politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results with news of a Lib Dem gain from CON in a seat where they were 4th
Penistone West on Barnsley (Lab Defence) Result: Labour 772 (31% -17%), Conservatives 719 (29% -17%), UKIP 622 (25%), Independent 348 (14%) Labour HOLD with a majority of 53 (2%) on no swing from Lab to Con since 2012
Twitter Pimlicat @pimlicat 6m Redcar MP Ian Swales to stand down at next election 'for personal reasons' http://bit.ly/1ztXP9C << Very bad news indeed.
FPT: Not a tip, but worth considering Bottas or Massa (probably the former) each way to win [each way = top 2] at Germany. If memory serves, Hockenheim's a bugger to overtake on, and the Williams has been highly competitive of late.
I'll be paying close attention when Ladbrokes put their full markets up.
So now we know why SeanT is in Cornwall - to report on this seismic Illogen on Cornwall by-election!! The tectonic plates are shifting beyond the Tamar....
Can I retract my cricket tip from this morning? It appears my cricketing nouse has disappeared with England's backbone
Don't feel too bad about it - I opposed TSE by favouring Brazil in their semi vs Germany.
I didn't dare show my face on here afterwards for a full 24 hours.
My tip for Sunday is Argentina, and for the match to go to penalties, also backed Messi and Muller to be FGS.
I really can't stand the Argies, so if they do win, I'll be able to console myself.
I'm not betting on the third place match, those matches often turn into exhibition/testimonial matches.
Overall this world cup, has been my most profitable betting event ever.
I'm going to miss this world cup when it is over.
Yes, you've had a terrific number of successes, often at big prices - had OGH not inexcusably scrapped the annual PB.com TOTY award around 3 years ago (when I quite fancied my own chances), you'd be a shoo-in to win this year.
OGH very wisely decided some six years back that after my tumultuous and crushing victory over Peter the Punter by one vote that it was unwise to hold TOTY until Burnley FC won the Champions League.
What outstanding insight Mike Smithson has shown ....
The Law Society's comments on the Government's "emergency" Invasion of Privacy Bill:-
"The Law Society has called for a review of RIPA and associated legislation for some years and its president Andrew Caplen welcomed the move, but said the emergency surveillance legislation was ‘particularly worrying’.
Caplen said: ‘We are concerned that introducing emergency legislation does nothing to enhance the rule of law or address the fact that we are increasingly becoming a surveillance society. The history of emergency legislation is not exemplary, with laws being used for purposes for which they were not intended.
‘There needs to be a public debate about how to strike the right balance between security, freedom and privacy. We need to simplify and clarify a complex and confusing legal framework and ensure that it protects human rights.’
The Society called for a review of the legal and practical framework of surveillance in the UK and explicit legislative protection for legal professional privilege in legislation like RIPA."
I'd have thought the Liberal party might have a case against the similarly named Liberal Democrats taking votes from them to accidentally win this seat
Can I retract my cricket tip from this morning? It appears my cricketing nouse has disappeared with England's backbone
Don't feel too bad about it - I opposed TSE by favouring Brazil in their semi vs Germany.
I didn't dare show my face on here afterwards for a full 24 hours.
My tip for Sunday is Argentina, and for the match to go to penalties, also backed Messi and Muller to be FGS.
I really can't stand the Argies, so if they do win, I'll be able to console myself.
I'm not betting on the third place match, those matches often turn into exhibition/testimonial matches.
Overall this world cup, has been my most profitable betting event ever.
I'm going to miss this world cup when it is over.
Yes, you've had a terrific number of successes, often at big prices - had OGH not inexcusably scrapped the annual PB.com TOTY award around 3 years ago (when I quite fancied my own chances), you'd be a shoo-in to win this year.
OGH very wisely decided some six years back that after my tumultuous and crushing victory over Peter the Punter by one vote that it was unwise to hold TOTY until Burnley FC won the Champions League.
What outstanding insight Mike Smithson has shown ....
JackW Rt Hon PB TOTY
Yes Jack, I well remember your "tumultuous and crushing victory" on that particular occasion. I was in constant touch with PtP as voting drew to a close and to say there were some unusual voting patterns is putting it mildly.
Can I retract my cricket tip from this morning? It appears my cricketing nouse has disappeared with England's backbone
Don't feel too bad about it - I opposed TSE by favouring Brazil in their semi vs Germany.
I didn't dare show my face on here afterwards for a full 24 hours.
My tip for Sunday is Argentina, and for the match to go to penalties, also backed Messi and Muller to be FGS.
I really can't stand the Argies, so if they do win, I'll be able to console myself.
I'm not betting on the third place match, those matches often turn into exhibition/testimonial matches.
