British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
ISIS and the FSA are different groups. 80% of British Muslims in Syria are fighting for ISIS.
This whole thing shows how those idiots that tried to silence people like me, who said that there was a wider problem among British Muslims than one or two extremists, were completely wrong. There are hundreds and hundreds of British kids going out to fight for these nutters. If that's how many are willing to put their lives on the line, imagine how many just support with them privately. It must be thousands.
I'm only catching up with the Lord Ashcroft poll from yesterday, I've just seen, George Osborne is the country's second most popular UK wide politician, after Dave.
George will be happy he's more popular than Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Nigel Farage.
Plus, George is more popular with swing voters than the two Eds and Farage.
In a general election, George is going to be crucial.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
Al-Qaeda ?
We need nothing of the kind. We need to keep our noses out (some hopes), deny the Americans the 'world community' tag they keep using to justify their disastrous interventions, and simply let Assad knock the whole thing on the head. There's no morally defensible reason to continue the ridiculous charade that we are supporting 'the Arab Spring' -it's been reversed in Egypt, barely tickled the toes of Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia, and would have been over and done with last year in Syria if we didn't keep flooding the place with rent-a-jihadists. Ending it is the way of least bloodshed and least human misery.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
Al-Qaeda ?
We need nothing of the kind. We need to keep our noses out (some hopes), deny the Americans the 'world community' tag they keep using to justify their disastrous interventions, and simply let Assad knock the whole thing on the head. There's no morally defensible reason to continue the ridiculous charade that we are supporting 'the Arab Spring' -it's been reversed in Egypt, barely tickled the toes of Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia, and would have been over and done with last year in Syria if we didn't keep flooding the place with rent-a-jihadists. Ending it is the way of least bloodshed and least human misery.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
We picked the wrong side. Assad is the lesser of two evils, just as Iran are. ISIS are absolutely more dangerous to our security and prosperity than either Assad or any Iranian government. Our leaders and governments idiotically cut off our lifeline with Iran when George Bush put them on the "Axis of Evil", since then it has been a very long and slow road. Along the way our homegrown terrorism has become a much larger problem, one that neither the previous government or the current government has done anything about. The swamp has not been drained and non-violent extremists are poisoning the minds of Islamic youths, those returning from warzones having fought for countries that are not our own, those who are radicalised and violent are the biggest risk to our security. To turn a blind eye to returning ISIS/FSA fighters would be an act of negligence by the government. I would sleep less safely if I thought the government weren't acting to find returning ISIS/FSA fighters.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Sorry I don't even know who the enemy is!!
I just know these chaps weren't on the side of the country they're supposedly from... It's happening!
Bad news for Scottish Conservatives as Edinburgh Zoo panda Tian Tian is up the duff and the formers prospect of having more Scottish MP's than Scottish pandas has been made all the more challenging.
It appears the black and white furry bear was artificially inseminated earlier this year. Worried Tory PPC's north of the border are said to be avoiding hospitals and surgeries nationwide.
It's not true. I did not have any sort of relations with that Chinese dame Miss Xan Xan or whatever she said her name was. I thought the test tube for was DNA analysis
Probably the most interesting Chinese takeaway you've ever had !!
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
Al-Qaeda ?
We need nothing of the kind. We need to keep our noses out (some hopes), deny the Americans the 'world community' tag they keep using to justify their disastrous interventions, and simply let Assad knock the whole thing on the head. There's no morally defensible reason to continue the ridiculous charade that we are supporting 'the Arab Spring' -it's been reversed in Egypt, barely tickled the toes of Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia, and would have been over and done with last year in Syria if we didn't keep flooding the place with rent-a-jihadists. Ending it is the way of least bloodshed and least human misery.
The Egyptian govt have dropped on the Muslim brotherhood like a ton of bricks. Not too long ago enemies of intervention were saying all it does is promote the brotherhood. It has not. All these arab countries are struggling to move out of dictatorship and through a medieval based era of religious hegemony. It will absolutely certainly not be easy... but that does not mean we should not try to help or that it is in our interest to ignore them. Most people there just want to get on and live their lives without being used as puppets by religious zealots. They are being given a chance by the west. And the West is doing the right thing. In ISIS we see the folly of leaving a vaccuum for the zealots to fill.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
@Scott_P Politicians answer, If he said he supported the strike, the papers would have been full of "Ed in unions pocket" If he condemns the strike, he alienates a lot of voters, and gives Cameron ammunition. They all do it.
He should have said the strikes are wrong, would have amused us all, again.
It would have been right for him to condemn the strikes, and right for him to apologise for condemning the strikes.
It really is going to be open season on him come April, isn't it? This GE campaign is going to be a bloody good laugh whichever way it goes.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
ISIS and the FSA are different groups. 80% of British Muslims in Syria are fighting for ISIS.
This whole thing shows how those idiots that tried to silence people like me, who said that there was a wider problem among British Muslims than one or two extremists, were completely wrong. There are hundreds and hundreds of British kids going out to fight for these nutters. If that's how many are willing to put their lives on the line, imagine how many just support with them privately. It must be thousands.
You are absolutely right, there is a huge problem, but it is the Wahhabi movement that is the problem. The Wahhabi movement is the one with all the 'issues' that come up time and time again with Islam, the medieval practises, the enforcement of Sharia, the second-class status of women, not to mention groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. It originates and is sponsored world wide by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who fund mosques worldwide. They are the ones who fund radical preachers of hate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement
It is well known that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the major sponsors of terror in the world. Yet they are our allies.
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
"so I'm assuming someone" I wonder how many disasters have started with that phrase?
(late reply as I was walking the dog)
There is a formula which governs the price at which council houses are sold.
That formula will have been determined by someone and, from time to time, reviewed.
Of course the civil service is capable of unbelievable incompetence, as any big organisation is. But I take the approach that you have to go through life assuming a basic level of competence. Otherwise you just end up chasing your tail.
Is this a devious SNP ploy? Are they doing their best to get a uniform so hideous that the English are bound to mock them, thus inciting Scottish wrath?
Against this is... well do Scottish people really want to go for all this Lochinvar Brigadoon fantasy Scotland?
When the original law was passed, the prevailing thinking was towards home ownership. Various amendments will have been added, but given it's popularity ("free money") no one has actually tried to stop it.
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
There was me thinking that Mr al-Assad was the enemy, and that those nice secular liberal democrats in the Free Syrian Army (many of which, as the report in today's Times shows, are now giving bay'ah to the Caliph Ibrahim) were our friends. Would a person who went to fight for the Free Syrian Army be charged with an offence if he returned to the jurisdiction? The whole thing is mad.
