Churchill wouldn't be selected by the modern Tory party. They're not keen on Europhile ex Liberals, capable of independent thought, who didn't go to Eton/Oxford. The ginger stuff is the least of his worries.
It does seem that the Conservative Party is suffering a relapse into Let's Lose Elections Syndrome. I thought it had finally been cured of the syndrome, after a long and debilitating bout of the illness, in October 2005, which is why I then joined the party. But it looks as though the disease was not fully eliminated from the body politic.
Doctors are now considering a treatment comprising a dual dose of Miliband and Balls. This is an experimental treatment which will have very severe side-effects.
Churchill wouldn't be selected by the modern Tory party.
Mind you, he wasn't selected by the then Tory party either, except under the most extreme duress. Even then there were many doubts and plots in 1941-1942 (as there were amongst Labour MPs to get rid of Attlee, interestingly enough).
You can carry on with your ignorance and downright lies Richard but the difference is I actually worked there and know what I am talking about.
I am afraid that you on the other hand are always going to come up against the basic problem that you simply don't know what you are talking about and rely upon your bigoted interpretation of what you read on the internet to get your world view.
We have already seen you are incapable of following through a logical argument with regard to the whole EU/EEA/EFTA discussion. I would suggest you go back and actually learn something about the subject before you try and enter this discussion again.
Churchill wouldn't be selected by the modern Tory party. They're not keen on Europhile ex Liberals, capable of independent thought, who didn't go to Eton/Oxford. The ginger stuff is the least of his worries.
Churchill wouldn't be selected by the modern Tory party.
Mind you, he wasn't selected by the then Tory party either, except under the most extreme duress. Even then there were many doubts and plots in 1941-1942 (as there were amongst Labour MPs to get rid of Attlee, interestingly enough).
I suspect Thatcher wouldn't make the cut today either. FWIW I suspect Blair wouldn't get selected by Labour today.
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
Lord Sainsbury is talking a lot of sense in the Times today
He adds that “in retrospect the Labour government should have used the opportunity of a strongly growing economy to reduce the deficit”.
Oh and he says Ed is crap average
Of Ed Miliband, Lord Sainsbury says: “In terms of political skills, I think he’s average. Average in the sense that I think Nick Clegg and David Cameron are pretty average.”
None of the three leaders was in the “top bracket”, and did not compare with Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, he said.
Ed Milliband has got to where he is today in climbing over the corpses of those who under estimated him. Gordon Brown alone perhaps spotted it early, "he's the one to watch".
Stuns me that people are continuing with this mistake
Inevitably, the declarations by Michael Gove and Philip Hammond that they will vote to leave the EU unless better terms can be secured are being covered in a hackneyed, retro-nineties, 'Tory splits' manner. In fact, neither man has said anything out of the ordinary.
I mean, imagine that they had said the opposite. Suppose that, in response to the interviewers' questions, they had replied, 'There are no circumstances in which we should leave the EU, even if continued membership were manifestly against our national interest'. That really would be an extraordinary statement. Yet so divorced are our pundits from the rest of us that they consider unconditional support for the EU to be unremarkable. After all, that is the stance of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband; but when did you ever an interviewer challenging them on it?
For what it's worth, I struggle to get excited about the pro-referendum amendment to the Queen's Speech – a vote which will have no legislative consequences. (Though it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at this article by Vince Cable, which begins 'Tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will table an amendment to the Government’s parliamentary motion proposing the Queen’s Speech. Our amendment calls for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union…')
No, the vote that really counts will be the one on the Bill that actually proposes a referendum, which will surely be introduced one way or another before the general election. My guess is that Conservatives will vote en bloc for what is, after all, their official policy. We may be surprised by how many individual Labour and Lib Dem MPs will join them in the lobbies: they have constituents too.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband's speech over the weekend ruling out a referendum was, in tone and content, the worst I can remember by a major party leader. Have a look: it reads like a Craig Brown parody. And when you've finished snorting incredulously, look at where public opinion is on this issue: 82 per cent of people favour an In/Out referendum, and the Outs lead the Ins by 43 per cent to 35. If we absolutely must reduce this story to party politics, I'd say Miliband has the bigger problem, wouldn't you?
Actually the Tories are pretty united on Europe. It's just unfortunate that David Cameron took over the leadership pretending to be a eurosceptic like 90% of his party, but turns out to be a dyed in the wool europhile and has set himself against most of his party.
But the fact Cameron took over the leadership under false pretenses isn't the Conservative Party's fault.
Great news for those of us betting on Scotland voting for independence.
Former prime minister Gordon Brown will speak today at the launch of a distinct Labour campaign to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.
The Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath MP will be in Glasgow to help unveil the United with Labour drive, which distances the party from Tory and Liberal Democrat colleagues in the pro-Union Better Together movement.
1997 ; " However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. "
The year that exploded the " it's the economy , stupid " cliche. I often wonder what Britain would be like today if New Labour hadn't been given the opportunity to squander Thatcher's and Major's " golden legacy ".
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
Why then, do I see high street shops still closing, and those that are opening are mainly rag and bone shops? You know like Oxfam and many other look alikes.
1997 ; " However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. "
The year that exploded the " it's the economy , stupid " cliche. I often wonder what Britain would be like today if New Labour hadn't been given the opportunity to squander Thatcher's and Major's " golden legacy ".
For whatever reason Labour always seems to be given alot more slack than the Conservatives when it comes to economic matters. Only a 'winter of discontent' or a 2008 style bust sees Labour voted out of office.
Lord Sainsbury is talking a lot of sense in the Times today
He adds that “in retrospect the Labour government should have used the opportunity of a strongly growing economy to reduce the deficit”.