Overall this world cup, has been my most profitable betting event ever.
I'm going to miss this world cup when it is over.
Yes, you've had a terrific number of successes, often at big prices - had OGH not inexcusably scrapped the annual PB.com TOTY award around 3 years ago (when I quite fancied my own chances), you'd be a shoo-in to win this year.
OGH very wisely decided some six years back that after my tumultuous and crushing victory over Peter the Punter by one vote that it was unwise to hold TOTY until Burnley FC won the Champions League.
What outstanding insight Mike Smithson has shown ....
JackW Rt Hon PB TOTY
Yes Jack, I well remember your "tumultuous and crushing victory" on that particular occasion. I was in constant touch with PtP as voting drew to a close and to say there were some unusual voting patterns is putting it mildly.
The Tower Hamlets votes came late and swung it. Shocking.
Can I retract my cricket tip from this morning? It appears my cricketing nouse has disappeared with England's backbone
Don't feel too bad about it - I opposed TSE by favouring Brazil in their semi vs Germany.
I didn't dare show my face on here afterwards for a full 24 hours.
My tip for Sunday is Argentina, and for the match to go to penalties, also backed Messi and Muller to be FGS.
I really can't stand the Argies, so if they do win, I'll be able to console myself.
I'm not betting on the third place match, those matches often turn into exhibition/testimonial matches.
Overall this world cup, has been my most profitable betting event ever.
I'm going to miss this world cup when it is over.
Yes, you've had a terrific number of successes, often at big prices - had OGH not inexcusably scrapped the annual PB.com TOTY award around 3 years ago (when I quite fancied my own chances), you'd be a shoo-in to win this year.
OGH very wisely decided some six years back that after my tumultuous and crushing victory over Peter the Punter by one vote that it was unwise to hold TOTY until Burnley FC won the Champions League.
What outstanding insight Mike Smithson has shown ....
JackW Rt Hon PB TOTY
Yes Jack, I well remember your "tumultuous and crushing victory" on that particular occasion. I was in constant touch with PtP as voting drew to a close and to say there were some unusual voting patterns is putting it mildly.
Quite so .... I was shocked I tell you, shocked .... and stunned ..... shocked and stunned by such shenanigans ....
How Peter the Punter came within one vote is totally incomprehensible especially to my supporters who were handing out bri .... er .... all manner of induc .... er ... worthy encouragement.
Democracy was served in the end .... together with some rather fine single malt ....
Twas the greatest exhibition of electioneering since the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election two centuries ago and somewhat closer too.
So now we know why SeanT is in Cornwall - to report on this seismic Illogen on Cornwall by-election!! The tectonic plates are shifting beyond the Tamar....
Alcoholism among the young is what upsets the Daily Mail, which every New Years Day likes to publish photos of young men and women somewhat worse for wear on the previous evening. But these days, it is people in their 40s who are most likely to be admitted to hospital for drinking too much. Actually, Britain’s problem drinkers tend not to be young people, who may binge drink occasionally, but most of the time are fairly sober. They are more likely to be middle-aged Daily Mail readers, drinking yet another bottle from their Mail Wine Club delivery each day, slowly building up an addiction that eventually lands them in hospital.
So now we know why SeanT is in Cornwall - to report on this seismic Illogen on Cornwall by-election!! The tectonic plates are shifting beyond the Tamar....
The main lesson from Illogan is that, when you have five or six parties seriously contesting seats you get some very strange results. This might be worth remembering for those betting on May 2015.
Twitter Pimlicat @pimlicat 6m Redcar MP Ian Swales to stand down at next election 'for personal reasons' http://bit.ly/1ztXP9C << Very bad news indeed.</p>
I make that the 10th LD retirement/deselected. Someone forecast 10.... Could we have 11? Sir Robert Smith says he is standing again but has Parkinson's.
When the boys have failed, send in a man to do their job. Stand up and take a bow Jimmy Anderson, solid hour of batting. Go on and get your fifty in the morning ;-)
Goodness it's quiet on here. Maybe I should say something controversial...
David Cameron is trying to protect us from terrorists whilst idiotic civil libertarians with their wishy washy ideals would rather see us blown up by terrorists.
Great result for the LDs in Illogan - gives encouragement for Julia Goldsworthy as she bids to regain Camborne & Redruth next year. Next week sees UKIP defend the seat of Mabe, Perranworthal and St Gluvias which they took from the Conservatives by just three votes last year with the LDs just 80 further back.
I was particularly impressed by the last paragraph. I was assuming the money would come from the taxpayer, but no, from what Nick Clegg says it looks as though the LibDems are clubbing together to find the money.