Clearly we need an ally who is both anti-Assad and anti-ISIS.
Al-Qaeda ?
We need nothing of the kind. We need to keep our noses out (some hopes), deny the Americans the 'world community' tag they keep using to justify their disastrous interventions, and simply let Assad knock the whole thing on the head. There's no morally defensible reason to continue the ridiculous charade that we are supporting 'the Arab Spring' -it's been reversed in Egypt, barely tickled the toes of Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia, and would have been over and done with last year in Syria if we didn't keep flooding the place with rent-a-jihadists. Ending it is the way of least bloodshed and least human misery.
The Egyptian govt have dropped on the Muslim brotherhood like a ton of bricks. Not too long ago enemies of intervention were saying all it does is promote the brotherhood. It has not. All these arab countries are struggling to move out of dictatorship and through a medieval based era of religious hegemony. It will absolutely certainly not be easy... but that does not mean we should not try to help or that it is in our interest to ignore them. Most people there just want to get on and live their lives without being used as puppets by religious zealots. They are being given a chance by the west. And the West is doing the right thing. In ISIS we see the folly of leaving a vaccuum for the zealots to fill.
Don't be ridiculous. We tried (and failed) to replace a relatively cosmopolitan Arab nationalist dictatorship, that has justified grievances against it, but that at least respects religious freedom and the rights of women, with a Wahhabi hell hole. The West is the one that has sponsored the very zealots you describe to go to Syria to fight this war -if it were merely Syrians it would have been done and dusted over a year ago. If there were any moral reasons behind this, we would be helping the (far more downtrodden) citizens of KSA and Kuwait.
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
He got more votes than Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, yet they all have positions of power in the EU parliament. UKIP have been completely denied any, even though the parliamentary convention should give them both a vice-presidency and a committee chair.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
@Ishmael_X Which strikers are wrong? as they are all striking for different things. Or is it your opinion that all strikes are wrong no matter what?
That was a riff on Harman's "Ed was right to pose with the [Sun] newspaper, but also right to apologise for it." The issue is not my opinion, but the fact that ed doesn't have one. On anything. And wants to be PM.
He also wants to bring in a EU-wide minimum wage. When was that in the treaties?
Doesn't matter.
This is the one we *need*. The one that Brown screwed up unbelievably badly and lost. The one that has caused all the problems over the last few years.
As Vice-President of the European Commission, I [Michel Barnier] am in charge of Internal Market, Services, Industry and Entrepreneurship.
@Ishmael_X We have been through this earlier, All politicians fudge things they know the press will skewer them on, or even answer a completely different question as Cameron often does.
When the original law was passed, the prevailing thinking was towards home ownership. Various amendments will have been added, but given it's popularity ("free money") no one has actually tried to stop it.
Yes, I know. That's why you offer a discount.
Your argument was that the discounted price was below the replacement cost.
I am sceptical in the extreme about that assertion.
Don't be ridiculous. We tried (and failed) to replace a relatively cosmopolitan Arab nationalist dictatorship, that has justified grievances against it, but that at least respects religious freedom and the rights of women, with a Wahhabi hell hole. The West is the one that has sponsored the very zealots you describe to go to Syria to fight this war -if it were merely Syrians it would have been done and dusted over a year ago. If there were any moral reasons behind this, we would be helping the (far more downtrodden) citizens of KSA and Kuwait.
We had been supporting these "relatively cosmopolitan Arab nationalists" that brutally suppress their own peoples as dictators for years, and all it does is incubate the anger further. The only way the Middle East will ever moderate is for them to have elections and for the initial idiots they vote in to be discredited and then voted out. Our mistake was not allowing Morsi another few years of rope to hang himself with.
It's rather strange how much you hate America for getting involved in this stuff, yet have no problem at all with Putin interfering.
He also wants to bring in a EU-wide minimum wage. When was that in the treaties?
Doesn't matter.
This is the one we *need*. The one that Brown screwed up unbelievably badly and lost. The one that has caused all the problems over the last few years.
As Vice-President of the European Commission, I [Michel Barnier] am in charge of Internal Market, Services, Industry and Entrepreneurship.
There are three positions that really matter in terms of the reform the EU needs: President, Economic Affairs and the Internal Market. We're now out of two of the three. We badly need the third one or we're truly screwed.
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
He got more votes than Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, yet they all have positions of power in the EU parliament. UKIP have been completely denied any, even though the parliamentary convention should give them both a vice-presidency and a committee chair.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
I think it's a little unfair to include the Tories in that line without noting that they were not part of the stitch up.
That was Labour and the LibDems.
But we already know, from the boundaries vote, that they are quite happy to go along with proposals that distort the democratic principle in their favour
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
He got more votes than Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, yet they all have positions of power in the EU parliament. UKIP have been completely denied any, even though the parliamentary convention should give them both a vice-presidency and a committee chair.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
I think it's a little unfair to include the Tories in that line without noting that they were not part of the stitch up.
That was Labour and the LibDems.
But we already know, from the boundaries vote, that they are quite happy to go along with proposals that distort the democratic principle in their favour
I'm not including Tories in the stitch-up. I'm just pointing out that they got a committee chair.
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
He got more votes than Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, yet they all have positions of power in the EU parliament. UKIP have been completely denied any, even though the parliamentary convention should give them both a vice-presidency and a committee chair.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
I think it's a little unfair to include the Tories in that line without noting that they were not part of the stitch up.
That was Labour and the LibDems.
But we already know, from the boundaries vote, that they are quite happy to go along with proposals that distort the democratic principle in their favour
I'm not including Tories in the stitch-up. I'm just pointing out that they got a committee chair.
I know - but someone not knowing the backstory could easily miss that.
Don't be ridiculous. We tried (and failed) to replace a relatively cosmopolitan Arab nationalist dictatorship, that has justified grievances against it, but that at least respects religious freedom and the rights of women, with a Wahhabi hell hole. The West is the one that has sponsored the very zealots you describe to go to Syria to fight this war -if it were merely Syrians it would have been done and dusted over a year ago. If there were any moral reasons behind this, we would be helping the (far more downtrodden) citizens of KSA and Kuwait.
We had been supporting these "relatively cosmopolitan Arab nationalists" that brutally suppress their own peoples as dictators for years, and all it does is incubate the anger further. The only way the Middle East will ever moderate is for them to have elections and for the initial idiots they vote in to be discredited and then voted out. Our mistake was not allowing Morsi another few years of rope to hang himself with.
It's rather strange how much you hate America for getting involved in this stuff, yet have no problem at all with Putin interfering.
