ToryJim The Queen is committed to the institution of monarchy above all else, were Charles to be far more popular than her and she unpopular then she would consider stepping down. The fact she has done such a good job means she remains popular and will stay on
Well we can all hide behind vague words that mean different things to different people or passive aggressive cowardice.
I am not patriotic in the sense of thinking England is better than anyone else just because its England, in any shape or form. But that doesnt mean that its people shouldnt expect their government to put their opinions and rights first. Thats what the government is elected to do.
People have every right to expect that. And such expectations are not nationalist.
For 50 years people have wanted a curb on immigration. Almost every opinion poll shows this. Yet anyone that suggests doing something about it is smeared with words like "Nationalist"
No, they're not.
Go on then give an example of someone who wanted a tangible curb on immigration who wasnt attacked as racist/natioonalist/xenophobic
Last figures I looked at showed that net, legal, immigration was running at a bout 200,000 people a year. Or to put it another way that is the same as importing a roughly medium sized city every year. Of course, the hard infrastructure to cope with such an increase is not being built, not in roads, railways, schools hospitals, doctors surgeries, whatever. Nor is the soft infrastructure; how many more teachers are being trained, how many more doctors, how many more medical training places have been created to generate all those extra consultants, how many more paramedic ambulances are there on the road these days?
Now, in the distant past anyone questioning such a process would have been regarded as speaking common sense. In the recent past anyone asking the same questions would be held up to be a racist, and more recently a xenophobe. Nowadays, whilst the use of the racist label is still tolerated by them, the progressives use the term "Nationalist" . It is all part of the same deal, those that have are screwing those that haven't and doing their best to keep the have nots in dependency and anyone who questions this is evil.
ToryJim The Queen is committed to the institution of monarchy above all else, were Charles to be far more popular than her and she unpopular then she would consider stepping down. The fact she has done such a good job means she remains popular and will stay on
I think the concept of abdication is a filthy word given the fact it is possibly seen by her as contributing to her fathers early death.
ToryJim The Queen is committed to the institution of monarchy above all else, were Charles to be far more popular than her and she unpopular then she would consider stepping down. The fact she has done such a good job means she remains popular and will stay on
I think the concept of abdication is a filthy word given the fact it is possibly seen by her as contributing to her fathers early death.
I think I've read some reputable source opining that before. I think her mother took the same view, but was tougher about it!
ToryJim There is a slight difference between abdicating because you want to marry a divorcee, forcing the throne on your younger brother who never wanted it and abdicating after 60 years on the throne in favour of your son. However, as the Queen remains the best asset for the crown she will stay on the throne for life and her son will then have a short reign followed by her grandson
Perhaps because you stand for centrist, social democratic policies in the good old British consensus tradition? The SNP are the last bastions of that Britishness. A curious paradox, but not its fault - though its opponents do not like being reminded of both facts.
Manifestly anachronistic. It is absurd to define "Britishness" by reference to a peculiar brand of statism that prevailed in the middle decades of the twentieth-century, which is otherwise alien to the whole course and tradition of British history.
ToryJim There is a slight difference between abdicating because you want to marry a divorcee, forcing the throne on your younger brother who never wanted it and abdicating after 60 years on the throne in favour of your son. However, as the Queen remains the best asset for the crown she will stay on the throne for life and her son will then have a short reign followed by her grandson
Pulpstar Indeed
"... the Queen remains the best asset for the crown she will stay on the throne for life and her son will then have a short reign followed by her grandson ..."
Victoria, Edward VII, George V. How history repeats itself. I have long thought Georve V got dealt the shitty hand. Without WWI getting the way, I think he would have proved a brilliant monarch who would have done much to close the gaps in society that still continue to bedevil us.
Mauresmo, who coached Michael Llodra, her French compatriot, for a brief period three years ago, is one of the most engaging, sensitive and creative players ever to have graced the women’s tour. She was in Marion Bartoli’s corner when the French woman won Wimbledon a year ago.
"The grievance of having their cherished dream stolen from them by the English will keep them warm for decades to come."
Don't see why not, it has since 1745. Why should it be any different in the future. Some years ago, on this very site, Easterross suggested that Scottish independence would come about not when the Scots voted for it but when the English lost patience and told them to piss off.
How many of them will actually commit suicide if and when they lose in September? Their anguish will be intolerable.
None of them.
The grievance of having their cherished dream stolen from them by the English will keep them warm for decades to come.
Stories to tell their grand-kids of the good fight they fought, over their keyboards, in Sweden and Somerset.