New Independent 'poll of polls' shows support for the main parties in freefall. Labour is ahead on only 34%, the same total Kinnock got when beaten in 1992, the Tories on 31%, the same total Major and Hague got in their landslide defeats in 1997 and 2001, and the LDs are on 8%, which would be their lowest general election score since 1970. The only parties gaining at the moment are UKIP, on a 15% average, and the Greens on 6%, as some voters seem to be looking for more ideologically pure alternatives to the Tories and Labour of right and left http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-are-failing-to-turn-economic-recovery-into-political-capital-latest-poll-shows-9598859.html
"Harwich-Esbjerg Ferry Route to Close in September
The historic passenger ferry route between Harwich and Esbjerg of DFDS Seaways, northern Europe’s largest integrated shipping and logistics company, has been struggling for a long time with high costs, loss of passengers and freight being switched to road transport."
If it was for their equivalent of the Sate Opening, I'd say why not. But if they are expected to wear them every day, that is a bit absurd. Perhaps only the Speaker (or equivalent) should be expected to wear it?
Me and the family are travelling down to deepest darkest Sussex (near Rye) tomorrow morning, going from North West London (Hampstead) and were planning on using the Woolwich Ferry.
If it was for their equivalent of the Sate Opening, I'd say why not. But if they are expected to wear them every day, that is a bit absurd. Perhaps only the Speaker (or equivalent) should be expected to wear it?
If anyone wants to bet on Nigel Farage wearing it down the Fox and Horses to demonstrate his pro-EU views, I'm willing to offer generous odds...
New Independent 'poll of polls' shows support for the main parties in freefall. Labour is ahead on only 34%, the same total Kinnock got when beaten in 1992, the Tories on 31%, the same total Major and Hague got in their landslide defeats in 1997 and 2001, and the LDs are on 8%, which would be their lowest general election score since 1970. The only parties gaining at the moment are UKIP, on a 15% average, and the Greens on 6%, as some voters seem to be looking for more ideologically pure alternatives to the Tories and Labour of right and left http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-are-failing-to-turn-economic-recovery-into-political-capital-latest-poll-shows-9598859.html
The Tories and the Lib Dems are both guilty of political malpractice and it will cost them power at the next election. The Lib Dems don't stand for anything if it's not individual liberty, and if they're going to pass emergency authoritarian powers, they need to seriously beef up the safeguards and push things in a pro-liberty direction elsewhere to make up for it.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, need to make clear they are serious about standing up for the UK in the EU, by laying out a clear list of demands that they want to repatriate, and by showing they will take serious action to cut unskilled immigration. If they can't do anything major on the EU, it'll have to be strong limits on non-EU immigration. I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
Me and the family are travelling down to deepest darkest Sussex (near Rye) tomorrow morning, going from North West London (Hampstead) and were planning on using the Woolwich Ferry.
OK PBers:
Good idea or bad idea?
Are you out to enjoy the journey no matter how long it takes? If so the Woolwich ferry is probably a nice idea. Otherwise blat round the M25 and over the bridge. Mind you, the A21 is a bloody awful road, though I always enjoy the bottom half of it even if I am stuck behind a tractor for mile after mile.
I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
So, your view is that rich people should have more rights than poor people?
That is a bit unfair. If a person's skills are such that he/she can only command a salary of £20k then said skills can't be that wonderful or that much in short supply. Though, if memory serves, Mr. Robert, you don't actually believe in companies training people - in case they leave and go to a competitor as I recall. So perhaps you take a different view.
I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
So, your view is that rich people should have more rights than poor people?
No, I don't believe skilled workers of any income level from outside the EU have any rights to come here. A segment of them are allowed to come here on the basis that they bring a net benefit to the UK, but they don't have an entitlement to that.
I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
So, your view is that rich people should have more rights than poor people?
No, I don't believe skilled workers of any income level from outside the EU have any rights to come here. A segment of them are allowed to come here on the basis that they bring a net benefit to the UK, but they don't have an entitlement to that.
I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
So, your view is that rich people should have more rights than poor people?
No, I don't believe skilled workers of any income level from outside the EU have any rights to come here. A segment of them are allowed to come here on the basis that they bring a net benefit to the UK, but they don't have an entitlement to that.
I was being contentious... :-)
I like contentiousness. It improves the quality of my arguments.
I really can't work out why the salary requirement for a Tier 2 General visa is just £20,500, while for Tier 2 Intracompany transfers, it's £24,500 for graduates, skills tranfer or short term, and £41,000 for long term.
I really can't work out why the salary requirement for a Tier 2 General visa is just £20,500, while for Tier 2 Intracompany transfers, it's £24,500 for graduates, skills tranfer or short term, and £41,000 for long term.
