Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?
Largely a symbolic difference, but symbols matter.
Just caught up with last night's by-election results. Congratulations to Labour on increasing its vote share by 7.5 per cent in Melcombe Regis. But they suffered a much larger collapse in Rotherham. What an astonishing result. To paraphrase that socialist, Alex Ferguson "politics, bloody hell".
And you react in exactly the way I expect: it was just a few people; they did not do any harm, and then start personal attacks.
You were the one who stated they were a bunch of dickheads, I just agreed with that assessment. As for me saying they did not do any harm that's a flat out lie and no more than I expect of you. They were rightly jailed and their odious extremist activites roundly condemned.
I have no idea what the scale of the attacks may be, if they occur, or how many people will be involved; just that the history of the SNLA makes the odds of such action rather larger than your stated zero.
You really do have no idea, do you? The "zero" was a reiteration of TUD's absolutely correct response to the ludicrous hypothetical "having Irish style "troubles*, since you need everything explained to you.
The Boston Bombers were 'just' two people. All it takes is these idiots to go the next step and there could well be deaths. They've shown their intent.
And we're not talking about the BNP, EDL or NF; I think everyone can guess my viewpoint on those odious groups.
I'm sure you don't want to talk about them but you started this by conflating some extremists to an absurd scaremongering hypothetical. so don't start crying when it is pointed out that such extremists are hardly unique to scotland.
As someone who has only lived in SE England, I really have no connectiuon with Scotland at all, and I cant imagine all that many other people from Southern England do either. Why dont we just let them have their independence? Why would any English person care?
Why would Scottish people rather be in th UK than independent? I dont get it
Nothing against Scotland, I support them in the football etc, but I would suppoert Eire as well in the World Cup unless they played England.
What are the chances of Scotland having Irish style "troubles" on the back of this?
It's not really up to the English to give Scotland its independence. It is up to the Scots to want it and to vote for it. There are many, many people in the south of England with Scottish connections - either because that is where they are form, or where their families are former or because they have Scottish friends and acquaintances. Although I am now based in the midlands, I have only ever worked in London and I have never worked at any place in which there have not been at least a few Scots.
Surely what Farage's visit to Scotland has revealed is that UKIP is a misnomer. the party should be called EIP. The celtic vision of where we go from here is very far from that of Farage, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.
Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.
Seemingly more than that to grasp that they were rightly expelled. If only Nigel could understand instead of stupidly conflating a few students shouting at him to a governing political party capable of winning seats and MPs and an independence movement capable of getting a referendum instead of living off the worthless scraps that Cammie throws to gullible eurosceptics.
Reduced to the same smear tactics Cammie used against him. The irony is most amusing.
No wonder he ran off in the huff again from the interviewer, poor chap. If that's the best he can muster it's a blessing for UKIP that he won't be in the debates.
I do find it ironic that the Scottish nationalists are apparently too thick to realise that the same arguments apply to both the Scots Independence and the BOO campaigns.
As I have said before the two most ludicrous positions in British politics are pro-EU Scots nationalism and anti-EU Unionism. Neither argument makes any logical sense.
I've often responded to you on this point but I don't think I've ever heard you address the counter argument. Surely there is more to where sovereign power should lie than just the smaller level? Would you say that it's ludicrous to support English independence from the UK and oppose Cornish independence from England, for example?
Not at all. The whole point is that self determination should be granted where it is a majority view in a democratic society and is a viable alternative to the existing situation. In both the Scotland and the EU cases that is the case (not necessarily that it is the majority view now but that it does have that potential and that the alternative arrangements - an independent Scotland and the UK outside the EU are viable.)
It is perfectly acceptable to argue that it may not be in the best interests of the people but to simply say that an existing political arrangement must be maintained under any circumstances is not a logical nor democratic position to take.
Personally I believe that an Independent Scotland is both viable and desirable given that it places the decision making process closer to the people. If the same could be said of an independent Cornwall then in theory at least I would have no argument against it.
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
I do find it ironic that the Scottish nationalists are apparently too thick to realise that the same arguments apply to both the Scots Independence and the BOO campaigns. As I have said before the two most ludicrous positions in British politics are pro-EU Scots nationalism and anti-EU Unionism. Neither argument makes any logical sense.
By the same logic, being constrained within one Union is surely an advance on being constrained within two.
And we're not talking about the BNP, EDL or NF; I think everyone can guess my viewpoint on those odious groups. Still, a great attempt at trying to divert attention from the Scottish terrorist group wanting independence that formed after the failed 1979 referendum.
Sorry JJ but I am with Mick all the way on this. The idea that the peaceful, democratic debate and vote on Scottish Independence is suddenly going to spawn some sort of sectarian civil war out of nowhere is just ludicrous.
I can't work out if you're being serious or joking...
I have never mentioned a sectarian civil war; just that terrorist acts and terrorism is hardly out of the question after the Scottish independence vote.
Because it happened before. And next time it could be worse.
"Scapegoating immigration is tedious in the extreme"
I didn't scapegoat it. I provided academic evidence from two sources of the effect I'm talking about. Unless the term "scapegoat" has been extended to mean "identifying a cause for something", it's a silly accusation.
I can certainly think of a few posts on here that are tedious, however. It might be a good idea for those posters that post the same one liners over and over again filled with buzz terms to slow down their posting a little.
I understand that the Bank of England is currently cautiously optimistic about the economy in a glass half full way. Growth is predicted to remain weak but steady (slow progress is still progress). There is no obvious benefit in further interest rate cuts at this stage, but no prospect of rate rises in the next couple of years. We may yet get some more Quantitative Easing.
The Bank is, I understand, working towards its 2% inflation target in the medium term: it could be reached more quickly but this would mean higher interest rates and unemployment rates, neither of which is an attractive option in political terms.
Its view of market sentiment is that it remains patchy: London and Aberdeen continue to perform strongly, Leeds and Manchester are showing signs of potential, but beyond the conurbations the rural economy is struggling.
All those of us who believe that the politics are in large part driven by the economics will see a lot in this for political betting, if these views are correct.