Oh and he says Ed is crap average
Of Ed Miliband, Lord Sainsbury says: “In terms of political skills, I think he’s average. Average in the sense that I think Nick Clegg and David Cameron are pretty average.”
None of the three leaders was in the “top bracket”, and did not compare with Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, he said.
Could it be that the Tories were wrong to consider it a negative that they might be thought of as the nasty party? Seems to me that the all attempts to detox are insincere and play into Labours hands.
Look how many people in the country hated Thatcher, yet she won three Elections. People of a conservative persuasion prefer decisive action over niceties don't they? I know it's a stereotype but lefties are meant to be soppy, it's no place for a Tory!
O/T The coverage of the 'bedroom tax suicide' story I thought was frankly quite shabby over the weekend. Personal tragedies should not be turned into political footballs by the media particularly when they involve people taking their own life.
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
Why then, do I see high street shops still closing, and those that are opening are mainly rag and bone shops? You know like Oxfam and many other look alikes.
couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
Upminster is a relatively affluent area and here the Bang and Olufsen shop is closing with a Charity shop fav to replace it
The European Arrest Warrant actually seems like one of the few worthwhile European political arrangements. It seems like the sort of thing that should actually be expanded to all Western democratic countries, rather than opted out of.
The problem is that the EU countries have different processes.
So, for instance, there have been a couple of cases (I've only read about them in the press so don't know the detail) where people have been arrested and extradited far in advance of a trial. Then, because they have no means of supporting themselves in the country where the crime was alleged they are viewed as a flight risk and held in prison. This doesn't seem to be a particularly just approach.
Extradition treaties are generally good things, but demostrating prime facie evidence of guilt (which was the old standard applied) doesn't seem too much to ask.
Speaking of which - any more news on the Coop Bank? I can't quite grasp how a bank that only has a retail arm has got itself into such a mess and 5yrs after the crash. I'd assumed it was a boring bank if ever there was one.
Ed Milliband has got to where he is today in climbing over the corpses of those who under estimated him. Gordon Brown alone perhaps spotted it early, "he's the one to watch".
Stuns me that people are continuing with this mistake
Miliband has got where he is today by being the union's puppet.
Remember the envelope shenanigans during the leadership elections?
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
Why then, do I see high street shops still closing, and those that are opening are mainly rag and bone shops? You know like Oxfam and many other look alikes.
couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
Upminster is a relatively affluent area and here the Bang and Olufsen shop is closing with a Charity shop fav to replace it
There was something on the radio about this a few months ago: some charity shops have started selling brand-new gear (I think umbrellas were mentioned), which was severely hurting small businesses in the high street.
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
Why then, do I see high street shops still closing, and those that are opening are mainly rag and bone shops? You know like Oxfam and many other look alikes.
Because the traditional High Street is in decline regardless of our economic performance?
O/T The coverage of the 'bedroom tax suicide' story I thought was frankly quite shabby over the weekend. Personal tragedies should not be turned into political footballs by the media particularly when they involve people taking their own life.
Where someone commits suicide and mentions a specific political policy as a cause, it's reasonable to report it in political terms - this is always done for everything from fathers' rights to monks' self-immolation. That doesn't mean that anything should be done to encourage suicide, or to suggest that it's a proportionate response to the policy. But saying that making the position of people in desperate straits more desperate is undesirable, as illustrated in an extreme way by this case, seems to me to come under fair comment.
But the fact Cameron took over the leadership under false pretenses isn't the Conservative Party's fault.
Just like it wasn't their fault that they supported the Iraq War, or Labour spending until 2008?
They're a naive/short-memoried/self-exonerating (delete to taste) lot, ain't they?
Oh we’re not here again are we?
Iraq war (and btw did anyone hear that feisty R4 “Reunion” on the matter?): TB told the house that there was a credible threat of WMD to British interests. So what was HM Opposition to do? Or should it have been obvious that TB was lying?
Spending pledge: mistake - but Liam’s note after all didn’t say “As you will be aware, there is no money left” or “As discussed, there is no money left”. So perhaps the Cons thought that even Lab couldn’t be so useless?
Couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
I think charity shops are part of the problem on the High Street.
If there were more empty units, then the pressure to bring down rents and rates would be higher.
All the while they can fill them with subsidised charity shops, the fundamental problem does not get solved.
O/T The coverage of the 'bedroom tax suicide' story I thought was frankly quite shabby over the weekend. Personal tragedies should not be turned into political footballs by the media particularly when they involve people taking their own life.
Where someone commits suicide and mentions a specific political policy as a cause, it's reasonable to report it in political terms - this is always done for everything from fathers' rights to monks' self-immolation. That doesn't mean that anything should be done to encourage suicide, or to suggest that it's a proportionate response to the policy. But saying that making the position of people in desperate straits more desperate is undesirable, as illustrated in an extreme way by this case, seems to me to come under fair comment.
Apologies in advance if this is in bad taste, but don't you think this woman had issues in her life other than the £20 a week that caused her to make somebody accidentally kill her? She may have been a lifelong Tory hater who wanted to get some bad publicity for them.
I'm finding it really hard to have believe that having to pay an Extra £20 to live alone in a three bedroom council house is motivation for wanting to die.
the real victim here is the poor lorry driver whose life may well be permanently haunted by this.
Inevitably, the declarations by Michael Gove and Philip Hammond that they will vote to leave the EU unless better terms can be secured are being covered in a hackneyed, retro-nineties, 'Tory splits' manner. In fact, neither man has said anything out of the ordinary.