@Charles A house near me was council owned, The old lady was getting on a bit, so her family bought the flat. let her live there rent free. She got to leave them something in her will and was happy (45% discount). Nearly a 50% loss to the council, which they can make up by building a new house? Profit margins for house builders must be astronomical? Edit: should have been a four instead of a five, changed
Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament? The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
73% voted against him. Are you saying that someone who has 27% of the vote can speak for Britain? The top 3 parties were 27, 25 24. He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
He got more votes than Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories, yet they all have positions of power in the EU parliament. UKIP have been completely denied any, even though the parliamentary convention should give them both a vice-presidency and a committee chair.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
I think it's a little unfair to include the Tories in that line without noting that they were not part of the stitch up.
That was Labour and the LibDems.
But we already know, from the boundaries vote, that they are quite happy to go along with proposals that distort the democratic principle in their favour
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
He also wants to bring in a EU-wide minimum wage. When was that in the treaties?
Very interesting article, but I think the most important bits are the comments by Martin Schulz and this quote from Klaus Welle:
“We don’t know exactly how but one thing is for sure: we can expect much, much closer co-operation between the commission president and the parliamentary majority, which brought him into office...That relation has fundamentally changed and it is clear this relationship will not just be a technical relationship but a political relationship. It is absolutely possible that there will be a political project which unites the parliamentary majority carrying the European Commission and the President of the European Commission"
This does look like a major institutional shift, an attempt to give more power to the EU Parliament and the Commission, at the expense of member states. That is obviously something which goes in diametrically the opposite direction to Britain's views and interests. I'm not sure how other EU states will view it; there could be quite a protracted power struggle.
It's also an opportunity for us: to give Juncker his due, he does seem to understand that Britain is a major obstacle to his integrationist agenda and that we need a special deal. A structure where the Eurozone becomes the integrationist core, and we (and perhaps a couple of other countries) are more detached, looks back on the agenda, having been raised, and then shelved, in the depth of the Eurozone crisis.
Interesting times. Let's just hope it's not Ed Miliband batting for us at this crucial juncture.
I'm only catching up with the Lord Ashcroft poll from yesterday, I've just seen, George Osborne is the country's second most popular UK wide politician, after Dave.
George will be happy he's more popular than Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Nigel Farage.
Plus, George is more popular with swing voters than the two Eds and Farage.
In a general election, George is going to be crucial.
None of them are popular. Some are slightly less unpopular than others.
One interesting thing from that question is that UKIP voters appear to be the most enthusiastic about their party, which suggests those hoping to see UKIP support decline are going to be disappointed.
Finally got round to watching the thread video - partly familiar but interesitng anyway. The point that dramatic spikes are unusual is important - generally, the best predictor of any market tomorrow (inlcuding politics) is what it was like today.
The discussions on Syria, Ukraine and Iraq illustrates why I've come to feel that interventionism (such as I voted for in Iraq and Afghanistan) is usually a mistake. We've all got different views on who the good guys and bad guys are. That's fine for a debate on a blog. But picking a side and arming it or intervening directly to kill people we disagree with stretches the confidence that we've got it right too far. Sure, there are exceptions - Hitler is the obvious one - but a lot of the time we're choosing between rival factions with doubtful claims to the moral high ground.
Socrates - you asked what I thought of the EU Parliament committee votes. I pre-replied earlier in response to your earlier post. It struck me as just the sort of partisan stuff that one sees in Westminster, and not at all something uniquely foreign. Doesn't make it a good thing, I agree, but the sacred right to chair a committee probably isn't really getting upset about, especially if you take the view (as I think you do, and Farage does) that the Parliament isn't or shouldn't be very important.
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
It absolutely beggars belief that anyone purporting to believe in democracy could write that.
The boundaries review would simply have made constituency sizes reasonably equal, removing the indefensible unfairness of voters in Wales and the North East - which happen to be strongholds of one particular party - getting more MPs than other areas of equivalent population.
There is bias in the current system, but it is entirely in favour of Labour. No reasonable person could possibly defend that.
If you are arguing for proportional representation, that is of course a completely different matter, utterly unrelated to whether certain areas should get more MPs than others. Anyone even remotely honest would agree that exactly the same issue of unequal representation would be as indefensible in any system, for example STV, as it is in FPTP.
Finally got round to watching the thread video - partly familiar but interesitng anyway. The point that dramatic spikes are unusual is important - generally, the best predictor of any market tomorrow (inlcuding politics) is what it was like today.
The discussions on Syria, Ukraine and Iraq illustrates why I've come to feel that interventionism (such as I voted for in Iraq and Afghanistan) is usually a mistake. We've all got different views on who the good guys and bad guys are. That's fine for a debate on a blog. But picking a side and arming it or intervening directly to kill people we disagree with stretches the confidence that we've got it right too far. Sure, there are exceptions - Hitler is the obvious one - but a lot of the time we're choosing between rival factions with doubtful claims to the moral high ground.
Socrates - you asked what I thought of the EU Parliament committee votes. I pre-replied earlier in response to your earlier post. It struck me as just the sort of partisan stuff that one sees in Westminster, and not at all something uniquely foreign. Doesn't make it a good thing, I agree, but the sacred right to chair a committee probably isn't really getting upset about, especially if you take the view (as I think you do, and Farage does) that the Parliament isn't or shouldn't be very important.
Since when have opposition parties been screwed out of committee chairs (or similar things like Lords) in the UK parliament?
The parliament didn't used to be very powerful, but it's now done a power grab (supported by your party) to control the Commission. Already Juncker is fawning to them. Yet despite most voters in other countries voting for parties of left and right on economic grounds, all their votes get consolidated to party groupings leadership that see themselves as Europhiles first and conservatives or socialists or liberals second. And then they give out positions of power on that basis. It's a deeply undemocratic system, and you must surely know this, even if you don't want to admit it.
One interesting thing from that question is that UKIP voters appear to be the most enthusiastic about their party, which suggests those hoping to see UKIP support decline are going to be disappointed.
Possibly. It might alternatively mean that UKIP supporters are going to become the most disillusioned as the contradictory wishlists they project onto the party collide with reality.
Of course it is true that that collision might not come until after the GE.
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
It absolutely beggars belief that anyone purporting to believe in democracy could write that.
The boundaries review would simply have made constituency sizes reasonably equal, removing the indefensible unfairness of voters in Wales and the North East - which happen to be strongholds of one particular party - getting more MPs than other areas of equivalent population.
There is bias in the current system, but it is entirely in favour of Labour. No reasonable person could possibly defend that.