Are there any other restrictions on the 'tier 2 general visa'? Presumably there are, otherwise no-one would ever do a tier 2 intracompany transfer.
I really can't work out why the salary requirement for a Tier 2 General visa is just £20,500, while for Tier 2 Intracompany transfers, it's £24,500 for graduates, skills tranfer or short term, and £41,000 for long term.
Are there any other restrictions on the 'tier 2 general visa'? Presumably there are, otherwise no-one would ever do a tier 2 intracompany transfer.
I just had a detailed look. There seems to be two:
(1) There's a cap on how many certificate of sponsorship are given out each month. However, this cap has never been hit.
(2) You have to advertise the job domestically first.
Me and the family are travelling down to deepest darkest Sussex (near Rye) tomorrow morning, going from North West London (Hampstead) and were planning on using the Woolwich Ferry.
OK PBers:
Good idea or bad idea?
Ah, so you'll be going:
Hampstead to Bank by the Northern line Bank to King George V by DLR walk to the ferry cross over then Woolwich Arsenal to London Bridge by Southeastern London Bridge to Ashford International by Southeastern and finally Ashford to Rye by Southern ?
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Evening all and clearly apart from the wee Cornwall ward where the LibDems got very excited in all but perhaps one of the wards contested, Labour lost votes and even suffered a slight swing to the Tories in one seat. Sounds like a party 7% ahead in the polls heading back to government. Ed wont be Neil Kinnock MkII he will be Michael Foot MkII
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Their core constituency is ethnically Pakistani and Bangladeshi households that like to import brides from the subcontinent. And it certainly doesn't take 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. You initially get two years right to remain, after which you can apply for permanent settlement. A year into that you can apply for citizenship. Labour opening the flood gates will help them in the very next election. Why support the white working class when they only vote for you by a ten point margin, when immigrant communities vote for you by a thirty point one?
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Their core constituency is ethnically Pakistani and Bangladeshi households that like to import brides from the subcontinent.
To earn £20,000+ a year you clearly have to have some skills, and you can only get a long term visa if you earn more than £41,000
The £41k is only for long term intra-company transfers. You can get in under a general work visa for just £20,500, with no time limit. And "some skills" is quite different to "highly skilled".
I really can't work out why the salary requirement for a Tier 2 General visa is just £20,500, while for Tier 2 Intracompany transfers, it's £24,500 for graduates, skills tranfer or short term, and £41,000 for long term.
I work for an IB, endless intracompany transfers from India, complete idiots and utterly incompetent but higher ups look only at wage rather than output of worker. Great book Farewell to Alms covers this topic, how British textile workers, despite a far higher wage, were ultimately more productive than low wage Indian textile workers.
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Their core constituency is ethnically Pakistani and Bangladeshi households that like to import brides from the subcontinent. And it certainly doesn't take 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. You initially get two years right to remain, after which you can apply for permanent settlement. A year into that you can apply for citizenship. Labour opening the flood gates will help them in the very next election. Why support the white working class when they only vote for you by a ten point margin, when immigrant communities vote for you by a thirty point one?
And if you are an ex Glasgow Labour MP you get handed the job of Governor of some Province in Pakistan with almost autocratic powers.
If it happens, the big move will be the reported job swap between IDS and Phil Hammond
Did you see the intriguing last paragraph?
The prime minister is expected to announce the name of Britain's new European commissioner at the same time as the reshuffle. Cameron will ask Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming European commission president, for an economics portfolio when they hold talks on the fringes of a European summit on Wednesday. Allies of the PM are urging him to consider heavyweight candidates such as former Tory MP and ITV chairman Archie Norman or the former Tory leader Lord Howard of Lympne. David Willetts, who may be replaced as universities minister by Truss, is also seen as a possible candidate.
To earn £20,000+ a year you clearly have to have some skills, and you can only get a long term visa if you earn more than £41,000
You have to have a sponsor but as far as I can see you cannot work for the sponsor. And the job has to have been advertised in the UK. So there are restrictions - though I guess there are formulas for working round them. Something like nursing seems to be one aea that would fit.
If it happens, the big move will be the reported job swap between IDS and Phil Hammond
Did you see the intriguing last paragraph?
The prime minister is expected to announce the name of Britain's new European commissioner at the same time as the reshuffle. Cameron will ask Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming European commission president, for an economics portfolio when they hold talks on the fringes of a European summit on Wednesday. Allies of the PM are urging him to consider heavyweight candidates such as former Tory MP and ITV chairman Archie Norman or the former Tory leader Lord Howard of Lympne. David Willetts, who may be replaced as universities minister by Truss, is also seen as a possible candidate.
Archie Norman? Now that would be a surprise.