I mean, imagine that they had said the opposite. Suppose that, in response to the interviewers' questions, they had replied, 'There are no circumstances in which we should leave the EU, even if continued membership were manifestly against our national interest'. That really would be an extraordinary statement. Yet so divorced are our pundits from the rest of us that they consider unconditional support for the EU to be unremarkable. After all, that is the stance of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband; but when did you ever an interviewer challenging them on it?
...
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband's speech over the weekend ruling out a referendum was, in tone and content, the worst I can remember by a major party leader...
The answer given was "if a referendum was held today I would..." which is an answer to a question that there's no need to answer. Your counterfactual supposition is relating to a different question, and in that case saying "I would contemplate supporting departure from the EU under certain circumstances, but there's a lot of negotiation to go before that" would be fine. Non-story, which is what you want here (unless you're on manouevres, of course).
I've not read the speech, and am not much of a fan of Ed, but did he really manage to outdo the zenith of awfulness when the self-professed quiet man promised to turn up the volume? I'm sure others will have their memories of "worst leader's speech EVAH" but I find it hard to imagine Ed's effort going down in that particular canon, if only cos nobody's very interested.
I've long posted on here that Ministers should be experienced in the fields in which they hold a portfolio, such as Steve Webb and Pensions.
I've posted on another forum that David Cameron should ennoble Chris Huhne and make him Prisons Ministers.
Good idea?
I don't think Chris Huhne's 2 month sentence gives him nearly enough experience for such a post. I suggest he spends the next 5 years incarcerated in various parts of the prison estate and we could then reconsider.
Couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
I think charity shops are part of the problem on the High Street.
If there were more empty units, then the pressure to bring down rents and rates would be higher.
All the while they can fill them with subsidised charity shops, the fundamental problem does not get solved.
They need to be filled with customers, products customers want to buy and good staff.
They need to be able to compete with super markets, super stores and the internet, as well as creating their own niche markets. They need to be accessible without parking queues or prohibitive costs. They need to make it easy for you to get your purchases home.
They need to be clean, safe and enjoyable environments without excess noise in the public areas between shops. They need to be family and child friendly.
Apart from that, they are in the best possible health.
Edit: I forgot to say they need to open when customers want to go into the shops.
O/T The coverage of the 'bedroom tax suicide' story I thought was frankly quite shabby over the weekend. Personal tragedies should not be turned into political footballs by the media particularly when they involve people taking their own life.
Where someone commits suicide and mentions a specific political policy as a cause, it's reasonable to report it in political terms - this is always done for everything from fathers' rights to monks' self-immolation. That doesn't mean that anything should be done to encourage suicide, or to suggest that it's a proportionate response to the policy. But saying that making the position of people in desperate straits more desperate is undesirable, as illustrated in an extreme way by this case, seems to me to come under fair comment.
Apologies in advance if this is in bad taste, but don't you think this woman had issues in her life other than the £20 a week that caused her to make somebody accidentally kill her? She may have been a lifelong Tory hater who wanted to get some bad publicity for them.
I'm finding it really hard to have believe that having to pay an Extra £20 to live alone in a three bedroom council house is motivation for wanting to die.
the real victim here is the poor lorry driver whose life may well be permanently haunted by this.
Couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
I think charity shops are part of the problem on the High Street.
If there were more empty units, then the pressure to bring down rents and rates would be higher.
All the while they can fill them with subsidised charity shops, the fundamental problem does not get solved.
For decades our High Streets were cash cows for the local authority to milk for their favourite projects and business rates are still a major factor in the lack of competitiveness between the High Street and online retailers. Somewhat ironically, however, there is evidence that since 2008 high rates have driven down rents. Property owners are very anxious about becoming liable for empty properties and will give incentives of rent frees and lower rents to avoid it.
There is a bit of Canute about this but I still think politicians should be doing what they can for the High Street from reducing rates to making planning categories more flexible. Many, many of our children leave 13 years or more of education incapable of complex work and retail is a major employer of the low skilled. Unfortunately there is no money left.
Iraq war (and btw did anyone hear that feisty R4 “Reunion” on the matter?): TB told the house that there was a credible threat of WMD to British interests. So what was HM Opposition to do? Or should it have been obvious that TB was lying?
The most interesting thing (which I missed at the time) was that those Tories who had been Foreign Office ministers - Howell, Hurd, Hogg, etc - all opposed the war on the basis the evidence was shaky.
@TheScreamingEagles Steve Webb today celebrates his third anniversary as Pensions Minister. I have not researched the point, but this is probably a record for this position.
Couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
I think charity shops are part of the problem on the High Street.
If there were more empty units, then the pressure to bring down rents and rates would be higher.
All the while they can fill them with subsidised charity shops, the fundamental problem does not get solved.
They need to be filled with customers, products customers want to buy and good staff.
They need to be able to compete with super markets, super stores and the internet, as well as creating their own niche markets. They need to be accessible without parking queues or prohibitive costs. They need to make it easy for you to get your purchases home.
They need to be clean, safe and enjoyable environments without excess noise in the public areas between shops. They need to be family and child friendly.
Apart from that, they are in the best possible health.
The only businesses that can really survive are those that offer something that can't be done on the Internet such as hairdressers, tanning shops, cafes etc
police stations seem to have been replaced by high st shop versions, maybe doctors surgeries can move into vacant shops.
one plus of the Internet shopping age could be that buildings such as old police stations, pubs, doctors surgeries can be used for housing without having to spoil the look of the area maybe?
Indeed, Mr. L. The High Street cannot compete with the internet for convenience or cost, possibly excepting (for the former) those people who live very nearby.
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
O/T The coverage of the 'bedroom tax suicide' story I thought was frankly quite shabby over the weekend. Personal tragedies should not be turned into political footballs by the media particularly when they involve people taking their own life.