Dunno. It depends how much they really thought/think they are going to win. During the recent tightening (when YES definitely gained) you sensed - for the first time - genuine conviction, in the YES camp, that they had the big momentum, and it was Really Going to Happen.
If someone denies your very faint hope of achieving a cherished dream, the grief is nasty but bearable. You always expected to lose. So it goes.
If someone denies your real burning expectation that your lifetime's impossible ambition is miraculously and actually going to happen, the pain is far far worse.
That's the sort of pain that could unbalance a person, especially if they are intrinsically a bit mad, smelly and obsessive, like most Scot Nats.
I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.
In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.
May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.
That guy clearly doesn't understand how Kinging works. This whole abdication malarkey is just another sign that the world is going to hell in a handcart #getoffmylawn
How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???
Amusingly. Can't wait for the squealing to begin. Be interesting to see how they where robbed, because in their minds they will have been, there's no way that they could lose otherwise
I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.
In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.
May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.
But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.
That article doesn't finger anyone, is denied vigorously and that kind of operational decision would never ever cross the Home Secretary's desk it would be taken at either Divisional or Assistant Commissioner level and they denied it.
Maajid Nawaz was on the Sunday Politics saying the tactics of the Muslims in Birmingham schools at the centre of the Gove vs May row are well known to him from his time as an Islamic revolutionary; the Islamification of a country from the ground up a la the Egyptian Brotherhood rather than the more overt tactics of the Taliban/Jihadists
That guy clearly doesn't understand how Kinging works. This whole abdication malarkey is just another sign that the world is going to hell in a handcart #getoffmylawn
Appointments that were for life probably seemed a lot simpler in the days when far fewer people lived into their 70s and beyond, particularly with the stresses of maintaining control that monarchs used to have in far greater abundance.
I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.
In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.
May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.
But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.
This shows no evidence that May was involved in holding back police. Since her responsibilities cover the nation, your comment might lead us to assume she was responsible for getting Manchester police to be quick off the mark. It was only after Cameron's intervention that the Met got its act together.
@saddened The trouble is they got the referendum they wanted, with the electorate they wanted, at the time they wanted, with the question they wanted. If they then fail to get the outcome they wanted they can squeal as much as they like but it won't work.
For evidence of the wild, dangerous, potentially self-harming psychosis, lurking in the dark Scot Nat soul, read this brilliant screed of Natty anger - in the comments below the piece, which discusses the euro results.
Example comment:
"Absolutely raging. Stunned at the stupidity of our so called fellow Scots, including the greens who have been trying to steal votes from the SNP for weeks.
No idea what LFI were playing at, advising labour voters to vote for that filth is just as bad as ukip & i hope they didn’t use Indy raised funds to get that message out.
All yes minded people are welcome I just wish the deluded labour idiots would just wake up & realise that their poisonous, bastard filth of a party is dead, hallelujah.
Now remember: this frothing rant of desperate rage, tinged with hints of paranoid schizophrenia (the last sentence), is merely the reaction to UKIP winning one seat in a fairly meaningless election.
How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???
If it happens (and I am still too pessimistic to hope it does), I think we'll see a lot more thousand yard stares than explosions of befuddled rage, at first at least.
For evidence of the wild, dangerous, potentially self-harming psychosis, lurking in the dark Scot Nat soul, read this brilliant screed of Natty anger - in the comments below the piece, which discusses the euro results.
Example comment:
"Absolutely raging. Stunned at the stupidity of our so called fellow Scots, including the greens who have been trying to steal votes from the SNP for weeks.
No idea what LFI were playing at, advising labour voters to vote for that filth is just as bad as ukip & i hope they didn’t use Indy raised funds to get that message out.
All yes minded people are welcome I just wish the deluded labour idiots would just wake up & realise that their poisonous, bastard filth of a party is dead, hallelujah.
Now remember: this frothing rant of desperate rage, tinged with hints of paranoid schizophrenia (the last sentence), is merely the reaction to UKIP winning one seat in a fairly meaningless election.
How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???
If it happens (and I am still too pessimistic to hope it does), I think we'll see a lot more thousand yard stares than explosions of befuddled rage, at first at least.
It can be equally as bad south of the border. TSE posted a link to a Buzzfeed piece on the rise of UKIP. Some of the comments under that were amazing. Withdraw the right to vote for people that want to vote UKIP etc.
Maajid Nawaz was on the Sunday Politics saying the tactics of the Muslims in Birmingham schools at the centre of the Gove vs May row are well known to him from his time as an Islamic revolutionary; the Islamification of a country from the ground up a la the Egyptian Brotherhood rather than the more overt tactics of the Taliban/Jihadists
Great
Perfectly legal, of course, just like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Is the British Army planning a coup in Tower Hamlets, perhaps?