"For illustration, we will consider the extreme case where all immigrants are low-skilled. Immigration will now lead to an excess supply of unskilled labour at the pre-immigration wages. Because unskilled labour is in excess supply, firms will therefore be able to satisfy their demand for labour even at lower wages. This leads to a decrease in wages of unskilled workers, which, in turn, increases demand, until all unskilled workers (immigrants and natives) are employed, but at a lower wage than the pre-migration wage.
Accordingly, low-skilled native workers lose as a consequence of immigration. However, a supply shock of unskilled workers leads to relative scarcity of skilled workers in our economy, driving up their wages. Skilled workers therefore enjoy a surplus from immigration."
Which might explain why us metropolitan elite are in favour :-)
Especially beneficial for lawyers and barristers. And for a friend who made lots from translation/interpreting .... often at police stations and courts.
Not at all. The whole point is that self determination should be granted where it is a majority view in a democratic society and is a viable alternative to the existing situation. In both the Scotland and the EU cases that is the case (not necessarily that it is the majority view now but that it does have that potential and that the alternative arrangements - an independent Scotland and the UK outside the EU are viable.)
That doesn't make any sense. You say it should happen if two conditions are fulfilled, and then accept that one condition isn't fulfilled in Scotland's case.
So your conditions boil down to just whether it's viable or not. Seeing that countries like Iceland and Luxembourg are viable, pretty much any territory in the world could be viable as an independent state. Yorkshire independence would make sense under your analysis for Scotland.
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
In the long-run, no.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
The most difficult time for the Coalition is likely to be after next years London/Local and Euro elections.The Lib dems face a further hollowing out of their council base particularly in the all up London elections.On top of this,the Euro elections,likely to be a UKIP victory,will be humiliating for them ,possibly evenseeing them Lib Dems slip into fifth place after the Greens.
At this time the Lib Dems will have to make a decision as to whether they hold onto Clegg for the 2015 GE.If there is a leadership challenge in June 2014,and Clegg loses,then would a new leader of the Lib Dems automatically be Deputy Prime Minister or would thay want out of the coalition?
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
In the long-run, no.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
Sure it is. "In the long run" implies that growth is meaningless as a metric. It's implying the fruits of that growth will eventually raise the metric that does matter i.e. some method of measuring average levels of prosperity. In which case you might as well use that metric but argue that people need to defer a raise in that metric to get a bigger raise in the future.
Not at all. The whole point is that self determination should be granted where it is a majority view in a democratic society and is a viable alternative to the existing situation. In both the Scotland and the EU cases that is the case (not necessarily that it is the majority view now but that it does have that potential and that the alternative arrangements - an independent Scotland and the UK outside the EU are viable.)
That doesn't make any sense. You say it should happen if two conditions are fulfilled, and then accept that one condition isn't fulfilled in Scotland's case.
So your conditions boil down to just whether it's viable or not. Seeing that countries like Iceland and Luxembourg are viable, pretty much any territory in the world could be viable as an independent state. Yorkshire independence would make sense under your analysis for Scotland.
Sorry Socrates I was trying to set out the philosophical position behind the arguments which would, counter your comments about Cornwall but was also trying (badly) to explain my own personal position on Scotland as well.
Basically the two stages for me are:
Any cohesive community has the right to self determination if the majority of people want it and the resulting political entity is viable. This is very common for example in the US where communities on the edge of cities will often vote for separation from the city council and form their own cities because they are not being well served as a community within the overall political structure. This is a philosophical position that I believe in.
On the separate point specifically for Scotland all the arguments that Eurosceptics use against membership of the EU with the lack of democratic control and the imposition of centralised decisions which can run counter to the best interests of the people (of the UK in the EU) can be equally well applied to the position of Scotland in the UK. I am convinced by these arguments in both cases and so if I were a Scot I would be voting for independence. I find the alternative where Eurosceptics regularly use the same arguments in favour of BOO but against Scottish independence to be illogical and subjective.
“Portugal is not Greece” – The Economist, (April, 2010)
“Spain is not Greece” – Elena Salgado, S(panish Finance Minister, February, 2010)
“Portugal is not Greece, and Spain is not Greece.” (Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, May 2010).
“Spain is not Greece. But Greece is where it is thanks to a policy like Zapatero’s policy in Spain.” Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Spanish opposition, May 2010).
“Hungary is not in the same situation as Greece.” (Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, June 2010).
“Hungary is quite obviously not Greece.” (Gyorgy Matolcsy, Hungarian Finance Minister, June 2010).
“Spain is neither Ireland nor Portugal.” (Elena Salgado, Spanish Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is neither Spain nor Portugal.” (Angel Gurria, OECD Secretary-General, November 2010).
“Ireland is not Greece.” (Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, November 2010).
“Greece is not Ireland.” (Giorgos Papakonstantinou, Greek Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is not in Greek territory.” (Brian Lenihan, Irish Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is not Greece.” (Michael Noonan, Irish Minister of Finance, June 2011).
“France is not Greece and it’s not Italy either.” (Barry Eichengreen, American economist, August 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Rainer Bruederle, Germany's FDP parliamentary party leader, August 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister, October 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Christian Lindner, FDP general secretary, November 2011).
“Portugal is not Greece, and it will not turn into Greece.” (Antonio Saraiva, head of the Confederation of Portuguese Industry, February 2012).
“Spain is not Greece.” (Richard Youngs, head of the Madrid-based think tank FRIDE, May 2012).
“Portugal is not Greece.” (Pedro Passos Coelho, Portuguese Prime Minister, June 2012).
“Italy is not Spain.” (Ed Parker, senior director of Fitch Ratings Agency, June 2012).
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
In the long-run, no.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
Sure it is. "In the long run" implies that growth is meaningless as a metric. It's implying the fruits of that growth will eventually raise the metric that does matter i.e. some method of measuring average levels of prosperity. In which case you might as well use that metric but argue that people need to defer a raise in that metric to get a bigger raise in the future.
If you limit the size of the pie to protect one group's slice of the pie then you screw everyone in the long-term.
But of course, I'm a member of the metropolitan elite, so I would say that.
@sam A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But it wouldn't rhyme with nose, hose and close.