Where someone commits suicide and mentions a specific political policy as a cause, it's reasonable to report it in political terms - this is always done for everything from fathers' rights to monks' self-immolation. That doesn't mean that anything should be done to encourage suicide, or to suggest that it's a proportionate response to the policy. But saying that making the position of people in desperate straits more desperate is undesirable, as illustrated in an extreme way by this case, seems to me to come under fair comment.
I have to be careful about what I say here, but there's also the question about whether her views about her own situation were correct.
As I have recently (re)discovered, people with a severe enough depression to take their own lives do not always think logically, and certainly find it hard to look dispassionately at their own circumstances.
The positives about life can get forgotten, and the negatives can weigh them down. It's tragic to watch, if you are unfortunate enough to see a prolonged descent.
We have to tread very carefully on this one.
(As an aside, Mrs J suddenly burst out crying whilst we were in Cambridge on Saturday morning. I asked her why, and she said she'd seen a picnic basket that made her think of our friend (we used to go picnicking). Before I knew it, I was blubbering as well. It's been nearly two months, and it still hurts. The thing is, he'd be devastated to know that he'd had that effect on us, even though I told him many times that it would).
Indeed, Mr. L. The High Street cannot compete with the internet for convenience or cost, possibly excepting (for the former) those people who live very nearby.
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
Real life? You mean out there? Away from a screen? Gosh.
Blaming a suicide on government policy is wrong. It takes a lot more than that for someone to kill themselves, however damaging to their personal circumstances such a policy might be. That said, blaming the welfare system for the killings of six children is equally wrong. Politicians should not involve themselves in personal tragedies in order to score political points.
@TheScreamingEagles Steve Webb today celebrates his third anniversary as Pensions Minister. I have not researched the point, but this is probably a record for this position.
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
1997 ; " However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. "
The year that exploded the " it's the economy , stupid " cliche. I often wonder what Britain would be like today if New Labour hadn't been given the opportunity to squander Thatcher's and Major's " golden legacy ".
For whatever reason Labour always seems to be given alot more slack than the Conservatives when it comes to economic matters. Only a 'winter of discontent' or a 2008 style bust sees Labour voted out of office.
This was probably more to do with the argument " there isn't an economic crisis any more, so let's listen to the people who want to spend all the money" than coming out of the ERM. Let's spend and make the schools and hospitals look nice.
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
I'm assuming this is all pre-approved posturing - Hammond and Gove aren't exactly known for their rebellious streaks. And even Boris is pouring tepid water on those who think Europe is everything [I know he's never been a sceptic but some have decided he is].
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
But Cameron was completely wrong to annonce a referendum two years before the general election. He allowed himself to be bounced into it and is paying the price. For the Tories to allow themselves to be so dominated by suc a peripheral issue when compared to the really big things that need to be tackled (see Boris in today's Telegraph) is a failure of leadership. He should not even have to be answering questions about hypotheticals right now.
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
EDIT: Oh yes - he mentioned a third route: getting a second job. It's hard work for three (?) months, but its enough for the UKBA will take it as your permanent income. You can then resign and drop back way under the income threshold after you've got the visa.
Personally I think there should be a distinction between those who take their own life through pills, car exhaust fume, bullet or whatever and those who cause others to unwittingly do it for them by throwing themselves in front of a car or train.
Shouldn't both be called suicide and the latter śhould be shamed out of existence
If someone wants to end their life why cause innocent strangers to bear a burden?
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
Another option would be to give up all this stupid bollocks, which is obviously just going to be gamed into oblivion and serves mainly to enrich the people who help game it, while weeding out any honest people who might have been thinking of immigrating.
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
Salary and job offer should be assessed together so that there is a level of flexibility. A post-grad from India with a starting researcher salary of £20,000 is more valuable to us than an American middle manager with a job offer which includes a £30,000 salary.
Indeed, Mr. L. The High Street cannot compete with the internet for convenience or cost, possibly excepting (for the former) those people who live very nearby.
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
I'd certainly use Waterstones more than Amazon if they only employed slim 18-25 year olds in swimsuits. So, good point.
Personally I think there should be a distinction between those who take their own life through pills, car exhaust fume, bullet or whatever and those who cause others to unwittingly do it for them by throwing themselves in front of a car or train.
Shouldn't both be called suicide and the latter śhould be shamed out of existence
If someone wants to end their life why cause innocent strangers to bear a burden?
To be fair I am not sure that someone who is at the point of committing suicide is really going to be thinking too deeply about the effect the method has on other people. The idea that people on the verge of taking their life are really going to be responsive to being 'shamed' by the way they do it seems rather hard hearted to me.
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
Salary and job offer should be assessed together so that there is a level of flexibility. A post-grad from India with a starting researcher salary of £20,000 is more valuable to us than an American middle manager with a job offer which includes a £30,000 salary.
This is about a sponsor bringing over a spouse rather than high skilled visa. If the spouse is high skilled, they can apply under that route instead.
If someone wants to end their life why cause innocent strangers to bear a burden?
Fair enough, but the only way to do that is to make the self only suicide pathway a little easier.
Our trains are sometimes badly delayed because of suicide. I once overheard a passenger say its more difficult to take your life with pills than before because they now contain agents that make you vomit before they kill you. I'm not sure if this is true, though.
You could make the same argument about trying to clamp down on tax fraud. It's rather facile. The reality is that the vast majority of the British public has been concerned about low skilled immigration, and family migration is the main route through which that happens.
Indeed, Mr. L. The High Street cannot compete with the internet for convenience or cost, possibly excepting (for the former) those people who live very nearby.