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
I did a test in the Telegraph website and found out that, I "side" with:
Greens 87%
SNP 84%
PC 75%
LD 74%
Lab 69%
BNP 34%
Con 31%
UKIP 20%
?????????????????????
Nationalist.
Actually, I think it probably was because I said I was unabashedly pro EU, pro Immigration, let Scotland decide for themselves, against nuclear power, cut in defence budget etc. etc.
I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.
In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.
May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.
But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.
This shows no evidence that May was involved in holding back police. Since her responsibilities cover the nation, your comment might lead us to assume she was responsible for getting Manchester police to be quick off the mark. It was only after Cameron's intervention that the Met got its act together.
Are you suggesting that with London burning an operational decision of this kind would not be in the hands of the Home Secretary? I'm afraid that beggars belief. The police elsewhere in the country acted normally. The police in London acted abnormally.
How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???
Amusingly. Can't wait for the squealing to begin. Be interesting to see how they where robbed, because in their minds they will have been, there's no way that they could lose otherwise
No need to wait. Just use SeanT's link to read the reaction to a single Ukipper getting elected in Scotland. You'll need a sense of humour by-pass to stop yourself laughing. A lot.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No, it's not the competing with someone of your own kith and kin, it's competing with the whole of Europe.Or the World, even.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No, it's not the competing with someone of your own kith and kin, it's competing with the whole of Europe.Or the World, even.
But we are competing with the whole of the world. The flipside of that, of course, is that we are able to sell to the whole world. We would not have a business if the UK was the only market we could sell into and that would mean mainly 20 English people - a number of them working class - not having well paid jobs.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.
I wish I was rich enough to be a socialist who believes in mass immigration, maybe one day
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
A saying you might appreciate, isam:
Snobbery is racism against people who look like you.
Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.
Protectionism is often sneered at with little justification. It is responsible (for example) for Germany's industrial might. German industry was heavily protected in its infancy (from British exports especially, as Britain was an industrial powerhouse.
You don't have to be rich. The idea of Socialism in it's truest sense, is that all men are brothers, So the idea is then to aid your "brother" too achieve a standard of life that means he has no need to emigrate from his home.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
In fact, when it comes to tradesmen the despised metropolitan elite are unlikely to hire anyone based on cost. They have the money to be able to afford to hire based on quality. There's a reason why you'll find a Waitrose in only certain parts of the country; or why organic fruit and veg and butchers shops proliferate in NW3, but not in N17.
It certainly does appear to be longstanding practice to pretend Britain is alone in expressing discomfort or opposition because we are generally the most vocal - and certainly the most vocal of the big EU nations. And that is with what we term Europhile governments!
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.
Protectionism is often sneered at with little justification. It is responsible (for example) for Germany's industrial might. German industry was heavily protected in its infancy (from British exports especially, as Britain was an industrial powerhouse.
We already do it by having a minimum wage. Why cant I employ someone from Asia for £1 an hour if they are willing to work for it?
We end up paying welfare to the people whose jobs have been taken by mass immigration of cheap Labour anyway, so why not act in their interests by cutting out the middle man and allowing them to earn a days pay by stopping the immigration?
What happens is politicians end up chasing their tails by refusing to acknowledge the damage a policy has done, and paying those affected compensation in the form of dole money and tax credits etc. All in the name of political dogma/winning an argument
Are you suggesting that with London burning an operational decision of this kind would not be in the hands of the Home Secretary? I'm afraid that beggars belief. The police elsewhere in the country acted normally. The police in London acted abnormally.
The law is clear. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26 is the leading case on the nature of the prerogative powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to the policing of riots. As Lord Justice Croom-Johnson said (at p. 39)
It is common ground that the chief constable has complete operational control of his force. Neither the police authority nor the Secretary of State may give him any directions about that... The independence of a constable, and a fortiori a chief constable, from outside control, whether by a local authority or the executive, has been repeatedly upheld.
The authorities for the proposition are unimpeachable, and include Fisher v Oldham Corportation [1930] 2 KB 364 (per McCardie J) and R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Blackburn (No.1) [1968] 2 QB 118. In the latter, Lord Denning MR held (at p. 136) that it is:
the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land... in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.
There is not a chance that Mrs May gave an operational direction to a police officer during the 2011 riots, and if she had done so, it would have been the duty of the constable to disregard it.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
Maternity you say?
"Two pregnant women were turned away from the Queen’s Hospital maternity unit when the department became full and closed for four hours in April, it has emerged.