I did, have I mentioned before that I tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
I suspect Archie Norman won't go for it, I think he earns £8.4m per year.
Edit: Oops, Archie Norman is on 500k per year, it is Adam Crozier on £8.4m per year
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Daft, they get a passport pretty quick and you don't need a passport to vote. Jealousy is perhaps the strongest human emotion and anyone vaguely familiar with the studies on immigration knows hatred is what motivates the proponents of making Europeans a minority in their own homeland, exploiting the European tendency to Universalist principles is part of the whole schtick.
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Their core constituency is ethnically Pakistani and Bangladeshi households that like to import brides from the subcontinent. And it certainly doesn't take 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. You initially get two years right to remain, after which you can apply for permanent settlement. A year into that you can apply for citizenship. Labour opening the flood gates will help them in the very next election. Why support the white working class when they only vote for you by a ten point margin, when immigrant communities vote for you by a thirty point one?
It took my wife seven years to get a British passport, but she may have been slow to follow the steps. Of course, this was when it was easier, and there were no British-ness tests. Still, given the gap between General Elections, it will realistically happen - even on your numbers - for most only at the next but one election. Which requires a degree of long-term planning, the Labour Party has failed to show in most of their other actions.
I would also point out, that the vast majority of Pakistani and Banglashi households are already in safe Labour constituencies. East Central London is not in any danger of voting Conservative any time soon. So, why import people who only bolster majorities in seats you will already win?
Mostly, though, I don't buy your argument because I believe that Labour Party politicians, like Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrat ones are all patriots, who all want the best for Britain. Sure our views of what constitutes best might differ, and our approaches to achieving that goal, but all genuinely want the best for Britain.
Virtually nobody in the UK goes into politics for narrow personal or financial reasons. Nigel Farage, Ed Milliband or even Nick Clegg would all earn far more - and probably have greater respect shown them - in the real, commercial world.
Your explanation is a cynical one that - apart from being impractical and ineffective - also suggests that politicians would sell their country down the river for because it might just possibly get them some imported votes. And the numbers simply don't stack up for that - not least because so few Poles are bothering to apply for British citizenship.
Has John Thurso (60\ been confirmed to be standing at the next GE?
We are being told he is and he is my MP. Jack W will be devastated if he stands down but I would not be surprised if he chooses to later in the year. The seat would become a straight Labour v SNP fight I suspect with the Tories aiming to replace the LibDems as 3rd.
I did, have I mentioned before that I tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
I suspect Archie Norman won't go for it, I think he earns £8.4m per year.
Edit: Oops, Archie Norman is on 500k per year, it is Adam Crozier on £8.4m per year
I vaguely remember you mentioning something about Lord Howard, a hundred or so times...
I can't believe Archie Norman would be interested. I had the very strong impression that being an MP convinced him that this politics malarkey wasn't for him. Like most people from outside politics, he discovered it wasn't quite as easy as it looked.
I did, have I mentioned before that I tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
I suspect Archie Norman won't go for it, I think he earns £8.4m per year.
Edit: Oops, Archie Norman is on 500k per year, it is Adam Crozier on £8.4m per year
I vaguely remember you mentioning something about Lord Howard, a hundred or so times...
I can't believe Archie Norman would be interested. I had the very strong impression that being an MP convinced him that this politics malarkey wasn't for him. Like most people from outside politics, he discovered it wasn't quite as easy as it looked.
I can't see it happening for the same reasons as you.
That said, speaking to some of his ex Asda colleagues, he couldn't cope with going from being the Chief Exec of an organisation to being a mere MP and having very little to do.
That said, being an Commissioner might be more similar to being a Chief Exec than an MP.
The Times have a story that almost guarantees Lady Butler-Sloss won't be leading the inquiry into child abuse.
She'll have to step aside.
The inquiry needs to be lead by someone from a younger generation IMO. The problem with people born in the 1930s and earlier is that they tend to have had a very naive attitude towards these types of crimes, often seemingly hoping they didn't exist rather than confronting them.
Interesting Archie Norman being considered for the Commissioner role, he used to be my MP and campaigning for him as a teenager I met him several times. He is not a naturally charismatic figure, but he is highly intelligent and with a successful business career behind him, the only FTSE 100 company chairman or CEO to have been an MP as far as I am aware, and while mildly Eurosceptic, he could have the clout to get a big role. Howard would also be good as would Portillo
If it happens, the big move will be the reported job swap between IDS and Phil Hammond
Did you see the intriguing last paragraph?
The prime minister is expected to announce the name of Britain's new European commissioner at the same time as the reshuffle. Cameron will ask Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming European commission president, for an economics portfolio when they hold talks on the fringes of a European summit on Wednesday. Allies of the PM are urging him to consider heavyweight candidates such as former Tory MP and ITV chairman Archie Norman or the former Tory leader Lord Howard of Lympne. David Willetts, who may be replaced as universities minister by Truss, is also seen as a possible candidate.