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
I'd certainly use Waterstones more than Amazon if they only employed slim 18-25 year olds in swimsuits. So, good point.
Given the rate of obesity among the young these days, I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
Another option would be to give up all this stupid bollocks, which is obviously just going to be gamed into oblivion and serves mainly to enrich the people who help game it, while weeding out any honest people who might have been thinking of immigrating.
There is a big issue with arranged marriages and the relocation of a lot of people from the Indian sub-continent (and possibly elsewhwre) to the UK who lack English language skills and, therefore, any ability to make a meaningful contribution to wider society here. It's not as if it is love that is bringing them over. Personally, I have real sympathy with those who oppose immigration on that basis and it is something that Labour got very wrong when it was in power.
Mr. Taffys, I'd not heard that, but apparently pills now come less often in bottles than in tabs. That's because, so I'd heard, it's easy to pour out enough to OD from a bottle, but breaking enough pills out from the tabs gives someone potentially suicidal more time to think and reconsider.
Indeed, Mr. L. The High Street cannot compete with the internet for convenience or cost, possibly excepting (for the former) those people who live very nearby.
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
I'd certainly use Waterstones more than Amazon if they only employed slim 18-25 year olds in swimsuits. So, good point.
I didn't think that anyone who shopped at Abercrombie & Fitch could read! You amaze me Mr. Anorak!
Regarding the story about the immigration financial requirement posted earlier, I found out something from an Asian friend the other day on the new immigration restrictions. Apparently the financial requirement of earning £18600 a year is having an effect. However, apparently a common way of getting round it is to take advantage of having savings instead.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
Another option would be to give up all this stupid bollocks, which is obviously just going to be gamed into oblivion and serves mainly to enrich the people who help game it, while weeding out any honest people who might have been thinking of immigrating.
There is a big issue with arranged marriages and the relocation of a lot of people from the Indian sub-continent (and possibly elsewhwre) to the UK who lack English language skills and, therefore, any ability to make a meaningful contribution to wider society here. It's not as if it is love that is bringing them over. Personally, I have real sympathy with those who oppose immigration on that basis and it is something that Labour got very wrong when it was in power.
Even with the new restrictions, you can still do this by flying off to the subcontinent, meeting your spouse for the first time, getting married a week later, and then coming back and immediately applying.
This seems absolutely barmy to me. We should require any marriage to be based on at least a one year existing relationship, or perhaps two, like unmarried partners.
To be fair I am not sure that someone who is at the point of committing suicide is really going to be thinking too deeply about the effect the method has on other people. The idea that people on the verge of taking their life are really going to be responsive to being 'shamed' by the way they do it seems rather hard hearted to me.
Suicide is one of the most selfish acts possible, in so many ways.
Without clicking on the link I am willing to bet that the Daily Mail has illustrated its story with an appropriate picture of the staff from said chain of shops.
If shopping in Abercrombie & Fitch was used as a punishment it would contravene the Geneva convention.
To be fair I am not sure that someone who is at the point of committing suicide is really going to be thinking too deeply about the effect the method has on other people. The idea that people on the verge of taking their life are really going to be responsive to being 'shamed' by the way they do it seems rather hard hearted to me.
Suicide is one of the most selfish acts possible, in so many ways.
In most cases it is the act of someone who has lost the capacity to think rationally; in other words, someone who is very ill.
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
But Cameron was completely wrong to annonce a referendum two years before the general election. He allowed himself to be bounced into it and is paying the price. For the Tories to allow themselves to be so dominated by suc a peripheral issue when compared to the really big things that need to be tackled (see Boris in today's Telegraph) is a failure of leadership. He should not even have to be answering questions about hypotheticals right now.
Cameron was explicit and clear when elected that one of his priorities was to get the tory party to stop talking obsessively about the EU. It didn't work. Instead we had fantastical mutterings about how he had failed to give a referendum on a treaty that was already in force.
He then veto'ed a budget agreement because it was not in our interests. First time since Thatcher. Got him about 10 minutes peace.
He then achieved the first cut in real terms in the EU budget ever. It was criticised for not going far enough. Not even 10 minutes.
He had a plan that if he promised a referendum in the next Parliament he would be able to get on with governing in this one. Didn't work either, as you point out.
The sad truth is that there is a substantial minority of the tory party who are obsessed with the EU and concepts of sovereignty. I sometimes think that they find all the real issues just too difficult or too complex or they simply don't like how the world has changed. Managing these sad individuals undoubtedly makes being a tory leader more complex in a very similar way to the way that Militant used to do for Labour.
If someone wants to end their life why cause innocent strangers to bear a burden?
Fair enough, but the only way to do that is to make the self only suicide pathway a little easier.
Our trains are sometimes badly delayed because of suicide. I once overheard a passenger say its more difficult to take your life with pills than before because they now contain agents that make you vomit before they kill you. I'm not sure if this is true, though.
I believe that's certainly the case for some medication. However ISTR that antiemetics (sp?) are taken by some suicides to prevent being sick. (Note, IANAE)
Some people may be interested in the following link, which details stories about paracetamol and suicide. It is not as painless or quick as you may think, or as pleasant for loved ones:
@samonipad Quite a few people now throw themselves in front of trains because committing suicide in other ways is getting rather hard.
Indeed. If I recall, this is is part of the deeper analysis of why farmers, the medical profession etc have higher suicide rates. It's not so much due to the headline explanation that the jobs are supposedly more stressful, it's that they've got ready access to shotguns, lethal drugs etc.
A shame that the poisonous chancellor didnt adopt the same position when excitably jumping all over the Philpott children's corpses.