If you are arguing for proportional representation, that is of course a completely different matter, utterly unrelated to whether certain areas should get more MPs than others. Anyone even remotely honest would agree that exactly the same issue of unequal representation would be as indefensible in any system, for example STV, as it is in FPTP.
No Richard you are being simply disingenuous and plain greedy . you are unhappy with a system that gives your party 48% of the seats for 37% of the votes . Instead of whinging and moaning about it try and increase your party's vote share to above 40% .
@Charles A house near me was council owned, The old lady was getting on a bit, so her family bought the flat. let her live there rent free. She got to leave them something in her will and was happy (45% discount). Nearly a 50% loss to the council, which they can make up by building a new house? Profit margins for house builders must be astronomical? Edit: should have been a four instead of a five, changed
Can you provide a link, not an anecdote?
Firstly, 45% sounds like the absolute maximum discount. Secondly, I thought the discounts had been heavily restricted. Thirdly, I don't believe that you are allowed to buy on behalf on anyone else. So it may be that your neighbour's family broke the law.
Nice to see they are keeping us safe? Though I kind of like working out what is right or wrong myself, still, needs must? "However, papers leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden indicate that US and British intelligence agencies have been deeply engaged in planning ways to covertly use social media for purposes of propaganda and deception."
The discussions on Syria, Ukraine and Iraq illustrates why I've come to feel that interventionism (such as I voted for in Iraq and Afghanistan) is usually a mistake. We've all got different views on who the good guys and bad guys are. That's fine for a debate on a blog. But picking a side and arming it or intervening directly to kill people we disagree with stretches the confidence that we've got it right too far. Sure, there are exceptions - Hitler is the obvious one - but a lot of the time we're choosing between rival factions with doubtful claims to the moral high ground.
What this calls for is the return to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia of non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, and the abhorrence of the use of force between states save in accordance with articles 42 and 51 of the United Nations Charter.
No Richard you are being simply disingenuous and plain greedy . you are unhappy with a system that gives your party 48% of the seats for 37% of the votes . Instead of whinging and moaning about it try and increase your party's vote share to above 40% .
I understand your circular argument in favour of proportional representation, but it doesn't address the point. Given that we have FPTP, why should constituencies be biased in favour of Labour? That was the question being addressed by the boundary review: it is spectacularly dishonest to respond to it by reference to a completely different question, the voting system.
Fortunately the LibDems' utterly disgraceful breach of faith on this will have only done you harm, although admittedly that will be small comfort if your gerrymandering brings us the disaster of a Miliband government.
No wonder the LibDems, and Nick Clegg, are held in contempt by so many:
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
No.
What we know is that the people were consulted about changing to a different electoral system, but decided to stick - by some margin - with FPTP.
As a result, the Boundaries Commission conducted a review of the seats - there had been no redistricting in recent years & the numbers were still based on the 2001 (?) Census. This was on the basis of a series of principles voted for by Parliament. If the LibDems voted different at this point, I could have respected that.
However, the LibDems and Labour then chose to reject the recommendation of this independent body. This was because they didn't like the outcome. Instead they prefered to stike with boundaries that will be nearly *15 years* out of date.
In all fairness, if you were prepared to admit to being hypocritical and anti-democratic, then I could respect you for that.
But you still pretend to be holier than all the rest.
There was a point when I could have considered voting LibDem (OB wing). But not any more.
UKIP: We hate the European Parliament and we hold its members in contempt. But we still want to run a bit of it to get our wodge.
Essentially the European Parliament needs towing out to the mid Atlantic and sunk.
It's full of piss and wind, especially the latter, and serves no useful purpose. All its functions should be devolved to the Commission and national parliaments and all the initial financial savings should be given as a Christmas voucher to be spent at your local vintner.
In such a way the European Parliament will at last have provided a useful service to the voters in the shape of a one off festive piss up of epic proportions.
@Charles Obviously they didn't buy the house, it was done in the old ladies name, but the reality was they bought it.
And yes, that was the maximum discount for a house, "flats" could be had for a third of their value.
So it would have been in her estate for inheritance tax purposes and would have crystalised a capital gain for probate purposes (don't know how PPR works in this situation)
But when was this - I thought the maximum discounts were much lower now?
@Charles The results are for someone living 35 years in a house, but I suspect the maximum discount could be achieved in less time < Your results
Your Right to Buy discount percentage could be 70% Your Right to Buy discount value could be £70,000 The cost of your property after the Right to Buy discount could be £30,000
The property value is an estimate based on average property prices of this type in your area, based on Land Registry 2012 data and English Housing Survey 2009 data.
This calculator covers England only. The actual price of your home, which would be valued by your landlord after you apply, could be more or less than the amount estimated here.
You could also get your own estimate, for example from an estate agent or property websites, and you can enter this manually.
Your results give you an idea of the amount you'll need to pay for your home, through savings and a mortgage/loan and may help to get you started on working out whether buying is affordable for you. There are a number of tools from the Money Advice Service that can help you work out how much you may be able to borrow and the relative costs and benefits of renting and buying:
Should you rent or buy? How much can you afford to borrow? Mortgage calculator >
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
No.
What we know is that the people were consulted about changing to a different electoral system, but decided to stick - by some margin - with FPTP.
As a result, the Boundaries Commission conducted a review of the seats - there had been no redistricting in recent years & the numbers were still based on the 2001 (?) Census. This was on the basis of a series of principles voted for by Parliament. If the LibDems voted different at this point, I could have respected that.
However, the LibDems and Labour then chose to reject the recommendation of this independent body. This was because they didn't like the outcome. Instead they prefered to stike with boundaries that will be nearly *15 years* out of date.
In all fairness, if you were prepared to admit to being hypocritical and anti-democratic, then I could respect you for that.
But you still pretend to be holier than all the rest.
There was a point when I could have considered voting LibDem (OB wing). But not any more.
Charles. In the UK the constituencies are based, currently, on electoral registers. The census figures are not used for this purpose.
So the next boundary commission will be using the 2016 electoral registration data.
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
It absolutely beggars belief that anyone purporting to believe in democracy could write that.
The boundaries review would simply have made constituency sizes reasonably equal, removing the indefensible unfairness of voters in Wales and the North East - which happen to be strongholds of one particular party - getting more MPs than other areas of equivalent population.
There is bias in the current system, but it is entirely in favour of Labour. No reasonable person could possibly defend that.
If you are arguing for proportional representation, that is of course a completely different matter, utterly unrelated to whether certain areas should get more MPs than others. Anyone even remotely honest would agree that exactly the same issue of unequal representation would be as indefensible in any system, for example STV, as it is in FPTP.