Archie Norman? Now that would be a surprise.
If the UK is resigned to getting the paperclips portfolio anyhow he could send IDS.
That said, being an Commissioner might be more similar to being a Chief Exec than an MP.
Hmm, I hope he's bright enough not to make that mistake. He'd be eaten alive (discreetly, of course, in a suitably velouté sauce and washed down with a couple of fine wines from the excellent selection available from member states).
The Times have a story that almost guarantees Lady Butler-Sloss won't be leading the inquiry into child abuse.
She'll have to step aside.
The inquiry needs to be lead by someone from a younger generation IMO. The problem with people born in the 1930s and earlier is that they tend to have had a very naive attitude towards these types of crimes, often seemingly hoping they didn't exist rather than confronting them.
It's funny, I had a very interesting chat about these cases last night. And the guy I was talking to basically said (and I'm paraphrasing...):
You have to remember in the 1980s, that everyone was remembering the child abuse scandals and satanic abuse scandals that weren't. Because a couple of things had been debunked, people were very unwilling to listen to evidence because they could be tarred with the same crazy brush.
You have to remember in the 1980s, that everyone was remembering the child abuse scandals and satanic abuse scandals that weren't. Because a couple of things had been debunked, people were very unwilling to listen to evidence because they could be tarred with the same crazy brush.
Yes, I made that point here a couple of days ago. And it's a real point - you have to remember that hundreds of innocent families were destroyed by the witch-hunts of the time (literally witch-hunts, as it happens).
However, Dame Butler-Sloss's judgements on the matter didn't fall into the trap either of naive credulity or of ignoring the genuine evidence.
Still, given the gap between General Elections, it will realistically happen - even on your numbers - for most only at the next but one election.
I've just checked again, and the Tories have put up the requirement from two years to five years for settlement. You need to have been in the UK for three years for citizenship and have already successfully got citizenship. So under current situations, Labour would be repaid five and a half years later for people settling now, so the election after next. And that's if they don't put it back to the 2 + 1 year system we previously had, where they would benefit in the next election.
I would also point out, that the vast majority of Pakistani and Banglashi households are already in safe Labour constituencies. East Central London is not in any danger of voting Conservative any time soon. So, why import people who only bolster majorities in seats you will already win?
Because if the longer you build those populations up, the more they will spread beyond those constituencies. Plus, Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations maybe the core of the Labour vote, but they can extend it to other populations: Nigerians, Chinese, Philippinos, Somalis, Afghans are all now settling here in large numbers and I'm sure will turn into reliable Labour ballot box fodder.
Mostly, though, I don't buy your argument because I believe that Labour Party politicians, like Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrat ones are all patriots, who all want the best for Britain. Sure our views of what constitutes best might differ, and our approaches to achieving that goal, but all genuinely want the best for Britain.
You ignore the ability of partisan groups to rationalise what is good for them as being good for the country overall. They take to heart the patriotic arguments for doing whats in their interest and stick their head in the sand when it comes to the arguments against it. New Labour are particularly good at doing this as they are now particularly without principles. There's also a tribal element to it: politicians like to back "our people". Labour have an instinctive preference for seeing ethnic minorities as victims over white people.
And the numbers simply don't stack up for that - not least because so few Poles are bothering to apply for British citizenship.
The numbers don't stack up? Really?!? In just a decade between 2001 and 2011, the increase in British residents born in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India increased by half a million. And that ignores second generation immigrants, and all those from Africa, the Caribbean and the rest of Asia.
@Socrates: forget party politics, and forget ridiculous MrJones/Tapestry conspiracy theories: why do you think the Labour Party supports a policy that would intuitively seem to be negative for their core constituency?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
Their core constituency is ethnically Pakistani and Bangladeshi households that like to import brides from the subcontinent. And it certainly doesn't take 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. You initially get two years right to remain, after which you can apply for permanent settlement. A year into that you can apply for citizenship. Labour opening the flood gates will help them in the very next election. Why support the white working class when they only vote for you by a ten point margin, when immigrant communities vote for you by a thirty point one?
It took my wife seven years to get a British passport, but she may have been slow to follow the steps. Of course, this was when it was easier, and there were no British-ness tests. Still, given the gap between General Elections, it will realistically happen - even on your numbers - for most only at the next but one election. Which requires a degree of long-term planning, the Labour Party has failed to show in most of their other actions.
I would also point out, that the vast majority of Pakistani and Banglashi households are already in safe Labour constituencies. East Central London is not in any danger of voting Conservative any time soon. So, why import people who only bolster majorities in seats you will already win?