The key difference is the name. Why should gay couples in state-recognised relationships be marked out as "separate but equal"?
Hmm Im trying to see it from that point of view...
In a way I would rather not argue about this. It makes it appear as though i think some people are not as worthy as others and thats not my view. I am slow to change my ways in many things, and honestly cant get my head around two blokes being married as the same as my Mum and Dad being married. Exactly why this is I dont know, I had never even considered it possible until the last year or so. Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
If that is being a bigot then I suppose thats what I am. I dont want to offend you or any other gay person, I feel bad saying this, but it is what I think, sorry.
"Whereas you are scaremongering with a level of deranged hysteria that takes the breath away."
No, I'm not. I don't want it to happen, and I don't wish it to happen. I've remained calm and detached during the conversation. I can understand why you want to class a differing view to your own as 'deranged hysteria' and coming from a 'simple soul', but that doesn't make your view right.
And you utterly missed my "(for a low-enough definition of violence)." caveat.
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
In the long-run, no.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
Sure it is. "In the long run" implies that growth is meaningless as a metric. It's implying the fruits of that growth will eventually raise the metric that does matter i.e. some method of measuring average levels of prosperity. In which case you might as well use that metric but argue that people need to defer a raise in that metric to get a bigger raise in the future.
If you limit the size of the pie to protect one group's slice of the pie then you screw everyone in the long-term.
But of course, I'm a member of the metropolitan elite, so I would say that.
I'm not saying you should limit the size of the pie. I'm saying growth on its own is a meaningless metric from the average person's point of view.
I'm all for innovation driven growth that increases some metric of general prosperity.
Not at all. The whole point is that self determination should be granted where it is a majority view in a democratic society and is a viable alternative to the existing situation. In both the Scotland and the EU cases that is the case (not necessarily that it is the majority view now but that it does have that potential and that the alternative arrangements - an independent Scotland and the UK outside the EU are viable.)
That doesn't make any sense. You say it should happen if two conditions are fulfilled, and then accept that one condition isn't fulfilled in Scotland's case.
So your conditions boil down to just whether it's viable or not. Seeing that countries like Iceland and Luxembourg are viable, pretty much any territory in the world could be viable as an independent state. Yorkshire independence would make sense under your analysis for Scotland.
Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
The logical extension of that would be to demand fertility tests of any couple wanting to get married. I dont think that would be popular.
Maybe, but with a man and a woman, even those that have been written off as parents, sometimes it still happens
Even if that involves the milkman and a lifetime of lies!
Look, gay marriage is going to happen, its not worth offending anyone by mentioning it really. I dont normally think just cos its not going to affect me I shouldnt comment, but on this occasion, its doesnt affect me and Ill shut up.
And Scottish indepence come to that, I care as little about that as I do gay marriage.
In terms of what's viable, it does depend on how one looks at it. At one end of the scale, any country which can manage its own internal organisation is viable. At the other, there's an argument that any country that is not a Power Of The First Rank exists at the whim of those that are.
Mr. Neil, the difference is that if a straight couple can't have kids that's due to a medical issue. Two men can shag one another as much as they like, but it's bloody unlikely one of them will fall pregnant, even if they're in perfect health.
[I'm ambivalent about the importance of the term 'marriage'. I do believe gay couples should have equal rights regarding next of kin status and so forth, but I'm not especially concerned by the name].
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
So you can only really be called Married when you have children , biologically releated to both partners??
Reading a few blogs about these left-wing nutters protesting against Farage has really brought up the more vile members of the Scottish nationalist cause. It can't be helping the pro-independence side.
@sam A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But it wouldn't rhyme with nose, hose and close.
The key difference is the name. Why should gay couples in state-recognised relationships be marked out as "separate but equal"?
Hmm Im trying to see it from that point of view...
In a way I would rather not argue about this. It makes it appear as though i think some people are not as worthy as others and thats not my view. I am slow to change my ways in many things, and honestly cant get my head around two blokes being married as the same as my Mum and Dad being married. Exactly why this is I dont know, I had never even considered it possible until the last year or so. Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
If that is being a bigot then I suppose thats what I am. I dont want to offend you or any other gay person, I feel bad saying this, but it is what I think, sorry.
So post-menopausal women and the otherwise infertile shouldn't be able to get married either? After all, they don't have the possibility of procreation.
I also have to say I find the raising of natural parents above adoptive parents rather unpleasant. I have family friends who have adopted children and they're some of the best parents I know.
I've remained calm and detached during the conversation. I can understand why you want to class a differing view to your own as 'deranged hysteria' and coming from a 'simple soul', but that doesn't make your view right.
And you utterly missed my "(for a low-enough definition of violence)." caveat.
So you actually believe roping in the Boston Bombers into your absurd terrorism hypothetical about what you think might happen, after an entirely democratic independence referendum, isn't scaremongering or deranged hysteria? I'm more than happy to let others judge on that.
I can well understand why someone who flat out lied about what I said would want to try and pretend they are taking the high ground but your pretence of calm detachment is at odds with this entire absurd fantasy of terrorist scaremongering built on a bunch of violent dickheads akin to the violent dickheads in the EDL or BNP.
Reading a few blogs about these left-wing nutters protesting against Farage has really brought up the more vile members of the Scottish nationalist cause. It can't be helping the pro-independence side.
They are as representative of the SNP as the BNP are of the Tories. All movements have nutters - I suspect it has done no harm to either Farage or the SNP....
Your papers aren't showing the same thing. The effect of total immigration on economic growth is a very different thing to the effect of low-skilled immigration on poor people's wages.
Actually, it depends on which you look at. In the paper on the 25 US metropolitan areas, it showed that the bulk of immigrants to Southern US cities were unskilled, and yet these were the ones with the highest contribution of immigration to economic growth (they had IECR's of above 1.1).
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
So you agree growth as a metric on its own is meaningless from the average person's point of view?
In the long-run, no.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
Sure it is. "In the long run" implies that growth is meaningless as a metric. It's implying the fruits of that growth will eventually raise the metric that does matter i.e. some method of measuring average levels of prosperity. In which case you might as well use that metric but argue that people need to defer a raise in that metric to get a bigger raise in the future.
