Looking at the ICM indy ref poll, The gender split is less pronounced with them.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
I expect the turnout in the referendum to be much higher than for a general election making differential turnout less of an issue. The same view also suggests that the Yes reliance on a better GOTV organisation is also likely to be misplaced.
Good points.
Other fun stuff to note, 93% of 2011 Tories are planning to vote no, whereas 70% of 2011 SNPers are planning to vote Yes.
''If he was such a family man, why didn't he register himself as the father of his first child until the boy was 18 months old?''
Miliband does not believe in 'family'. He is a socialist - if in power we would soon see his marxist tendencies - he only registered the birth and got married as a political convenience. He does not belive in marriage he believes in units of cohabitation. He believes in directing us poor simple people for the benefit of our own good.
Daniel Rugg Webb, a comedian, artist and musician, as well as an employee at Franklin Barbecue in Austin, seized the opportunity to make his voice heard when he found out Potus was visiting the food joint on Thursday, The Austin Chronicle reported.
When the President approached the till, Webb, 32, cast his hand down onto the counter and said: “Equal rights for gay people!”
Obama responded: “Are you gay?!
To which Webb replied: “Only when I have sex.”
Laughing, the President told Webb to “bump me” and the pair knocked their fists together.
And for PB's many "fans" of Rick Perry
“If Rick Perry (the governor of Texas) would've walked in, I would have lost my job. I would've taken that old queen to town,” Webb said.
Looking at the ICM indy ref poll, The gender split is less pronounced with them.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
I expect the turnout in the referendum to be much higher than for a general election making differential turnout less of an issue. The same view also suggests that the Yes reliance on a better GOTV organisation is also likely to be misplaced.
Good points.
Other fun stuff to note, 93% of 2011 Tories are planning to vote no, whereas 70% of 2011 SNPers are planning to vote Yes.
I have found that when canvassing for BT. A lot of people vote SNP because they offer a competent and credible alternative to Labour or whoever, not because they want independence.
My own local council in Angus is SNP controlled by people who would have been tories (in the main) 30 years ago. They watch the pennies, they get on with the business and do not indulge in any silly political gestures. There are lots of reasons for voting for a council like that without wanting to vote for independence.
This was particularly the case in 2011 when Salmond and his team had done a goodish job as a minority government and Gray was completely uninspiring. Those who think that is the base the Yes campaign have to work from are deluding themselves.
Morning all, contacting IBAS about my Each way Messi Top goalscorer (1/4, Top 4) bet being settled as a loser !
Who was the bookie?
www.winner.com
Me: Personally I think the bet should be settled as follows: Me: 3 players tied on 4 goals Me: And there are 2 places Me: So 2/3 of th place part of an each way bet on Neymar, Van Persie, Messi Me: Should be returned Me: £5 * (2/3) * (9/1) / 4 + (2/3 * £5) = £10.83 returned
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
Sometimes it is cock up.
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
Nick Palmer says --- '' It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, ''
Lets be clear - I am a lifelong conservative. I listen and read what conservatives say and one of the bedrocks of conservatism is equal opportunity. So anyone Mr Palmer who says they do not believe in that is not a conservative. I would point to the current considerable effort of the conservatives to improve education standards in the teeth of opposition from doctrinaire socialists is a good case in point.
You're disagreeing over the means but not the ends. Fair enough.
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
Does this mean, from a betting standpoint, no country won the world cup?!
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
For example the first goal scorer markets only apply to normal time.
So had Muller scored in extra time, my bet would not have been a winner.
Anyone who backed Germany to win in 90 mins would have have lost.
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
Bookies inundated with punters wondering why their Germany bets are losers I suspect.
Looking at the ICM indy ref poll, The gender split is less pronounced with them.
The alarming thing for Yes would be this bit, on age group, No leads in every age group except 25-34, but the biggest leads for no is with the 18% with the 55-64s and 30% with the over 65s.
I don't need to remind PBers which demographic has the highest turnout in elections.
I expect the turnout in the referendum to be much higher than for a general election making differential turnout less of an issue. The same view also suggests that the Yes reliance on a better GOTV organisation is also likely to be misplaced.