Boundaries should certainly be equal size, and I expect PM Miliband to implement this.
I'm only catching up with the Lord Ashcroft poll from yesterday, I've just seen, George Osborne is the country's second most popular UK wide politician, after Dave.
George will be happy he's more popular than Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Nigel Farage.
Plus, George is more popular with swing voters than the two Eds and Farage.
In a general election, George is going to be crucial.
None of them are popular. Some are slightly less unpopular than others.
One interesting thing from that question is that UKIP voters appear to be the most enthusiastic about their party, which suggests those hoping to see UKIP support decline are going to be disappointed.
Support for ukip will collapse after GE 2015 because their supporters will realise that they can't change anything by voting ukip.
Boundaries should certainly be equal size, and I expect PM Miliband to implement this.
Based on population size, of course.
So the size of constituencies should depend on the number of people therein, including those disqualified by law from voting. That was the principle which lay behind the three-fifths clause.
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
It absolutely beggars belief that anyone purporting to believe in democracy could write that.
The boundaries review would simply have made constituency sizes reasonably equal, removing the indefensible unfairness of voters in Wales and the North East - which happen to be strongholds of one particular party - getting more MPs than other areas of equivalent population.
There is bias in the current system, but it is entirely in favour of Labour. No reasonable person could possibly defend that.
If you are arguing for proportional representation, that is of course a completely different matter, utterly unrelated to whether certain areas should get more MPs than others. Anyone even remotely honest would agree that exactly the same issue of unequal representation would be as indefensible in any system, for example STV, as it is in FPTP.
Boundaries should certainly be equal size, and I expect PM Miliband to implement this.
Based on population size, of course.
And turkeys will vote for Christmas next year as well.
What we really learned from the boundaries review is that the Conservatives were desperate to make a system already heavily loaded into giving them more representation than their vote share warranted changed so that the bias in their favour became even greater .
No.
What we know is that the people were consulted about changing to a different electoral system, but decided to stick - by some margin - with FPTP.
As a result, the Boundaries Commission conducted a review of the seats - there had been no redistricting in recent years & the numbers were still based on the 2001 (?) Census. This was on the basis of a series of principles voted for by Parliament. If the LibDems voted different at this point, I could have respected that.
However, the LibDems and Labour then chose to reject the recommendation of this independent body. This was because they didn't like the outcome. Instead they prefered to stike with boundaries that will be nearly *15 years* out of date.
In all fairness, if you were prepared to admit to being hypocritical and anti-democratic, then I could respect you for that.
But you still pretend to be holier than all the rest.
There was a point when I could have considered voting LibDem (OB wing). But not any more.
Charles. In the UK the constituencies are based, currently, on electoral registers. The census figures are not used for this purpose.
So the next boundary commission will be using the 2016 electoral registration data.
What at the current boundaries based on / when was the last redistricting?
I am sure I remember people saying that in 2015 the boundaries will be based on information that is nearly 15 years out of date?
You might think Enoch was wrong on immigration.. but check out what he said in 1978 about the EU
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8 Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
So the maximum discount in that case is c. 40%. In areas where the average house price is lower (and London will have a distorting effect) then the discount could be higher.
Working with the averages for ease, worst case councils will get £100,00 in net proceeds from a sale of a house.
Estimated size of a house is 100 sq.m - I've used the middle of the range for a 4 bedroom house, but in practice I'd imagine you'd build as 3 bedrooms and make the rooms more generous in size. (http://www.ukselfbuild.com/content/view/39/46)
So, implied cost of a self-build house of average size is £62,500. Add 10% for professional fees and a bit extra and you are talking c. £70,000 plus the cost of the land.
Key question is the cost of the land. Estimate here is about 45% of the value of the finished house, for a 0.15 acre plot. (http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/Self-Build-Houses-Plot-Sizes.asp). This is based on a 150 sq m house and a 65 ft long garden (width of the house + 10 feet). Let's assume, therefore, that your ideal council house will have less lend - the house is smaller & the land will be less, so let's say you can build it on a plot 1/2 the size. So the cost of the land will be 22.5% of the final cost of £172K or £39K.
Overall, therefore, the total cost comes out at £70K + £39K = £109K replacement cost. These are prices for a single self-build though. A council should be able to buy in bulk and secure a decent discount (before even considering whether they can get the land cheaply through releasing state owned landbank).
Fundamentally, though, for the *maximum discount* off a average house in the UK, the total proceeds to the council will be approximately equal to the replacement cost.
What at the current boundaries based on / when was the last redistricting?
I am sure I remember people saying that in 2015 the boundaries will be based on information that is nearly 15 years out of date?
Charles, you are right. The old boundaries under the old system were determined by the 5th review. This reported in 2006 with the relevant statutory instrument in 2007. The electoral data used was 2000 as the review commenced in 2000.
Part of the new boundaries procedure was to speed it up.
Forget if I posted this before, but I quite liked the first episode of The 100. Not perfect by any means, but a nice premise, potential to work out alright. And Kelly Hu's in it, which is cause for a huzzah in and of itself.
On-topic(ish): I reckon a Labour minority will occur. I don't think the Lib Dems will be in a position to pick and choose.
Also, I want the Netherlands to win the world cup.
Louis Van Gaal's stock is going to rise through the fecking roof if the Netherlanders win the world cup, which will raise expectations for his tenure at Manchester United, which will distort the odds on Manchester United winning the league next season.
You might think Enoch was wrong on immigration.. but check out what he said in 1978 about the EU
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8 Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
That was posted earlier. Usually these "predictions" are rather vague and right by accident, but he precisely cited the mechanism through which the problem with occur.
Also, I want the Netherlands to win the world cup.
Louis Van Gaal's stock is going to rise through the fecking roof if the Netherlanders win the world cup, which will raise expectations for his tenure at Manchester United, which will distort the odds on Manchester United winning the league next season.
So my plan is to lay United for the league.
Great minds and all that. Got on the Netherlands at 37/1 for the overall, but only a small stake
Yes, you can play around with figures, but the councils work out that it is a loss, and with current budget demands it is a loss they can't afford. You should become a "Big Society" accountant to show them why they are wrong.
Mike - A very good video from "Cicero", featuring your good self, looking very smart if I might say so and JoeTwyman who I hadn't heard of previously but who acquitted himself very well. Please may we have more of these in the coming months, including more of your betting hunches, a couple of which you mentioned in this clip.