If you limit the size of the pie to protect one group's slice of the pie then you screw everyone in the long-term.
But of course, I'm a member of the metropolitan elite, so I would say that.
I'm not saying you should limit the size of the pie. I'm saying growth on its own is a meaningless metric from the average person's point of view.
I'm all for innovation driven growth that increases some metric of general prosperity.
I agree with you that the importance of the GDP figures is overblown. I would rather that more attention was paid to median earnings, for example.
However, I would caution that any single metric is capable of giving a misleading impression in certain circumstances, and so the boring answer is that one needs to look at many different metrics and judge the effect of policies in the round.
From what I can tell of the remarks of some righties on here about low pay - for example when a group of workers goes on strike to protect their pay and conditions - they seem to think that the only way to achieve growth is to reduce the pay of most normal people, and so make Britain more competitive.
I think most normal people could be forgiven for concluding that an increase in the growth statistics is worthless if an increase in it is only achievable by reducing their pay.
There is a definitive statement as to the purpose of matrimony which all of God's Englishmen will by definition accept:
...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The first obviously doesn't apply to gay marriage, but then it doesn't apply to the marriage of a woman past child-bearing age either, so that can't be an issue. The second and third apply to gay marriage.
Ignorant Patrick seeking education from the PB commentariat: What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Partnership? I thought gays already could get hitched. Is there a legal distinction or is is merely religious? Any practical real world differnces (eg inheritance, tax reliefs, etc)?
Civil partnerships don't have the same pension rights as marriage.
"Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.
The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.
For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund."
Travel/living abroad
Travel restrictions apply to civil partners but not married couples.
Countries like Sweden, Argentina and Portugal, where same-sex marriage is legal, do not see civil partnerships as marriage.
This means UK civil partners living abroad do not enjoy the same rights as same-sex married couples in the 11 countries where equal marriage is legal.
In addition, the marriages of foreign gay couples who travel to the UK are not legally viewed as marriages.
But plenty of straight couples that arent married manage to live abroad with no problem.
My main eyebrow raiser for this kind of argument is that fewer and fewer straight couples marry nowadays, and they dont campaign for the same rights as those that are married, they dont find the things you list, for example, a burden. So why is it such a big deal for gay people?
Because they are *prevented* from marrying.
If gay marriage was legal, and a gay couple don't want to get married then they don't get the benefits of marriage. But that's up to them.
There is a definitive statement as to the purpose of matrimony which all of God's Englishmen will by definition accept:
...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The first obviously doesn't apply to gay marriage, but then it doesn't apply to the marriage of a woman past child-bearing age either, so that's not an issue. The second and third apply to gay marriage.
To be fair, you can be one of God's Englishmen and not be an Anglican, as my Methodist grandfather would have pointed out...
I always smile at that. It sounds very much as though God suddenly realised after the seventh day that there was a bug in Humankind Version 1.0, and came up with marriage as a work-around.
I would much rather have a couple of pints of Discovery then go out for lunch. Today I am feeling like a nice frisee lettuce salad to start with a few lardons and a poached egg on top; then a 16 oz medium rare rib-eye with crispy thin chips; a light and fluffy chocolate mousse; and a few bits of cheese - a chevre, a Comte and an Epoisses perhaps. To drink - a half bottle of white (any suggestions?) and then a big, fat, filthy bottle of red from the sierras behind Alicante. After the cheese, of course, it would be a Macallan or two and a Montecristo No 2.
As someone who has only lived in SE England, I really have no connectiuon with Scotland at all, and I cant imagine all that many other people from Southern England do either. Why dont we just let them have their independence? Why would any English person care?
Why would Scottish people rather be in th UK than independent? I dont get it
Nothing against Scotland, I support them in the football etc, but I would suppoert Eire as well in the World Cup unless they played England.
What are the chances of Scotland having Irish style "troubles" on the back of this?
It's not really up to the English to give Scotland its independence. It is up to the Scots to want it and to vote for it. There are many, many people in the south of England with Scottish connections - either because that is where they are form, or where their families are former or because they have Scottish friends and acquaintances. Although I am now based in the midlands, I have only ever worked in London and I have never worked at any place in which there have not been at least a few Scots.
Agreed. DevoMax would be a question for both England and Scotland a that is a change in an ongoing relationship between two parties. If Scotland (or England, for that matter) wants to terminate the relationship that that is a decision for them along.
Shouldn't this sort of stuff cause action from the Electoral Commission? When the bar chart heights don't correspond to the numbers, that's pretty outrageous.
Reading a few blogs about these left-wing nutters protesting against Farage has really brought up the more vile members of the Scottish nationalist cause. It can't be helping the pro-independence side.
They are as representative of the SNP as the BNP are of the Tories. All movements have nutters - I suspect it has done no harm to either Farage or the SNP....
which is of course the point. The extremists force the centre to choose bit by bit, the middle ground gets just a little smaller and the far reaches that bit bigger. The "Birth of a Nation".
@sam A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But it wouldn't rhyme with nose, hose and close.
The key difference is the name. Why should gay couples in state-recognised relationships be marked out as "separate but equal"?
Hmm Im trying to see it from that point of view...
In a way I would rather not argue about this. It makes it appear as though i think some people are not as worthy as others and thats not my view. I am slow to change my ways in many things, and honestly cant get my head around two blokes being married as the same as my Mum and Dad being married. Exactly why this is I dont know, I had never even considered it possible until the last year or so. Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
If that is being a bigot then I suppose thats what I am. I dont want to offend you or any other gay person, I feel bad saying this, but it is what I think, sorry.
So post-menopausal women and the otherwise infertile shouldn't be able to get married either? After all, they don't have the possibility of procreation.
I also have to say I find the raising of natural parents above adoptive parents rather unpleasant. I have family friends who have adopted children and they're some of the best parents I know.
Well we cant help the way we feel.
I dont know about what infertlile people should do, people that are written off as infertile sometimes manage it against the odds. I just think there should be something special for biologically capable parents.
For all I know I may never have my own kids and have to adopt, Im not singing from a biased sheet here. Im sure I would try my best if that were the case,you make the best of things, but I still think that my own would mean more, whether that is an uncomfortable thought or not.