Jas Athwal, leader of the Redbridge Labour party, described the news as an “absolute shock”.
He added: “Queen’s was built for 300,000 people in mind but now it has to cope with 800,000 - it is not right. "
It certainly does appear to be longstanding practice to pretend Britain is alone in expressing discomfort or opposition because we are generally the most vocal - and certainly the most vocal of the big EU nations. And that is with what we term Europhile governments!
Easier to blame the UK than it is to look in the mirror.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
The WWC has housing and maintenance needs just like everyone else. They own their accommodation or the rent it. Either way, they use the services of tradesmen of all kinds.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.
Are wages higher in areas of low immigration?
Probably as immigrants generaly earn low wages
I wrote an article, you read it, that quoted research showing for every 1% of the workforce that was made up of immigrants, the native took a 0.6% pay cut
The worst cartoonist is surely Steve Bell on the Guardian. Amazed he gets paid for that crap. He has never made me laugh, once, nor even smile in a vaguely fixed way.
Repetitive lefty scrawling by a Ritalin-deficient teenager.
Back in the 1980's and early 1990's, he was simply brilliant.
It appears the long Labour Government (1997-2010) blunted his edge, a bit like alternative comedians.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
The WWC has housing and maintenance needs just like everyone else. They own their accommodation or the rent it. Either way, they use the services of tradesmen of all kinds.
The last thing the WWC need is competition for their jobs driving down wages, or competition for rented accommodation driving up rents.
Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.
Protectionism is often sneered at with little justification. It is responsible (for example) for Germany's industrial might. German industry was heavily protected in its infancy (from British exports especially, as Britain was an industrial powerhouse.
We already do it by having a minimum wage. Why cant I employ someone from Asia for £1 an hour if they are willing to work for it?
We end up paying welfare to the people whose jobs have been taken by mass immigration of cheap Labour anyway, so why not act in their interests by cutting out the middle man and allowing them to earn a days pay by stopping the immigration?
What happens is politicians end up chasing their tails by refusing to acknowledge the damage a policy has done, and paying those affected compensation in the form of dole money and tax credits etc. All in the name of political dogma/winning an argument
Of course, that would benefit Labour, of course. Creating a dependent clientele and potentially future voters from ethinc minorities.
Unfortunately, the money ran out to pay for all this and sheer Government incompetence affected schools and maternity wards.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
The WWC has housing and maintenance needs just like everyone else. They own their accommodation or the rent it. Either way, they use the services of tradesmen of all kinds.
The last thing the WWC need is competition for their jobs driving down wages, or competition for rented accommodation driving up rents.
I have a lot more faith in the WWC than you clearly.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.
Are wages higher in areas of low immigration?
Probably as immigrants generaly earn low wages
I wrote an article, you read it, that quoted research showing for every 1% of the workforce that was made up of immigrants, the native took a 0.6% pay cut
But wages are lowest in Northern Ireland, the North East and Wales, where immigration is much lower than it is in the best paying regions.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.
Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es: 1. They're being closed down 2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
The WWC has housing and maintenance needs just like everyone else. They own their accommodation or the rent it. Either way, they use the services of tradesmen of all kinds.
The last thing the WWC need is competition for their jobs driving down wages, or competition for rented accommodation driving up rents.
I have a lot more faith in the WWC than you clearly.
Last figures I looked at showed that net, legal, immigration was running at a bout 200,000 people a year. Or to put it another way that is the same as importing a roughly medium sized city every year. Of course, the hard infrastructure to cope with such an increase is not being built, not in roads, railways, schools hospitals, doctors surgeries, whatever. Nor is the soft infrastructure; how many more teachers are being trained, how many more doctors, how many more medical training places have been created to generate all those extra consultants, how many more paramedic ambulances are there on the road these days?
One notable exception to this was the Roman Catholic Church in E&W. They went to Poland to recruit Polish priests for the Polish Catholic Mission to address the spiritual needs of the new immigrants.
Also, we have built two new schools in West London to fulfil the extra demand for Catholic school places.
And how have we been treated? With a hate campaign from the BBC and the Guardian.
Which reminds me, I'm off to the Guardian website to comment on Catherine Bennett's latest anti-Faith school bigotry.
No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job
So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?
If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine
Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.
It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.
Are wages higher in areas of low immigration?
Probably as immigrants generaly earn low wages
I wrote an article, you read it, that quoted research showing for every 1% of the workforce that was made up of immigrants, the native took a 0.6% pay cut
But wages are lowest in Northern Ireland, the North East and Wales, where immigration is much lower than it is in the best paying regions.