You might think Enoch was wrong on immigration.. but check out what he said in 1978 about the EU
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8 Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
That was posted earlier. Usually these "predictions" are rather vague and right by accident, but he precisely cited the mechanism through which the problem with occur.
He was an absolute genius, his ability to see the reality rather than get carried away by hope was uncanny.
If only the public at the time had been listened by the politicians, but nice guy Ted Heath decided against it.
You might think Enoch was wrong on immigration.. but check out what he said in 1978 about the EU
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8 Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
That was posted earlier. Usually these "predictions" are rather vague and right by accident, but he precisely cited the mechanism through which the problem with occur.
He was an absolute genius, his ability to see the reality rather than get carried away by hope was uncanny.
If only the public at the time had been listened by the politicians, but nice guy Ted Heath decided against it.
Yes, Enoch was a genius, he was person, that, inter alia, said
1) What’s wrong with racism? Racism is the basis of nationality.
Got to be Germany tonight surely? Without Naymar it is hard to rate Brasil . Only the crowd and the ref could carry them home
Thanks to Betvictor offering a free bet, I've backed both sides.
I'm expecting the Germans to win, have also backer Muller as FGS.
I hope he gets a few as have backed him for leading goalscorer
I've also been laying Brazil for the world cup.
Nate Silver of 538.com gives Brazil a 73% chance of winning tonight and therefore Germany only a 27% chance. He also gives Brazil a 54% chance of lifting the World Cup trophy. So, TSE, either you or he is going to be very wrong this evening. FWIW, I'm going with Nate!
Got to be Germany tonight surely? Without Naymar it is hard to rate Brasil . Only the crowd and the ref could carry them home
Thanks to Betvictor offering a free bet, I've backed both sides.
I'm expecting the Germans to win, have also backer Muller as FGS.
I hope he gets a few as have backed him for leading goalscorer
I've also been laying Brazil for the world cup.
Nate Silver of 538.com gives Brazil a 73% chance of winning tonight and therefore Germany only a 27% chance. He also gives Brazil a 54% chance of lifting the World Cup trophy. So, TSE, either you or he is going to be very wrong this evening. FWIW, I'm going with Nate!
I never thought I'd be able to say this
But I'm a better pundit than Nate Silver (at least when it comes to the World Cup)
The parliament didn't used to be very powerful, but it's now done a power grab (supported by your party) to control the Commission. Already Juncker is fawning to them. Yet despite most voters in other countries voting for parties of left and right on economic grounds, all their votes get consolidated to party groupings leadership that see themselves as Europhiles first and conservatives or socialists or liberals second. And then they give out positions of power on that basis. It's a deeply undemocratic system, and you must surely know this, even if you don't want to admit it.
Well, I'm frankly unenthusiastic about this sort of maneouvre and I wouldn't have voted for it, but it doesn't strike me as substantially different from the dodgy games in Westminster which I also intend to resist more vigorously than in the past if I get back - manipulation of the timetable to avoid awkward votes, ambushes, duplicate pairings, etc.. But in Westminster it's also expected that members put basic support for the institution before their party, and I'm sure you'd be the first to condemn someone who said they put, say, the LibDems first and Parliamentary democracy second.
The difference is that you don't like the particular institution, but I don't see why you expect MEPs to share your view - I'm not sure why you think you know voters' motivations, but we didn't elect non-UKIP MEPs on a platform of hostility to it.
You might think Enoch was wrong on immigration.. but check out what he said in 1978 about the EU
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8 Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
That was posted earlier. Usually these "predictions" are rather vague and right by accident, but he precisely cited the mechanism through which the problem with occur.
He was an absolute genius, his ability to see the reality rather than get carried away by hope was uncanny.
If only the public at the time had been listened by the politicians, but nice guy Ted Heath decided against it.
Yes, Enoch was a genius, he was person, that, inter alia, said
1) What’s wrong with racism? Racism is the basis of nationality.
2) That I couldn't be English or British.
You know full well that he didn't mean it in the horrible way you imply.. in the 60s race was a big indicator of a persons nationality.
and I don't know that he said they couldnt be British
As it is the desendents of the immigrants he said should be limited so as to keep trouble between segregated parts of the country at bay, people who are apparently as English as I am ,are coming back from the middle east with the intent of blowing parts of England up in the name of their "brothers"
Got to be Germany tonight surely? Without Naymar it is hard to rate Brasil . Only the crowd and the ref could carry them home
Thanks to Betvictor offering a free bet, I've backed both sides.
I'm expecting the Germans to win, have also backer Muller as FGS.
I hope he gets a few as have backed him for leading goalscorer
I've also been laying Brazil for the world cup.
Nate Silver of 538.com gives Brazil a 73% chance of winning tonight and therefore Germany only a 27% chance. He also gives Brazil a 54% chance of lifting the World Cup trophy. So, TSE, either you or he is going to be very wrong this evening. FWIW, I'm going with Nate!
You know full well that he didn't mean it in the horrible way you imply.. in the 60s race was a big indicator of a persons nationality.
Eh? I was remember the 60s very well, and there were loads of people with different races under each nationality and a lot more overt racism than there is today - the race riots in the 50s were a recent memory. I may be wrong, but I don't the impression that you remember the period yourself?
Comments
And the chap who is the lurker and maths student, you should delurk.
Al-Qaeda ?
This whole thing shows how those idiots that tried to silence people like me, who said that there was a wider problem among British Muslims than one or two extremists, were completely wrong. There are hundreds and hundreds of British kids going out to fight for these nutters. If that's how many are willing to put their lives on the line, imagine how many just support with them privately. It must be thousands.
George will be happy he's more popular than Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Nigel Farage.
Plus, George is more popular with swing voters than the two Eds and Farage.
In a general election, George is going to be crucial.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br8zem4CUAAdv-m.jpg:large
I will get my coat
I just know these chaps weren't on the side of the country they're supposedly from... It's happening!
"so I'm assuming someone"
I wonder how many disasters have started with that phrase?
(late reply as I was walking the dog)
Titters ....
It has not. All these arab countries are struggling to move out of dictatorship and through a medieval based era of religious hegemony. It will absolutely certainly not be easy... but that does not mean we should not try to help or that it is in our interest to ignore them. Most people there just want to get on and live their lives without being used as puppets by religious zealots. They are being given a chance by the west. And the West is doing the right thing. In ISIS we see the folly of leaving a vaccuum for the zealots to fill.
It really is going to be open season on him come April, isn't it? This GE campaign is going to be a bloody good laugh whichever way it goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement
It is well known that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the major sponsors of terror in the world. Yet they are our allies.