Do you think people who have adopted and then have their own children dont get more excited when they find theyre pregnant than when they adopt? I bet they do and also that they feel guilty for having those feelings.
“Portugal is not Greece” – The Economist, (April, 2010)
“Spain is not Greece” – Elena Salgado, S(panish Finance Minister, February, 2010)
“Portugal is not Greece, and Spain is not Greece.” (Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, May 2010).
“Spain is not Greece. But Greece is where it is thanks to a policy like Zapatero’s policy in Spain.” Mariano Rajoy, leader of the Spanish opposition, May 2010).
“Hungary is not in the same situation as Greece.” (Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, June 2010).
“Hungary is quite obviously not Greece.” (Gyorgy Matolcsy, Hungarian Finance Minister, June 2010).
“Spain is neither Ireland nor Portugal.” (Elena Salgado, Spanish Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is neither Spain nor Portugal.” (Angel Gurria, OECD Secretary-General, November 2010).
“Ireland is not Greece.” (Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, November 2010).
“Greece is not Ireland.” (Giorgos Papakonstantinou, Greek Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is not in Greek territory.” (Brian Lenihan, Irish Minister of Finance, November 2010).
“Ireland is not Greece.” (Michael Noonan, Irish Minister of Finance, June 2011).
“France is not Greece and it’s not Italy either.” (Barry Eichengreen, American economist, August 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Rainer Bruederle, Germany's FDP parliamentary party leader, August 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister, October 2011).
“Italy is not Greece.” (Christian Lindner, FDP general secretary, November 2011).
“Portugal is not Greece, and it will not turn into Greece.” (Antonio Saraiva, head of the Confederation of Portuguese Industry, February 2012).
“Spain is not Greece.” (Richard Youngs, head of the Madrid-based think tank FRIDE, May 2012).
“Portugal is not Greece.” (Pedro Passos Coelho, Portuguese Prime Minister, June 2012).
“Italy is not Spain.” (Ed Parker, senior director of Fitch Ratings Agency, June 2012).
Sounds like a geography lesson at Eton.
We did used to get occasional lectures by well connected people.
I still shudder at the memory of Dame Butler-Sloss lecturing us on sexual etiquette.
@gabyhinsliff: UKIP's lovely new donor thinks women wear trousers as a 'hostile' act to make themselves unattractive to men http://bit.ly/13rEzX6
He's the guy that put adverts in the Greek and German press against the Euro.
Fair enough, you might say.
But just to make sure no-one paid them the blindest bit of attention, he put them in English. That's like a pro-EU group running adverts in the Daily Mail in French.
I've remained calm and detached during the conversation. I can understand why you want to class a differing view to your own as 'deranged hysteria' and coming from a 'simple soul', but that doesn't make your view right.
And you utterly missed my "(for a low-enough definition of violence)." caveat.
So you actually believe roping in the Boston Bombers into your absurd terrorism hypothetical about what you think might happen, after an entirely democratic independence referendum, isn't scaremongering or deranged hysteria? I'm more than happy to let others judge on that.
I can well understand why someone who flat out lied about what I said would want to try and pretend they are taking the high ground but your pretence of calm detachment is at odds with this entire absurd fantasy of terrorist scaremongering built on a bunch of violent dickheads akin to the violent dickheads in the EDL or BNP.
The SNLA was formed after the 1979 referendum. That is more than a little relevant to the discussion about what might happen after another referendum.
I brought the Boston bombers into the discussion because they are relevant - all the SNLA needed was a little more intent, and a little more competence, and people could have died. The Boston bombers had that competence and intent.
Besides, sending firebombs in the post, or threatening to poison water supplies as part of a campaign, is not just violence by dickhaads - it's terrorism by dickheads.
This is not certain, nor even likely. However it is possible, and we need to work to prevent it.
Perhaps we should leave this now - we're not going to come anywhere near agreeing.
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
So you can only really be called Married when you have children , biologically releated to both partners??
Seriously - what are you smoking?
I think that is the ideal state for a marriage, but look it doesnt matter what I think, people can do what they want,
Listened to the Radio Scotland interview with Farage. What a buffoon. Whining about the interviewer hating him and storming off after perfectly reasonable questioning. I've faced tougher interviews from local radio over bin collections.
The direct effect of this pathetic performance will be very limited: there are, as the interviewer pointed out, very few UKIP supporters in the BBC Scotland broadcast area. However, I wonder if the indirect effect will be significant. Farage has generally been treated gently by the London-based media: now that there is a demonstration of how he crumbles under standard political questioning, they might be encouraged to properly challenge him, if only for the lulz.
The westminster press pack are content to give Farage the soft soap treatment because there's nothing they like better than the drama of the tories ripping themselves apart on Europe and a seemingly jovial Farage worrying little Ed and Clegg. That Farage has improved since the last election (which wouldn't be hard lest we forget) also means he is now in severe danger of believing his own hype. The Kilroy Silk problem as it should be called. Getting overly upset at some idiot student protesters shouting at him is one thing, his petulant witless response in that interview is quite another.
The only thing the press pack loves more than building someone up is tearing them down afterwards and there are going to be quite a few political interviewers lining up to see if they can get a similar type of response from Farage now that they have seen how easily he flies off the handle.
Nigel is going to find out the hard way that keeping the kippers a one man band is a serious mistake if he can't even handle a simple interview. If Farage lets the mask slip from jovial kipper to angry eccentric too many times then that protest vote he is taking advantage of might just begin to start fading.
Shouldn't this sort of stuff cause action from the Electoral Commission? When the bar chart heights don't correspond to the numbers, that's pretty outrageous.
Not the worst I've seen. That award goes to the LiDem barchart in Glenrothes, which purported to show that they were a close second. Genuinely baffled, I studied it for a while until I found some very very small print, showing that the bar chart was from an (admittedly recent) election for a completely different constituency. I've been patiently waiting for the chance of revenge - perhaps a leaflet in Cornwall showing that only Labour can win, based on an election in Islington.
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
That link should come with a NSFW warning for that picture alone.