When did he do that, tim? I must have missed it - the only comment I can recall was this very measured answer to a question he was asked about the case:
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
The only people getting excited about using the issue for political purposes seem to be Labour.
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
But Cameron was completely wrong to annonce a referendum two years before the general election. He allowed himself to be bounced into it and is paying the price. For the Tories to allow themselves to be so dominated by suc a peripheral issue when compared to the really big things that need to be tackled (see Boris in today's Telegraph) is a failure of leadership. He should not even have to be answering questions about hypotheticals right now.
Cameron was explicit and clear when elected that one of his priorities was to get the tory party to stop talking obsessively about the EU. It didn't work. Instead we had fantastical mutterings about how he had failed to give a referendum on a treaty that was already in force.
He then veto'ed a budget agreement because it was not in our interests. First time since Thatcher. Got him about 10 minutes peace.
He then achieved the first cut in real terms in the EU budget ever. It was criticised for not going far enough. Not even 10 minutes.
He had a plan that if he promised a referendum in the next Parliament he would be able to get on with governing in this one. Didn't work either, as you point out.
The sad truth is that there is a substantial minority of the tory party who are obsessed with the EU and concepts of sovereignty. I sometimes think that they find all the real issues just too difficult or too complex or they simply don't like the world has changed. Managing these sad individuals undoubtedly makes being a tory leader more complex in a very similar way to the way that Militant used to do for Labour.
As Tim observed below, their behaviour is Bennite - destructive, self-indulgent and not focused on reality. At best, the UK is not going to leave the EU before the start of the next decade. That's seven years. They really need to give a lot more thought to that: how we are going to revive the economy and tackle the endemic long-term problems that plague this country which Boris so accurately identifies. If they believe that leaving the EU will suddenly make British management better or help to make the workforce more productive then they are living in cloud cukoo land. Having free trade agreements with whoever is great in theory, but it does rather imply that people will want to buy stuff from us.
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
Cameron is only in this position due to his own weakness. Any fool could tell you that caving in to the nutters on his own side will never work, they can never be satisfied. Pre-announcing a referendum four and a half years away was never going to hold the line, despite the view of people on here at the time.
And the Tories own criticisms of the SNP referendum delay should've given them a clue to why the policy was a mistake.
It is not his weakness, it is his party's weakness and it may well prove fatal. The comments under the Telegraph article I linked to are instructive and destructive. Like Richard I honestly believed we were past this nonsense. Apparently not.
They'll use individual cases when it suits them. Remember Cameron and Shannon Matthews, a disgusting little turn by the PM which he had to apologise for. Many other examples too, usually involving children as "As a father" Dave pushed his Broken Britain meme.
Do you remember Tony Blair saying that the James Bulger case was an "ugly manifestation of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name?”
Comments
It does seem that the Conservative Party is suffering a relapse into Let's Lose Elections Syndrome. I thought it had finally been cured of the syndrome, after a long and debilitating bout of the illness, in October 2005, which is why I then joined the party. But it looks as though the disease was not fully eliminated from the body politic.
Doctors are now considering a treatment comprising a dual dose of Miliband and Balls. This is an experimental treatment which will have very severe side-effects.
Have you worked out what a 'work permit' is yet?
a Referendum triggered under the European Act 2011 (which is on the transfer of powers, not in / out) and the Euro elections on the same day?
I am afraid that you on the other hand are always going to come up against the basic problem that you simply don't know what you are talking about and rely upon your bigoted interpretation of what you read on the internet to get your world view.
We have already seen you are incapable of following through a logical argument with regard to the whole EU/EEA/EFTA discussion. I would suggest you go back and actually learn something about the subject before you try and enter this discussion again.
On any vote in the commons it will pass, as there are enough Tory, Labour and LibDem supporters to out vote any other combination.
A waste of breath in short.
Britain's economy: the gloom starts to lift
"Sometimes sudden shifts in poll numbers matter less than the slow steady movements. Dramatic mood swings are liable to be reversed; gradual change is often sustained.
This blog discusses a creeping change in attitudes that is invisible from week to week, and barely noticeable from month to month, but which could have huge ramifications for Britain’s politics in the years ahead. Slowly but inexorably, our gloom about our living standards has been lifting. It’s not that confidence has come roaring back. Pessimists still outnumber optimists. However, increasingly, we feel that the worst is behind us.
This is the consistent picture from three different sets of YouGov data: our measure of the “feelgood factor”, which we test each week for the Sunday Times; our monthly Prosperity Index; and our monthly Household Economic Activity Tracker (HEAT). (Full details of our HEAT and Prosperity Index data are available on subscription.)........"
He concludes, "All this should cheer the Conservatives. Should recent trends continue, and if Britain’s economy resumes steady growth, then this should help the party to persuade voters that their medicine is working. However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. These counted for naught against the bitter memory of Black Wednesday five years earlier, when Britain was forced out of Europe’s currency club.
This suggests that to harvest the electoral rewards of a recovering economy, the Tories need to do something else. They must continue to persuade voters that our economic troubles were Labour’s fault in the first place, and fend of charges that the flat-ling of the past three years is George Osborne’s fault. Whatever happens to the economy in the run-up to the next general election, the contest to secure credit and deflect blame is far from over."
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/13/britains-economy-gloom-starts-lift/
He adds that “in retrospect the Labour government should have used the opportunity of a strongly growing economy to reduce the deficit”.
Oh and he says Ed is crap average
Of Ed Miliband, Lord Sainsbury says: “In terms of political skills, I think he’s average. Average in the sense that I think Nick Clegg and David Cameron are pretty average.”
None of the three leaders was in the “top bracket”, and did not compare with Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, he said.
