU. People want to cast their vote against said institution. But quite a few people will have been put off by the last few days. (A lot of supporters will be energised by the anti-EU stories, of course.)
Natrass - who's at the top of the ballot, and who has got out a (quite sensible) election leaflet to a lot of people - would seem to be a logical anti-Farage, anti-EU vote.
Maybe AIFE could pick up a seat or two? They might even beat the LibDems in a region or two.
I consider the Tory party to be just as corrupt as any other party and these attempts to claim moral superiority are just farcical. A lot of your MPs should have been in jail for their actions in the last Parliament. Another should be on charges now for taking payments. You are just as bad as all the rest. Bond was just stupid enough to try and pretend the Tories were any different.
http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/10164/
To my mind, there are only individual rights. Groups or communities cannot and should not have rights.
Let us just take the statement on ATM crime.
Fullfact.org states as follows:
The claim that 90% of crime at ATMs (or cash machines) is the work of Romanian gangs has often been repeated in the press as far back as early 2012.
It can be traced back to DCI Paul Barnard, then head of the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) – a police unit run in partnership with banks and financial services companies. DCI Barnard told ITV1’s ‘Fraud Squad’ programme that:
“The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals.”
We spoke to the DCPCU hoping to find out more, but were told that DCI Barnard was no longer head of the unit, and that no further details were held on this particular claim.
Although a spokesperson did tell us that the figure was based on “police intelligence at the time”, he also said that no statistics were available on the issue. [factcheck.org]
So a statistic that the originating Met Police unit is not prepared to back up.
Luckily statistics on ATM fraud are available. The first pertinent fact to note is that, relative to total payment card fraud and transaction value, ATM fraud is minimal. In the whole of Europe in 2012, there were 22,450 reported incidents accounting for €265 million in reported losses.
85% of losses occurred on cards issued in Europe but used in ATMs located outside Europe. [The reason for this is that the US, Latin America and Asia have not adopted 'PIN and chip' verification in their ATMs leaving them vulnerable to 'skimming' attack. Skimming is a technique used to copy data encoded on the magnetic stripe of a card.]
So losses from European cards used in European ATMs were €39.75 million in 2012. Given that Europe had a population of 412,799 ATMs on average during 2012, this means that ATM fraud losses averaged €96.29 per ATM annually or €0.26 per day. [A good clue as to why the US, Asia and Latin America have not implemented 'PIN and Chip' technology].
And the trend in fraud loss is relentlessly downward: from €485 million in 2008 to €265 million in 2012.
The top three locations for such losses were the USA, the Dominican Republic and Brazil. [european-atm-security.eu]
So the question needs to be asked of Nigel Farage is why his letter is using an unsubstantiated one-off claim by an individual police inspector to scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants for a crime which is relatively insignificant and rare?
Answers on a postcard please.
Should government policy be to discourage its citizens from getting an education?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2014/may/19/women-get-paid-menstrual-leave
Laying down her marker.
Speaking personally I gave the government great credit for cancelling the national ID system and restraining the maximum absurdities of our moral panic driven anti terrorist legislation but credit can be exhausted and some of these policies need a rethink.
I wouldn't mind if UKIP weren't trying to claim that they represent a contrast to what they call the LibLabCon 'corruption'. In fact their record is proportionately the worst, followed by Labour. Maybe that is not statistically significant, maybe they are all the same - if you said that, and were careful to include UKIP in the list, I might have some respect for your argument. But this ludicrous pretence that UKIP politicians are 'different' really sticks in the gullet.
It's also Channel 4's own left-wing bias to say Farage is trying to "scapegoat a whole national group of immigrants". He did nothing of the sort.
Just the usual Europhile smears.
Last time round, there was another spoiler party, called UK First, which hoped to pick up UKIP votes, but got very few.
What would help AIFE (and be very funny) is if left wing voters back them in the hope this will damage UKIP. They'd be damaging UKIP much more if the voted Labour, Lib Dem, or Green.
Lab 40%
Con 33%
LD 11%
They don't give figures for UKIP.
The 2010 London local election figures were:
Lab 32.5%
Con 31.7%
LD 22.4%
Green 6.6%
BNP 1.7%
Ind 1.1%
UKIP 1.1%
Interesting to see the Tories are up slightly. Swing is about 3% to Labour.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-is-still-backing-labour-despite-tories-national-upsurge-9384056.html
You know this. I know this.
The consequence of the fall in price is that it brings supply and demand into equilibrium. (At lower price levels, there will be more demand for labour or Ferraris or ice creams.)
But that same argument can be used for less skilled labour too. If I am sure of the supply of people willing to work for £6.50/hour, I'll be more likely to build a factory. If I'm unsure about the ability to find people who'll work for £6.50 an hour, I'll build the factory somewhere where I'm more sure about the supply of cheap labour.
They are unprotected and have their back turned to their aggressors.
This is a very different situation to low skilled labour, where location decisions are based almost entirely on cost. Thus should the extra activity brought in by the wage depressing effect ever compensate for it, you would no longer get further extra activity.
Imagine if he had been banging on about the reality of the situation i.e elect me and we are still going to have to impose a load of cuts.
A pity that the same has developed with the word "racism". It means that too many of us can get hideously over-excited over some silly statement while ignoring very real instances of racist behaviour and activity.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ze2rtewfgc/YG-Archive-140508-EveningStandard.pdf
Funny Pfizer didn't go hostile. Maybe they didn;t want the markets to realise nobody wants their shares after their p8sspoor performance in destroying value with other takeovers.
This was make or break for Pfizer. It wouldn't surprise me if they became a break up target themselves at some point.
But if you were an unskilled worker on the minimum wage, your job would be available to anyone of a working age in the EU, which I think is closer to 480m, and I guess the adverts were aimed at those people.
This morning I decided to walk from the Stockholm ferry terminal to Gamla Stan instead of shelling out on a taxi, but although it was fine weather to begin with, unfortunately it started raining heavily about half way through the walk and I got totally drenched. But you do get a good idea of where things are by walking around.
But the WWC has as many utterly un-PC opinions that would horrify Harriet Harman as it does class warriors and militants. It's this half of LAbour's taken for granted base that UKIP are tapping into.
People always say UKIP are 'right wing' - whatever that really means. I think in BBC talk it just means 'bad'. But UKIP have some fairly statist non-libertarian interventionist views which will accord with the half of the WWC they are peeling away from Ed. If Farage cmes up with some lefty sounding domestic policy sound bites as well as the EU/immigration stuff he will attract more of this group.
Ed Microband needs to learn to drink pints and drop the odd swear word 'by mistake'. (Will Dave saying 'drop the green crap' have done him any harm whatever? I think not!)
It won't work - they were just too cute over the weekend. Blew their credibility.
(according to Google translate...)