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
Charles - Talking of lectures by well connected people at the great public schools..... This story about a lecture by Germaine Greer at Winchester always makes me laugh. A wonderful example of double standards being shown up.....
Shouldn't this sort of stuff cause action from the Electoral Commission? When the bar chart heights don't correspond to the numbers, that's pretty outrageous.
for example " we need to maximise our influence over these decisions as a full member of the EU"
Surely our influence was maximised when uber pro-EU Blair and Mandy were in charge and for the life of me I can think of not one single thing that they achieved in Europe.
At least the real reason becomes evident for his article i.e. "And left unchecked, populism will drive voters further in extreme and unpredictable directions as the next general election approaches, with consequences for all the mainstream parties."
'Nigel is going to find out the hard way that keeping the kippers a one man band is a serious mistake if he can't even handle a simple interview.'
Indeed. I am starting to wonder if the kippers have hit a high water mark for the time being.
The battle to attract disillusioned kippers may have started!
They were always only going to get just so much of a protest even with the EU elections coming. Maintaining momentum has been easy so far because Cammie and the tories have been doing all his work for him. Should the tories decide to stop banging on about Europe and immigration and focus on little Ed and matters economic then Farage gets sidelined once again. For that matter the lib dem tory bickering also leaves Farage out in the cold and the westminster press pack love that story almost as much as tory splits.
He's not going to drop like a stone in the polling any time soon but Cammie, little Ed and Clegg are also eventually going to calm down after the locals and recent polling. It's still FPTP and they all know it.
Shouldn't this sort of stuff cause action from the Electoral Commission? When the bar chart heights don't correspond to the numbers, that's pretty outrageous.
Maybe they are using a log scale!
Perhaps they're using the best-judgement scale:
"In this scale, the data represents what the author believes, rather than reality. Most often used when an engineer has been given no time to get the data with which to plot the chart before the meeting."
Or perhaps it's the total-random, wishful-thinking or totally-invented scales. ;-)
He's not going to drop like a stone in the polling any time soon but Cammie, little Ed and Clegg are also eventually going to calm down after the locals and recent polling. It's still FPTP and they all know it.
It is Mick but that does not mean Cammie will or should calm down. FPTP works against UKIP as it will mean they will not get the seats even approaching their vote share. That is one side of the equation and will cause much gnashing of teeth by UKIP I am sure.
But the other side of the equation is that they will gain enough votes to deny the Tories victory in a lot of seats. For this reason if no other Cammie will definitely not calm down. TheUKIP threat to his power is one he will have to find a way to deal with and so far he has been utterly ineffective in that pursuit.
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
Oh please please let it be Andy Burnham.
All the people mentioned in that article are much worse than Ed
That was before the wheels fell off over Farages BBC interview silly
Radical Scots independents forcing him to seek refuge in a boozer isnt going to play very well with your average UKIP supporter is it?
While the odd pub appearance is par for the course, Nigel does seem rather fond of appearing in pubs, and did appear to have a few bevvies on board for his interviews last week.
It does run the risk of saying some gaffe or other as a result.
@sam A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But it wouldn't rhyme with nose, hose and close.
The key difference is the name. Why should gay couples in state-recognised relationships be marked out as "separate but equal"?
Hmm Im trying to see it from that point of view...
In a way I would rather not argue about this. It makes it appear as though i think some people are not as worthy as others and thats not my view. I am slow to change my ways in many things, and honestly cant get my head around two blokes being married as the same as my Mum and Dad being married. Exactly why this is I dont know, I had never even considered it possible until the last year or so. Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
If that is being a bigot then I suppose thats what I am. I dont want to offend you or any other gay person, I feel bad saying this, but it is what I think, sorry.
So post-menopausal women and the otherwise infertile shouldn't be able to get married either? After all, they don't have the possibility of procreation.
I also have to say I find the raising of natural parents above adoptive parents rather unpleasant. I have family friends who have adopted children and they're some of the best parents I know.
Well we cant help the way we feel.
I dont know about what infertlile people should do, people that are written off as infertile sometimes manage it against the odds. I just think there should be something special for biologically capable parents.
For all I know I may never have my own kids and have to adopt, Im not singing from a biased sheet here. Im sure I would try my best if that were the case,you make the best of things, but I still think that my own would mean more, whether that is an uncomfortable thought or not.
Do you think people who have adopted and then have their own children dont get more excited when they find theyre pregnant than when they adopt? I bet they do and also that they feel guilty for having those feelings.
Sam, this is the stuff of conversations between good friends - the sort of guilty confessions one makes to people you trust to understand: I prefer my first-born over the second, I feel I made mistakes with my first child I wouldn't make now, I had children too young, etc.
It is fine to have and express such uncomfortable thoughts. I wouldn't base public policy and the legal framework for government-sanctioned relationships on it though.
Mr. Neil, the difference is that if a straight couple can't have kids that's due to a medical issue.
Tell me what medical condition two fifty five year olds getting married are suffering from.
The woman being - generally - menopausal or post-menopausal and therefore unable to conceive.
But in any case, while it is perfectly true that gay people having gay sex are unable to have children this seems to me to be irrelevant to the debate about whether civil marriage should be available to gay people and, on balance, I think it should.
But the other side of the equation is that they will gain enough votes to deny the Tories victory in a lot of seats. For this reason if no other Cammie will definitely not calm down. TheUKIP threat to his power is one he will have to find a way to deal with and so far he has been utterly ineffective in that pursuit.
Which I've highlighted before nor is it unique to right now. Those same questions about the UKIP vote in marginals were raised by tories after 2010 and Cammie failing to win a majority.
Point being Cammie cannot possibly stop all of the kipper seepage from his vote so he had better start trying to winning over voters he can, be it from little Ed, Clegg, the centre or wherever. The one thing can be absolutely certain of is banging on about Europe and immigration is only going to worsen his problems. He knows this because it's what he's been doing for months with the all too predictable results we now see. He only keeps doing so because his backbenchers are reduced to panicking and running about like headless chickens.
There is no strategy that can outkip the kippers because it will never work. Nor is the talk of pacts anything other than an attempt by Farage to undermine Cammie and the tories. There will be no pacts. The tories aren't about to stop being tories and Nigel isn't about to give up his precious status as a protest vote against the other three.