Stuns me that people are continuing with this mistake
Inevitably, the declarations by Michael Gove and Philip Hammond that they will vote to leave the EU unless better terms can be secured are being covered in a hackneyed, retro-nineties, 'Tory splits' manner. In fact, neither man has said anything out of the ordinary.
I mean, imagine that they had said the opposite. Suppose that, in response to the interviewers' questions, they had replied, 'There are no circumstances in which we should leave the EU, even if continued membership were manifestly against our national interest'. That really would be an extraordinary statement. Yet so divorced are our pundits from the rest of us that they consider unconditional support for the EU to be unremarkable. After all, that is the stance of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband; but when did you ever an interviewer challenging them on it?
For what it's worth, I struggle to get excited about the pro-referendum amendment to the Queen's Speech – a vote which will have no legislative consequences. (Though it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at this article by Vince Cable, which begins 'Tomorrow the Liberal Democrats will table an amendment to the Government’s parliamentary motion proposing the Queen’s Speech. Our amendment calls for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union…')
No, the vote that really counts will be the one on the Bill that actually proposes a referendum, which will surely be introduced one way or another before the general election. My guess is that Conservatives will vote en bloc for what is, after all, their official policy. We may be surprised by how many individual Labour and Lib Dem MPs will join them in the lobbies: they have constituents too.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband's speech over the weekend ruling out a referendum was, in tone and content, the worst I can remember by a major party leader. Have a look: it reads like a Craig Brown parody. And when you've finished snorting incredulously, look at where public opinion is on this issue: 82 per cent of people favour an In/Out referendum, and the Outs lead the Ins by 43 per cent to 35. If we absolutely must reduce this story to party politics, I'd say Miliband has the bigger problem, wouldn't you?
But the fact Cameron took over the leadership under false pretenses isn't the Conservative Party's fault.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4925096/More-than-20000-non-Europeans-are-flocking-to-Britain-every-year-without-need-for-a-job-says-new-report.html
Former prime minister Gordon Brown will speak today at the launch of a distinct Labour campaign to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.
The Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath MP will be in Glasgow to help unveil the United with Labour drive, which distances the party from Tory and Liberal Democrat colleagues in the pro-Union Better Together movement.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-13/gordon-brown-to-speak-at-pro-union-scotland-event/
1997 ; " However, they should remember 1997. The Tories were thrashed, despite having presided over four years of vigorous growth, declining unemployment, rising living standards, low inflation and cheap mortgages. "
The year that exploded the " it's the economy , stupid " cliche. I often wonder what Britain would be like today if New Labour hadn't been given the opportunity to squander Thatcher's and Major's " golden legacy ".
Chris Huhne is now back in prison again just hours after his early release.
For trying to make Vicky Pryce wear his tag for him.
The injury time fun yesterday, as someone once said, Football, Bloody hell.
Look how many people in the country hated Thatcher, yet she won three Elections. People of a conservative persuasion prefer decisive action over niceties don't they? I know it's a stereotype but lefties are meant to be soppy, it's no place for a Tory!
The interview I heard had Rifkind hitting out at the people who tabled the amendment to the Queen's Speech, not Gove.
Still your version serves your needs better, even if it is not the truth. So I guess that's ok by your standards.
They're a naive/short-memoried/self-exonerating (delete to taste) lot, ain't they?
couldn't the low rates offered to charity shops be extended to new small business ventures?
Upminster is a relatively affluent area and here the Bang and Olufsen shop is closing with a Charity shop fav to replace it
So, for instance, there have been a couple of cases (I've only read about them in the press so don't know the detail) where people have been arrested and extradited far in advance of a trial. Then, because they have no means of supporting themselves in the country where the crime was alleged they are viewed as a flight risk and held in prison. This doesn't seem to be a particularly just approach.
Extradition treaties are generally good things, but demostrating prime facie evidence of guilt (which was the old standard applied) doesn't seem too much to ask.
Remember the envelope shenanigans during the leadership elections?
We should start asking if it is right for charity shops to get the benefits they do, especially when many are multi-million pound businesses. Or if they do get them, whether other small businesses get them as well.
A quick Google throws up this article:
http://www.fpb.org/news/1124/_Charity_shops_gaining_unfair_advantage_over_small_businesses_.htm
Iraq war (and btw did anyone hear that feisty R4 “Reunion” on the matter?): TB told the house that there was a credible threat of WMD to British interests. So what was HM Opposition to do? Or should it have been obvious that TB was lying?
Spending pledge: mistake - but Liam’s note after all didn’t say “As you will be aware, there is no money left” or “As discussed, there is no money left”. So perhaps the Cons thought that even Lab couldn’t be so useless?
If there were more empty units, then the pressure to bring down rents and rates would be higher.
All the while they can fill them with subsidised charity shops, the fundamental problem does not get solved.
I've posted on another forum that David Cameron should ennoble Chris Huhne and make him Prisons Ministers.
Good idea?
I'm finding it really hard to have believe that having to pay an Extra £20 to live alone in a three bedroom council house is motivation for wanting to die.
the real victim here is the poor lorry driver whose life may well be permanently haunted by this.
I've not read the speech, and am not much of a fan of Ed, but did he really manage to outdo the zenith of awfulness when the self-professed quiet man promised to turn up the volume? I'm sure others will have their memories of "worst leader's speech EVAH" but I find it hard to imagine Ed's effort going down in that particular canon, if only cos nobody's very interested.
They need to be able to compete with super markets, super stores and the internet, as well as creating their own niche markets. They need to be accessible without parking queues or prohibitive costs. They need to make it easy for you to get your purchases home.