Wow, immigrants go to the most economically vibrant regions.
No sh1t, Sherlock.
Of course, they simultaneously raise the costs and lower the wages of the existing working classes, not all of them White.
Comments
UKIP 14%
~~~~~~~~~~~
Grand coalition 70%
Others 30%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lab 37%
Con 33%
UKIP 14%
Others 16%
_______________
UKIP-Con 47%
Labour 37%
Boris has been to the Savoy Hotel more times in the last year than he has any outer London Borough
Only interested in zone 1. Its fair to say London is Zone 1 if the UK was the underground isnt it?
Been to Doha more than Dagenham!
Now, in the distant past anyone questioning such a process would have been regarded as speaking common sense. In the recent past anyone asking the same questions would be held up to be a racist, and more recently a xenophobe. Nowadays, whilst the use of the racist label is still tolerated by them, the progressives use the term "Nationalist" . It is all part of the same deal, those that have are screwing those that haven't and doing their best to keep the have nots in dependency and anyone who questions this is evil.
Pulpstar Indeed
Victoria, Edward VII, George V. How history repeats itself. I have long thought Georve V got dealt the shitty hand. Without WWI getting the way, I think he would have proved a brilliant monarch who would have done much to close the gaps in society that still continue to bedevil us.
The grievance of having their cherished dream stolen from them by the English will keep them warm for decades to come.
Stories to tell their grand-kids of the good fight they fought, over their keyboards, in Sweden and Somerset.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/27753849
Don't see why not, it has since 1745. Why should it be any different in the future. Some years ago, on this very site, Easterross suggested that Scottish independence would come about not when the Scots voted for it but when the English lost patience and told them to piss off.
Did you see fitalass's post in the wee hours of this morning?
I think you have a volunteer for Matron of Honour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10884681/King-Juan-Carlos-I-dont-want-my-son-to-grow-old-waiting-like-Prince-Charles.html
But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.
Great
The trouble is they got the referendum they wanted, with the electorate they wanted, at the time they wanted, with the question they wanted. If they then fail to get the outcome they wanted they can squeal as much as they like but it won't work.
What was she supposed to do when a colleague was trashing her ?
TSE posted a link to a Buzzfeed piece on the rise of UKIP.
Some of the comments under that were amazing. Withdraw the right to vote for people that want to vote UKIP etc.
Is the British Army planning a coup in Tower Hamlets, perhaps?
No need for all the "say's"
Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world
The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.
The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10884632/Do-I-have-to-go-on-my-knees-grovelling-apology-from-IMF-head-for-incorrect-warnings-on-UK-economy.html
Led by a former financier with a taste for the high life at taxpayer expense.
Snobbery is racism against people who look like you.
You don't have to be rich. The idea of Socialism in it's truest sense, is that all men are brothers, So the idea is then to aid your "brother" too achieve a standard of life that means he has no need to emigrate from his home.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5006/europhiles_truly_believe_the_eu_s_mess_is_britain_s_fault?utm_content=bufferc086d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?
As for A&Es:
1. They're being closed down
2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.
We end up paying welfare to the people whose jobs have been taken by mass immigration of cheap Labour anyway, so why not act in their interests by cutting out the middle man and allowing them to earn a days pay by stopping the immigration?
What happens is politicians end up chasing their tails by refusing to acknowledge the damage a policy has done, and paying those affected compensation in the form of dole money and tax credits etc. All in the name of political dogma/winning an argument
"Two pregnant women were turned away from the Queen’s Hospital maternity unit when the department became full and closed for four hours in April, it has emerged.
Jas Athwal, leader of the Redbridge Labour party, described the news as an “absolute shock”.
He added: “Queen’s was built for 300,000 people in mind but now it has to cope with 800,000 - it is not right. "
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/two_women_turned_away_from_queen_s_hospital_maternity_department_after_it_closes_for_four_hours_1_3630975
I wrote an article, you read it, that quoted research showing for every 1% of the workforce that was made up of immigrants, the native took a 0.6% pay cut
It appears the long Labour Government (1997-2010) blunted his edge, a bit like alternative comedians.
Unfortunately, the money ran out to pay for all this and sheer Government incompetence affected schools and maternity wards.
Also, we have built two new schools in West London to fulfil the extra demand for Catholic school places.
And how have we been treated? With a hate campaign from the BBC and the Guardian.
Which reminds me, I'm off to the Guardian website to comment on Catherine Bennett's latest anti-Faith school bigotry.
No sh1t, Sherlock.
Of course, they simultaneously raise the costs and lower the wages of the existing working classes, not all of them White.