Comments
It is perfectly acceptable to argue that it may not be in the best interests of the people but to simply say that an existing political arrangement must be maintained under any circumstances is not a logical nor democratic position to take.
Personally I believe that an Independent Scotland is both viable and desirable given that it places the decision making process closer to the people. If the same could be said of an independent Cornwall then in theory at least I would have no argument against it.
On page 9 you'll see that it showed a positive correlation between immigration levels and 'pay and other employment conditions' for all workers. Again, I would be careful about reading too much into this - the correlation, while statistically significant, was modest (0.26), and there were places like Riverside where it did not work well for local unskilled workers.
I have never mentioned a sectarian civil war; just that terrorist acts and terrorism is hardly out of the question after the Scottish independence vote.
Because it happened before. And next time it could be worse.
"Scapegoating immigration is tedious in the extreme"
I didn't scapegoat it. I provided academic evidence from two sources of the effect I'm talking about. Unless the term "scapegoat" has been extended to mean "identifying a cause for something", it's a silly accusation.
I can certainly think of a few posts on here that are tedious, however. It might be a good idea for those posters that post the same one liners over and over again filled with buzz terms to slow down their posting a little.
The Bank is, I understand, working towards its 2% inflation target in the medium term: it could be reached more quickly but this would mean higher interest rates and unemployment rates, neither of which is an attractive option in political terms.
Its view of market sentiment is that it remains patchy: London and Aberdeen continue to perform strongly, Leeds and Manchester are showing signs of potential, but beyond the conurbations the rural economy is struggling.
All those of us who believe that the politics are in large part driven by the economics will see a lot in this for political betting, if these views are correct.
So your conditions boil down to just whether it's viable or not. Seeing that countries like Iceland and Luxembourg are viable, pretty much any territory in the world could be viable as an independent state. Yorkshire independence would make sense under your analysis for Scotland.
In the long-run, pursuing policies that do not encourage the wealthy and talented to remain here, will screw the poor too.
It's like a union which secures higher wages for its employees today, at the expense of making the employer less competitive.
At this time the Lib Dems will have to make a decision as to whether they hold onto Clegg for the 2015 GE.If there is a leadership challenge in June 2014,and Clegg loses,then would a new leader of the Lib Dems automatically be Deputy Prime Minister or would thay want out of the coalition?
Basically the two stages for me are:
Any cohesive community has the right to self determination if the majority of people want it and the resulting political entity is viable. This is very common for example in the US where communities on the edge of cities will often vote for separation from the city council and form their own cities because they are not being well served as a community within the overall political structure. This is a philosophical position that I believe in.
On the separate point specifically for Scotland all the arguments that Eurosceptics use against membership of the EU with the lack of democratic control and the imposition of centralised decisions which can run counter to the best interests of the people (of the UK in the EU) can be equally well applied to the position of Scotland in the UK. I am convinced by these arguments in both cases and so if I were a Scot I would be voting for independence. I find the alternative where Eurosceptics regularly use the same arguments in favour of BOO but against Scottish independence to be illogical and subjective.
Perhaps significant that more rate Cameron as the most capable leader than the other three combined.
But of course, I'm a member of the metropolitan elite, so I would say that.
In a way I would rather not argue about this. It makes it appear as though i think some people are not as worthy as others and thats not my view. I am slow to change my ways in many things, and honestly cant get my head around two blokes being married as the same as my Mum and Dad being married. Exactly why this is I dont know, I had never even considered it possible until the last year or so. Something to do with procreation, or at least the possibilty of it, being sacred and more important than the feelings of two people maybe
I cant help but think there should be a special priveliged relationship, not available to others, between the two people that are the natural parents of a child, and logically that could be interpretated as saying some people are less worthy I suppose.
If that is being a bigot then I suppose thats what I am. I dont want to offend you or any other gay person, I feel bad saying this, but it is what I think, sorry.
"Whereas you are scaremongering with a level of deranged hysteria that takes the breath away."
No, I'm not. I don't want it to happen, and I don't wish it to happen. I've remained calm and detached during the conversation. I can understand why you want to class a differing view to your own as 'deranged hysteria' and coming from a 'simple soul', but that doesn't make your view right.
And you utterly missed my "(for a low-enough definition of violence)." caveat.
I'm all for innovation driven growth that increases some metric of general prosperity.
This morning on white van man radio (TalkSport), presenter Alan Brazil called the liberal democrats 'a waste of space'
Even if that involves the milkman and a lifetime of lies!
Look, gay marriage is going to happen, its not worth offending anyone by mentioning it really. I dont normally think just cos its not going to affect me I shouldnt comment, but on this occasion, its doesnt affect me and Ill shut up.
And Scottish indepence come to that, I care as little about that as I do gay marriage.
[I'm ambivalent about the importance of the term 'marriage'. I do believe gay couples should have equal rights regarding next of kin status and so forth, but I'm not especially concerned by the name].
Seriously - what are you smoking?
http://labourlist.org/2013/05/an-absolutely-classic-lib-dem-bar-chart/
That poll sort of answers Mike's question 'why would the lib dems keep the tories in power?'
To avoid being wiped out?
I also have to say I find the raising of natural parents above adoptive parents rather unpleasant. I have family friends who have adopted children and they're some of the best parents I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
I can well understand why someone who flat out lied about what I said would want to try and pretend they are taking the high ground but your pretence of calm detachment is at odds with this entire absurd fantasy of terrorist scaremongering built on a bunch of violent dickheads akin to the violent dickheads in the EDL or BNP.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8910471/camerons-bluff/
However, I would caution that any single metric is capable of giving a misleading impression in certain circumstances, and so the boring answer is that one needs to look at many different metrics and judge the effect of policies in the round.
From what I can tell of the remarks of some righties on here about low pay - for example when a group of workers goes on strike to protect their pay and conditions - they seem to think that the only way to achieve growth is to reduce the pay of most normal people, and so make Britain more competitive.
I think most normal people could be forgiven for concluding that an increase in the growth statistics is worthless if an increase in it is only achievable by reducing their pay.