Mostly, though, I don't buy your argument because I believe that Labour Party politicians, like Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrat ones are all patriots, who all want the best for Britain. Sure our views of what constitutes best might differ, and our approaches to achieving that goal, but all genuinely want the best for Britain.
Virtually nobody in the UK goes into politics for narrow personal or financial reasons. Nigel Farage, Ed Milliband or even Nick Clegg would all earn far more - and probably have greater respect shown them - in the real, commercial world.
Your explanation is a cynical one that - apart from being impractical and ineffective - also suggests that politicians would sell their country down the river for because it might just possibly get them some imported votes. And the numbers simply don't stack up for that - not least because so few Poles are bothering to apply for British citizenship.
Thanks, rcs - a refreshing view, and IMO right (about all the parties).
Oh, and my "cynicism" is also validated by the fact that senior Labourites, in a display of Bond villain style openness, admitted to what they were doing:
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.
Richard Navabi If Baroness Ashton can survive Brussels I am sure Archie Norman can, you don't get to be CEO of one of the UK's largest supermarkets by being a soft touch. He seems far more qualified than most of the EUocracy
Goodness it's quiet on here. Maybe I should say something controversial...
David Cameron is trying to protect us from terrorists whilst idiotic civil libertarians with their wishy washy ideals would rather see us blown up by terrorists.
I'd love to see an actual cost-benefit analysis - including the costs on third-parties like ISPs - of these huge data collection programs, compared to other ways the money could be spent if the goal was to stop us being blown up by terrorists.
Comments
Hitchwood, Offa and Hoo is a wonderful name
Hit wicket ....
Pimlicat @pimlicat 6m
Redcar MP Ian Swales to stand down at next election 'for personal reasons' http://bit.ly/1ztXP9C << Very bad news indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGbZ9SE2jw
I'll be paying close attention when Ladbrokes put their full markets up.
On-topic: cheers, Mr. Hayfield.
That would be fun next May....!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28265064
What outstanding insight Mike Smithson has shown ....
JackW
Rt Hon PB TOTY
"The Law Society has called for a review of RIPA and associated legislation for some years and its president Andrew Caplen welcomed the move, but said the emergency surveillance legislation was ‘particularly worrying’.
Caplen said: ‘We are concerned that introducing emergency legislation does nothing to enhance the rule of law or address the fact that we are increasingly becoming a surveillance society. The history of emergency legislation is not exemplary, with laws being used for purposes for which they were not intended.
‘There needs to be a public debate about how to strike the right balance between security, freedom and privacy. We need to simplify and clarify a complex and confusing legal framework and ensure that it protects human rights.’
The Society called for a review of the legal and practical framework of surveillance in the UK and explicit legislative protection for legal professional privilege in legislation like RIPA."
SDP landslide?
How Peter the Punter came within one vote is totally incomprehensible especially to my supporters who were handing out bri .... er .... all manner of induc .... er ... worthy encouragement.
Democracy was served in the end .... together with some rather fine single malt ....
Twas the greatest exhibition of electioneering since the Dunny-on-the-Wold by election two centuries ago and somewhat closer too.
5.1% for them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-28266736
Alcoholism among the young is what upsets the Daily Mail, which every New Years Day likes to publish photos of young men and women somewhat worse for wear on the previous evening. But these days, it is people in their 40s who are most likely to be admitted to hospital for drinking too much. Actually, Britain’s problem drinkers tend not to be young people, who may binge drink occasionally, but most of the time are fairly sober. They are more likely to be middle-aged Daily Mail readers, drinking yet another bottle from their Mail Wine Club delivery each day, slowly building up an addiction that eventually lands them in hospital.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/07/british-social-problems?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/thesedaysolderpeopleproblem
Could we have 11? Sir Robert Smith says he is standing again but has Parkinson's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2688980/Brussels-unveils-latest-idea-win-British-public-An-official-European-sash-MEPs.html#ixzz37B8pkNEG
Stand up and take a bow Jimmy Anderson, solid hour of batting. Go on and get your fifty in the morning ;-)
India +83.31
Draw +9.59
Not too sure what to do now tbh !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10960379/MEPs-encouraged-to-wear-official-sash-of-European-Parliament.html
http://www.libdems.org.uk/norman_baker_writes_security_and_freedom_in_the_internet_age
http://www.libdems.org.uk/annual_bonus_for_1m_carers
I was particularly impressed by the last paragraph. I was assuming the money would come from the taxpayer, but no, from what Nick Clegg says it looks as though the LibDems are clubbing together to find the money.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-a-polite-message-from-canada-inspired-the-campaign-against-scottish-independence-9601291.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-are-failing-to-turn-economic-recovery-into-political-capital-latest-poll-shows-9598859.html
Sad news:
"Harwich-Esbjerg Ferry Route to Close in September
The historic passenger ferry route between Harwich and Esbjerg of DFDS Seaways, northern Europe’s largest integrated shipping and logistics company, has been struggling for a long time with high costs, loss of passengers and freight being switched to road transport."
http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/122593/harwich-esbjerg-ferry-route-to-close-in-september/
OK PBers:
Good idea or bad idea?