The fact is no lost on Peter Oborne: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9090324/Syrias-crisis-is-leading-us-to-unlikely-bedfellows.html
It's fine to complain about radicalisation, but understand where it comes from.
He then turns up and turns his back on the parliament he says he wants a committee chairmanship of... perhaps he would rather have been in Malta.
That formula will have been determined by someone and, from time to time, reviewed.
Of course the civil service is capable of unbelievable incompetence, as any big organisation is. But I take the approach that you have to go through life assuming a basic level of competence. Otherwise you just end up chasing your tail.
Which strikers are wrong? as they are all striking for different things.
Or is it your opinion that all strikes are wrong no matter what?
http://euobserver.com/institutional/124898
He also wants to bring in a EU-wide minimum wage. When was that in the treaties?
When the original law was passed, the prevailing thinking was towards home ownership.
Various amendments will have been added, but given it's popularity ("free money") no one has actually tried to stop it.
But anyway, your points on elections don't actually matter to you, because you think all eurosceptics should be denied positions of power, democracy be damned. You europhiles are utterly lacking in any principle of democracy or fairness. No wonder your whole project has plunged the entire continent into an economic depression. The leading eurofederalists are all guilty men with huge human suffering on their hands. If they had any conscience they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
This is the one we *need*. The one that Brown screwed up unbelievably badly and lost. The one that has caused all the problems over the last few years.
As Vice-President of the European Commission, I [Michel Barnier] am in charge of Internal Market, Services, Industry and Entrepreneurship.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/barnier/about/mandate/index_en.htm
We have been through this earlier, All politicians fudge things they know the press will skewer them on, or even answer a completely different question as Cameron often does.
Your argument was that the discounted price was below the replacement cost.
I am sceptical in the extreme about that assertion.
Perhaps you can provide some proof?
It's rather strange how much you hate America for getting involved in this stuff, yet have no problem at all with Putin interfering.
That was Labour and the LibDems.
But we already know, from the boundaries vote, that they are quite happy to go along with proposals that distort the democratic principle in their favour
A house near me was council owned, The old lady was getting on a bit, so her family bought the flat. let her live there rent free.
She got to leave them something in her will and was happy (45% discount).
Nearly a 50% loss to the council, which they can make up by building a new house? Profit margins for house builders must be astronomical?
Edit: should have been a four instead of a five, changed
My phone camera is terrible.
Despite everyone's facial expressions they did consent to the picture!
http://www.postimg.org/image/n7h0yoaht/
“We don’t know exactly how but one thing is for sure: we can expect much, much closer co-operation between the commission president and the parliamentary majority, which brought him into office...That relation has fundamentally changed and it is clear this relationship will not just be a technical relationship but a political relationship. It is absolutely possible that there will be a political project which unites the parliamentary majority carrying the European Commission and the President of the European Commission"
This does look like a major institutional shift, an attempt to give more power to the EU Parliament and the Commission, at the expense of member states. That is obviously something which goes in diametrically the opposite direction to Britain's views and interests. I'm not sure how other EU states will view it; there could be quite a protracted power struggle.
It's also an opportunity for us: to give Juncker his due, he does seem to understand that Britain is a major obstacle to his integrationist agenda and that we need a special deal. A structure where the Eurozone becomes the integrationist core, and we (and perhaps a couple of other countries) are more detached, looks back on the agenda, having been raised, and then shelved, in the depth of the Eurozone crisis.
Interesting times. Let's just hope it's not Ed Miliband batting for us at this crucial juncture.
One interesting thing from that question is that UKIP voters appear to be the most enthusiastic about their party, which suggests those hoping to see UKIP support decline are going to be disappointed.
The discussions on Syria, Ukraine and Iraq illustrates why I've come to feel that interventionism (such as I voted for in Iraq and Afghanistan) is usually a mistake. We've all got different views on who the good guys and bad guys are. That's fine for a debate on a blog. But picking a side and arming it or intervening directly to kill people we disagree with stretches the confidence that we've got it right too far. Sure, there are exceptions - Hitler is the obvious one - but a lot of the time we're choosing between rival factions with doubtful claims to the moral high ground.
Socrates - you asked what I thought of the EU Parliament committee votes. I pre-replied earlier in response to your earlier post. It struck me as just the sort of partisan stuff that one sees in Westminster, and not at all something uniquely foreign. Doesn't make it a good thing, I agree, but the sacred right to chair a committee probably isn't really getting upset about, especially if you take the view (as I think you do, and Farage does) that the Parliament isn't or shouldn't be very important.
The boundaries review would simply have made constituency sizes reasonably equal, removing the indefensible unfairness of voters in Wales and the North East - which happen to be strongholds of one particular party - getting more MPs than other areas of equivalent population.
There is bias in the current system, but it is entirely in favour of Labour. No reasonable person could possibly defend that.
If you are arguing for proportional representation, that is of course a completely different matter, utterly unrelated to whether certain areas should get more MPs than others. Anyone even remotely honest would agree that exactly the same issue of unequal representation would be as indefensible in any system, for example STV, as it is in FPTP.
The parliament didn't used to be very powerful, but it's now done a power grab (supported by your party) to control the Commission. Already Juncker is fawning to them. Yet despite most voters in other countries voting for parties of left and right on economic grounds, all their votes get consolidated to party groupings leadership that see themselves as Europhiles first and conservatives or socialists or liberals second. And then they give out positions of power on that basis. It's a deeply undemocratic system, and you must surely know this, even if you don't want to admit it.
Of course it is true that that collision might not come until after the GE.
Firstly, 45% sounds like the absolute maximum discount. Secondly, I thought the discounts had been heavily restricted. Thirdly, I don't believe that you are allowed to buy on behalf on anyone else. So it may be that your neighbour's family broke the law.
"However, papers leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden indicate that US and British intelligence agencies have been deeply engaged in planning ways to covertly use social media for purposes of propaganda and deception."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-networks-research-twitter-influence-studies
Fortunately the LibDems' utterly disgraceful breach of faith on this will have only done you harm, although admittedly that will be small comfort if your gerrymandering brings us the disaster of a Miliband government.
No wonder the LibDems, and Nick Clegg, are held in contempt by so many:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/08/nick-clegg-lords-reform/
What we know is that the people were consulted about changing to a different electoral system, but decided to stick - by some margin - with FPTP.
As a result, the Boundaries Commission conducted a review of the seats - there had been no redistricting in recent years & the numbers were still based on the 2001 (?) Census. This was on the basis of a series of principles voted for by Parliament. If the LibDems voted different at this point, I could have respected that.