They need to be clean, safe and enjoyable environments without excess noise in the public areas between shops. They need to be family and child friendly.
Apart from that, they are in the best possible health.
Edit: I forgot to say they need to open when customers want to go into the shops.
It's not a tax
It wasn't suicide
You're joking, right?
There is a bit of Canute about this but I still think politicians should be doing what they can for the High Street from reducing rates to making planning categories more flexible. Many, many of our children leave 13 years or more of education incapable of complex work and retail is a major employer of the low skilled. Unfortunately there is no money left.
The only businesses that can really survive are those that offer something that can't be done on the Internet such as hairdressers, tanning shops, cafes etc
police stations seem to have been replaced by high st shop versions, maybe doctors surgeries can move into vacant shops.
one plus of the Internet shopping age could be that buildings such as old police stations, pubs, doctors surgeries can be used for housing without having to spoil the look of the area maybe?
So, they've got to offer things that the internet can't. A pleasant, real life experience. Maybe more diversions to go along with shopping (bowling, small cinemas and the like). That way, experiences that can only really be had in person can be combined with shopping.
As I have recently (re)discovered, people with a severe enough depression to take their own lives do not always think logically, and certainly find it hard to look dispassionately at their own circumstances.
The positives about life can get forgotten, and the negatives can weigh them down. It's tragic to watch, if you are unfortunate enough to see a prolonged descent.
We have to tread very carefully on this one.
(As an aside, Mrs J suddenly burst out crying whilst we were in Cambridge on Saturday morning. I asked her why, and she said she'd seen a picnic basket that made her think of our friend (we used to go picnicking). Before I knew it, I was blubbering as well. It's been nearly two months, and it still hurts. The thing is, he'd be devastated to know that he'd had that effect on us, even though I told him many times that it would).
But neither do I want to cast us back to the days of pbc's unending Iraq debates so I'll leave it there.
Hitchens on the EU referendum
Those on here that criticise him fail to acknowledge that as a politician he is so far ahead of his rivals in his own party that for all practical purposes he doesn't have any. The tory party is capable of doing stupid and self-destructive things but undermining Cameron is suicidal. It really should be left to the Tim's of this world.
Apparently, it's becoming a thing for the extended family in the subcontinent to make sure their combined "wedding gifts" total the amount required to the couple. They can then keep it in their bank account for just six months before applying. Once the visa is granted, the UKBA won't ever track the gift money again, so it can be returned to the contributors. Can anyone advise me if this would work? If true, it seems like it would be a good idea to require the savings to equal, say, eight years of the earning requirement rather than just four.
Another option is, as the salary requirement is still pretty low, for the sponsoring member of the couple to just be given a job in one of the extended family's shop with a bit of a bump to salary for six months. Doesn't seem like much can be done about this, other than just raising the earning threshold to a more sensible amount - perhaps the £26000 that was initially proposed.
EDIT: Oh yes - he mentioned a third route: getting a second job. It's hard work for three (?) months, but its enough for the UKBA will take it as your permanent income. You can then resign and drop back way under the income threshold after you've got the visa.
Shouldn't both be called suicide and the latter śhould be shamed out of existence
If someone wants to end their life why cause innocent strangers to bear a burden?
Fair enough, but the only way to do that is to make the self only suicide pathway a little easier.
Our trains are sometimes badly delayed because of suicide. I once overheard a passenger say its more difficult to take your life with pills than before because they now contain agents that make you vomit before they kill you. I'm not sure if this is true, though.
You could make the same argument about trying to clamp down on tax fraud. It's rather facile. The reality is that the vast majority of the British public has been concerned about low skilled immigration, and family migration is the main route through which that happens.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2320868/Thin-beautiful-customers-ONLY-How-Abercrombie--Fitch-doesnt-want-larger-people-shopping-stores.html
This seems absolutely barmy to me. We should require any marriage to be based on at least a one year existing relationship, or perhaps two, like unmarried partners.
Without clicking on the link I am willing to bet that the Daily Mail has illustrated its story with an appropriate picture of the staff from said chain of shops.
If shopping in Abercrombie & Fitch was used as a punishment it would contravene the Geneva convention.
He then veto'ed a budget agreement because it was not in our interests. First time since Thatcher. Got him about 10 minutes peace.
He then achieved the first cut in real terms in the EU budget ever. It was criticised for not going far enough. Not even 10 minutes.
He had a plan that if he promised a referendum in the next Parliament he would be able to get on with governing in this one. Didn't work either, as you point out.
The sad truth is that there is a substantial minority of the tory party who are obsessed with the EU and concepts of sovereignty. I sometimes think that they find all the real issues just too difficult or too complex or they simply don't like how the world has changed. Managing these sad individuals undoubtedly makes being a tory leader more complex in a very similar way to the way that Militant used to do for Labour.
Some people may be interested in the following link, which details stories about paracetamol and suicide. It is not as painless or quick as you may think, or as pleasant for loved ones:
http://bipolarlainey.blog.co.uk/2012/10/27/the-truth-about-paracetamol-overdose-15132866/
Absolutely tragic. But it still better than scarring a train driver's life by jumping in front of a train.
"Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
The only people getting excited about using the issue for political purposes seem to be Labour.
Bad grammar. Video's, indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22403731
http://www.colindsmith.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/letseatgrandma1.png
Goodness me that link is a hard read Mr Jessop. Very affecting....
Capitalisation is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your Uncle jack off a horse
Although I wouldn't've made your mistake with the latter part of the sentence
Mainly because he went back on his veto in practice
"He then achieved the first cut in real terms in the EU budget ever. It was criticised for not going far enough. Not even 10 minutes."
It's not a cut if the overspend this year goes through anyway.