PM's reshuffle 'secrets' overheard on a train Esther McVey to replace IDS?
The Conservatives, meanwhile, need to make clear they are serious about standing up for the UK in the EU, by laying out a clear list of demands that they want to repatriate, and by showing they will take serious action to cut unskilled immigration. If they can't do anything major on the EU, it'll have to be strong limits on non-EU immigration. I don't really see why you qualify for a skilled worker visa if you're a 35 year old earning just £20,500 a year.
You can have Bobby Sol if we can have Lallana.
Is the Mabe etc Ward in the same constituency?
Oh, and congrats to the Lib dems in Cornwall, a remarkable place.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-price-on-love-court-ruling-expected-on-visa-income-rules
(1) There's a cap on how many certificate of sponsorship are given out each month. However, this cap has never been hit.
(2) You have to advertise the job domestically first.
Hampstead to Bank by the Northern line
Bank to King George V by DLR
walk to the ferry
cross over
then
Woolwich Arsenal to London Bridge by Southeastern
London Bridge to Ashford International by Southeastern
and finally
Ashford to Rye by Southern
?
(Getting votes from immigrants seems unlikely, as its usually 15 to 20 years between crossing the border and getting a passport. And politicians are rarely known for being long-term in their outlook.)
David Cameron to promote women and younger men in cabinet reshuffle
Osborne, Hague and May set to stay but 'old lags' are expected to make way for 'youthful and modern Tory face'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/11/david-cameron-promote-women-young-men-cabinet-reshuffle
If it happens, the big move will be the reported job swap between IDS and Phil Hammond
She'll have to step aside.
IDS RTB'd again?
The prime minister is expected to announce the name of Britain's new European commissioner at the same time as the reshuffle. Cameron will ask Jean-Claude Juncker, the incoming European commission president, for an economics portfolio when they hold talks on the fringes of a European summit on Wednesday. Allies of the PM are urging him to consider heavyweight candidates such as former Tory MP and ITV chairman Archie Norman or the former Tory leader Lord Howard of Lympne. David Willetts, who may be replaced as universities minister by Truss, is also seen as a possible candidate.
Archie Norman? Now that would be a surprise.
Something like nursing seems to be one aea that would fit.
I suspect Archie Norman won't go for it, I think he earns £8.4m per year.
Edit: Oops, Archie Norman is on 500k per year, it is Adam Crozier on £8.4m per year
I would also point out, that the vast majority of Pakistani and Banglashi households are already in safe Labour constituencies. East Central London is not in any danger of voting Conservative any time soon. So, why import people who only bolster majorities in seats you will already win?
Mostly, though, I don't buy your argument because I believe that Labour Party politicians, like Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrat ones are all patriots, who all want the best for Britain. Sure our views of what constitutes best might differ, and our approaches to achieving that goal, but all genuinely want the best for Britain.
Virtually nobody in the UK goes into politics for narrow personal or financial reasons. Nigel Farage, Ed Milliband or even Nick Clegg would all earn far more - and probably have greater respect shown them - in the real, commercial world.
Your explanation is a cynical one that - apart from being impractical and ineffective - also suggests that politicians would sell their country down the river for because it might just possibly get them some imported votes. And the numbers simply don't stack up for that - not least because so few Poles are bothering to apply for British citizenship.
I can't believe Archie Norman would be interested. I had the very strong impression that being an MP convinced him that this politics malarkey wasn't for him. Like most people from outside politics, he discovered it wasn't quite as easy as it looked.
That said, speaking to some of his ex Asda colleagues, he couldn't cope with going from being the Chief Exec of an organisation to being a mere MP and having very little to do.
That said, being an Commissioner might be more similar to being a Chief Exec than an MP.
You have to remember in the 1980s, that everyone was remembering the child abuse scandals and satanic abuse scandals that weren't. Because a couple of things had been debunked, people were very unwilling to listen to evidence because they could be tarred with the same crazy brush.
However, Dame Butler-Sloss's judgements on the matter didn't fall into the trap either of naive credulity or of ignoring the genuine evidence.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers--london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html
How do you make the right's arguments out of date except by changing society so much that conservative views are no longer politically tenable?