...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The first obviously doesn't apply to gay marriage, but then it doesn't apply to the marriage of a woman past child-bearing age either, so that can't be an issue. The second and third apply to gay marriage.
If gay marriage was legal, and a gay couple don't want to get married then they don't get the benefits of marriage. But that's up to them.
Greek addicts turn to deadly shisha drug as economic crisis deepens
Growing popularity of 'cocaine of the poor' in Athens has overwhelmed public health authorities already under strain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/16/greek-addicts-sisha-drug-crisis
Sadly, I will have to settle for scrambled eggs.
I dont know about what infertlile people should do, people that are written off as infertile sometimes manage it against the odds. I just think there should be something special for biologically capable parents.
For all I know I may never have my own kids and have to adopt, Im not singing from a biased sheet here. Im sure I would try my best if that were the case,you make the best of things, but I still think that my own would mean more, whether that is an uncomfortable thought or not.
Do you think people who have adopted and then have their own children dont get more excited when they find theyre pregnant than when they adopt? I bet they do and also that they feel guilty for having those feelings.
Version 1.0? I thought it was 2.0:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
I still shudder at the memory of Dame Butler-Sloss lecturing us on sexual etiquette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Butler-Sloss,_Baroness_Butler-Sloss
Fair enough, you might say.
But just to make sure no-one paid them the blindest bit of attention, he put them in English. That's like a pro-EU group running adverts in the Daily Mail in French.
I brought the Boston bombers into the discussion because they are relevant - all the SNLA needed was a little more intent, and a little more competence, and people could have died. The Boston bombers had that competence and intent.
Besides, sending firebombs in the post, or threatening to poison water supplies as part of a campaign, is not just violence by dickhaads - it's terrorism by dickheads.
This is not certain, nor even likely. However it is possible, and we need to work to prevent it.
Perhaps we should leave this now - we're not going to come anywhere near agreeing.
Seriously - what are you smoking?
I think that is the ideal state for a marriage, but look it doesnt matter what I think, people can do what they want,
I dont smoke
The only thing the press pack loves more than building someone up is tearing them down afterwards and there are going to be quite a few political interviewers lining up to see if they can get a similar type of response from Farage now that they have seen how easily he flies off the handle.
Nigel is going to find out the hard way that keeping the kippers a one man band is a serious mistake if he can't even handle a simple interview. If Farage lets the mask slip from jovial kipper to angry eccentric too many times then that protest vote he is taking advantage of might just begin to start fading.
Indeed. I am starting to wonder if the kippers have hit a high water mark for the time being.
The battle to attract disillusioned kippers may have started!
I used to a lot.. and your post has almost brought on an anxiety attack at the thought of it!
Hannibal?
Is the only explanation for our ineptness
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100217452/labours-next-leader-andy-burnham-shows-a-bit-of-leg/
"Though leadership whispers are again circling around Ed Miliband, it’s hard to see anyone replacing him this side of an election. And once that election is out of the way, and assuming it is lost, by that stage Chuka Umunna will be back from the Balearics, and other candidates such as Stella Creasy and Rachel Reeves will be in a position to throw their hats in the ring.
But if Ed Miliband were to fall under a bus, or get ensnared in his Rubik's Snake, then Andy Burnham could well be the guy to watch."
I still shudder at the memory of Dame Butler-Sloss lecturing us on sexual etiquette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Butler-Sloss,_Baroness_Butler-Sloss
Charles - Talking of lectures by well connected people at the great public schools..... This story about a lecture by Germaine Greer at Winchester always makes me laugh. A wonderful example of double standards being shown up.....
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people/37953/winchester’s-‘beautiful-boys’-leave-greer-speechless
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10062863/David-Cameron-must-not-cave-in-to-the-Ukip-threat.html
for example " we need to maximise our influence over these decisions as a full member of the EU"
Surely our influence was maximised when uber pro-EU Blair and Mandy were in charge and for the life of me I can think of not one single thing that they achieved in Europe.
At least the real reason becomes evident for his article i.e.
"And left unchecked, populism will drive voters further in extreme and unpredictable directions as the next general election approaches, with consequences for all the mainstream parties."
He's not going to drop like a stone in the polling any time soon but Cammie, little Ed and Clegg are also eventually going to calm down after the locals and recent polling. It's still FPTP and they all know it.
"In this scale, the data represents what the author believes, rather than reality. Most often used when an engineer has been given no time to get the data with which to plot the chart before the meeting."
Or perhaps it's the total-random, wishful-thinking or totally-invented scales. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdpxR0SO7G4
"Is she trying to get out of that cl...."
Rawmarsh
UKIP 1143
Labour 1039
Conservative 107
BNP 80
TUSC 61
LD 28
lol
But the other side of the equation is that they will gain enough votes to deny the Tories victory in a lot of seats. For this reason if no other Cammie will definitely not calm down. TheUKIP threat to his power is one he will have to find a way to deal with and so far he has been utterly ineffective in that pursuit.
Radical Scots independents forcing him to seek refuge in a boozer isnt going to play very well with your average UKIP supporter is it?
It does run the risk of saying some gaffe or other as a result.
It is fine to have and express such uncomfortable thoughts. I wouldn't base public policy and the legal framework for government-sanctioned relationships on it though.
But in any case, while it is perfectly true that gay people having gay sex are unable to have children this seems to me to be irrelevant to the debate about whether civil marriage should be available to gay people and, on balance, I think it should.
Point being Cammie cannot possibly stop all of the kipper seepage from his vote so he had better start trying to winning over voters he can, be it from little Ed, Clegg, the centre or wherever. The one thing can be absolutely certain of is banging on about Europe and immigration is only going to worsen his problems. He knows this because it's what he's been doing for months with the all too predictable results we now see. He only keeps doing so because his backbenchers are reduced to panicking and running about like headless chickens.
There is no strategy that can outkip the kippers because it will never work.
Nor is the talk of pacts anything other than an attempt by Farage to undermine Cammie and the tories. There will be no pacts. The tories aren't about to stop being tories and Nigel isn't about to give up his precious status as a protest vote against the other three.