However, the LibDems and Labour then chose to reject the recommendation of this independent body. This was because they didn't like the outcome. Instead they prefered to stike with boundaries that will be nearly *15 years* out of date.
In all fairness, if you were prepared to admit to being hypocritical and anti-democratic, then I could respect you for that.
But you still pretend to be holier than all the rest.
There was a point when I could have considered voting LibDem (OB wing). But not any more.
Obviously they didn't buy the house, it was done in the old ladies name, but the reality was they bought it.
And yes, that was the maximum discount for a house, "flats" could be had for a third of their value.
It's full of piss and wind, especially the latter, and serves no useful purpose. All its functions should be devolved to the Commission and national parliaments and all the initial financial savings should be given as a Christmas voucher to be spent at your local vintner.
In such a way the European Parliament will at last have provided a useful service to the voters in the shape of a one off festive piss up of epic proportions.
Have a play with this
http://righttobuy.communities.gov.uk/right-to-buy-calculator/
(put in figures and postcodes to suit)
But when was this - I thought the maximum discounts were much lower now?
The results are for someone living 35 years in a house, but I suspect the maximum discount could be achieved in less time
<
Your results
Your Right to Buy discount percentage could be 70%
Your Right to Buy discount value could be £70,000
The cost of your property after the Right to Buy discount could be £30,000
The property value is an estimate based on average property prices of this type in your area, based on Land Registry 2012 data and English Housing Survey 2009 data.
This calculator covers England only. The actual price of your home, which would be valued by your landlord after you apply, could be more or less than the amount estimated here.
You could also get your own estimate, for example from an estate agent or property websites, and you can enter this manually.
Your results give you an idea of the amount you'll need to pay for your home, through savings and a mortgage/loan and may help to get you started on working out whether buying is affordable for you. There are a number of tools from the Money Advice Service that can help you work out how much you may be able to borrow and the relative costs and benefits of renting and buying:
Should you rent or buy?
How much can you afford to borrow?
Mortgage calculator
>
So the next boundary commission will be using the 2016 electoral registration data.
I should point out that those are English figures, In my area they were capped at a lot less quite a while ago.
Based on population size, of course.
http://stephentall.org/2014/07/08/are-the-greens-to-the-lib-dems-what-ukip-is-to-the-tories/
I am sure I remember people saying that in 2015 the boundaries will be based on information that is nearly 15 years out of date?
I'm expecting the Germans to win, have also backer Muller as FGS.
White Wednesday @WhiteWednesday · Jun 8
Someone predicting in 1978 how a common European currency might work out.....But who? pic.twitter.com/GCpB1l48OA
"Marijuana sales kick off in Washington state – but sellers are in short supply"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/legal-marijuana-sales-washington-state-sellers-short-supply
Pickles should be told! :-)
Average house price (http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/house-prices-and-sales) in the UK is £172K.
So the maximum discount in that case is c. 40%. In areas where the average house price is lower (and London will have a distorting effect) then the discount could be higher.
Working with the averages for ease, worst case councils will get £100,00 in net proceeds from a sale of a house.
Average cost of building a house is £626.5/sq m (http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/costs/how-much-project-cost-one). This doesn't include land or professional fees from what I can see.
Estimated size of a house is 100 sq.m - I've used the middle of the range for a 4 bedroom house, but in practice I'd imagine you'd build as 3 bedrooms and make the rooms more generous in size. (http://www.ukselfbuild.com/content/view/39/46)
So, implied cost of a self-build house of average size is £62,500. Add 10% for professional fees and a bit extra and you are talking c. £70,000 plus the cost of the land.
Key question is the cost of the land. Estimate here is about 45% of the value of the finished house, for a 0.15 acre plot. (http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/Self-Build-Houses-Plot-Sizes.asp). This is based on a 150 sq m house and a 65 ft long garden (width of the house + 10 feet). Let's assume, therefore, that your ideal council house will have less lend - the house is smaller & the land will be less, so let's say you can build it on a plot 1/2 the size. So the cost of the land will be 22.5% of the final cost of £172K or £39K.
Overall, therefore, the total cost comes out at £70K + £39K = £109K replacement cost. These are prices for a single self-build though. A council should be able to buy in bulk and secure a decent discount (before even considering whether they can get the land cheaply through releasing state owned landbank).
Fundamentally, though, for the *maximum discount* off a average house in the UK, the total proceeds to the council will be approximately equal to the replacement cost.
I deserve a slice of cherry pie.
What at the current boundaries based on / when was the last redistricting?
I am sure I remember people saying that in 2015 the boundaries will be based on information that is nearly 15 years out of date?
Charles, you are right. The old boundaries under the old system were determined by the 5th review. This reported in 2006 with the relevant statutory instrument in 2007. The electoral data used was 2000 as the review commenced in 2000.
Part of the new boundaries procedure was to speed it up.
Forget if I posted this before, but I quite liked the first episode of The 100. Not perfect by any means, but a nice premise, potential to work out alright. And Kelly Hu's in it, which is cause for a huzzah in and of itself.
On-topic(ish): I reckon a Labour minority will occur. I don't think the Lib Dems will be in a position to pick and choose.
Louis Van Gaal's stock is going to rise through the fecking roof if the Netherlanders win the world cup, which will raise expectations for his tenure at Manchester United, which will distort the odds on Manchester United winning the league next season.
So my plan is to lay United for the league.
Got on the Netherlands at 37/1 for the overall, but only a small stake
Yes, you can play around with figures, but the councils work out that it is a loss, and with current budget demands it is a loss they can't afford.
You should become a "Big Society" accountant to show them why they are wrong.
Please may we have more of these in the coming months, including more of your betting hunches, a couple of which you mentioned in this clip.
If only the public at the time had been listened by the politicians, but nice guy Ted Heath decided against it.
1) What’s wrong with racism? Racism is the basis of nationality.
2) That I couldn't be English or British.
So, TSE, either you or he is going to be very wrong this evening.
FWIW, I'm going with Nate!
But I'm a better pundit than Nate Silver (at least when it comes to the World Cup)
The difference is that you don't like the particular institution, but I don't see why you expect MEPs to share your view - I'm not sure why you think you know voters' motivations, but we didn't elect non-UKIP MEPs on a platform of hostility to it.
and I don't know that he said they couldnt be British
As it is the desendents of the immigrants he said should be limited so as to keep trouble between segregated parts of the country at bay, people who are apparently as English as I am ,are coming back from the middle east with the intent of blowing parts of England up in the name of their "brothers"
*ahem*
Lineker wasn't quite right on how close this would be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28181349