Good points.
Other fun stuff to note, 93% of 2011 Tories are planning to vote no, whereas 70% of 2011 SNPers are planning to vote Yes.
How exactly does the one Tory in Scotland vote 93% for no, and 7% for yes... *titters*
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
Does this mean, from a betting standpoint, no country won the world cup?!
No, there were markets on if the match would go to extra time and or penalties, and who would lift the trophy.
Sent another message to IBAS saying its been settled to my satisfaction - want to keep on good terms with Winner, they have laid me some Sadiq Khan for Mayor ^_~
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Sorry for being a nosy Parker - but how did that affect betting on last night's match going into extra time?
Does this mean, from a betting standpoint, no country won the world cup?!
You Sir, are an Argy and I claim my five Falkland territories! ; )
Now, this is a straw in the wind, as such a poll does not reflect the media hostility David M would have faced, or the internal splits that Ed M has (rather expertly, IMO) avoided. So I don't regard it as evidence the David would have been 'better'. The challenges he would have faced would have been different to Ed, but no less significant.
However, I do question whether there is much evidence that David Miliband would have found it significantly more difficult to get the support of c30% of 2010 LibDems.
Of course, if Yougov broke out it's polls by 2010 vote before the Labour leadership election, we could make a more definitive answer. But given that Labour was scoring c38/39 in Sept 2010 before the leadership results were announced, and that the LibDems were on c12/13, it seems likely that a significant number of 2010 LDs broke for Labour when Labour had not decided it's leader. I'd be surprised if the election of David M would have sent them back to the LDs.
"Labour in Wales is preparing its young people for litte more than a life of ignorance, failure and welfare dependency."
It seems to be quite a common view that education should prepare young people for life in the adult world. From that perspective the education system in Wales seems to be doing what is required.
Now, this is a straw in the wind, as such a poll does not reflect the media hostility David M would have faced, or the internal splits that Ed M has (rather expertly, IMO) avoided. So I don't regard it as evidence the David would have been 'better'. The challenges he would have faced would have been different to Ed, but no less significant.
However, I do question whether there is much evidence that David Miliband would have found it significantly more difficult to get the support of c30% of 2010 LibDems.
Of course, if Yougov broke out it's polls by 2010 vote before the Labour leadership election, we could make a more definitive answer. But given that Labour was scoring c38/39 in Sept 2010 before the leadership results were announced, and that the LibDems were on c12/13, it seems likely that a significant number of 2010 LDs broke for Labour when Labour had not decided it's leader. I'd be surprised if the election of David M would have sent them back to the LDs.
@TSE – Many thanks. @Pulpstar – Yes, I suspect there would have been many that did not read the small print.
Back in 2005, when Liverpool were 3 nil down at half time in the Champions League, one of my friends staked £20 on Liverpool to win it at 185/1.
Liverpool went on to win the trophy on penalties.
He assumed it was a winner, and the next morning he went on a splurge. It was only when he had spent around £500 that he became aware that it was only a winner if Liverpool won in 90 mins and not on penalties.
Nick Palmer says --- '' It, was I think, a South African Communist who said "I'm not against people having a good time in life and I have a good time myself, I just want everyone to have a decent chance of it". That's something which reasonable Conservatives can agree with as well, ''
Lets be clear - I am a lifelong conservative. I listen and read what conservatives say and one of the bedrocks of conservatism is equal opportunity. So anyone Mr Palmer who says they do not believe in that is not a conservative. I would point to the current considerable effort of the conservatives to improve education standards in the teeth of opposition from doctrinaire socialists is a good case in point.
You're disagreeing over the means but not the ends. Fair enough.
Nick, outside the extremes isn't most politics arguing about the means not the ends? Take out the silly tribalism and what you are left with is a set of goals that are pretty much universally agreed but differences, some big, some small, on how they can be best be attained, and, if we are honest, the realisation that no one party has the monopoly on the best ideas.
Its the silly tribalism that leads to the chronic short-term outlook which is the ruin of good governance.
One of your points does perhaps support Mike's proposition that David M would have had less appeal to the LibDem switchers. That is where you say that Ed has expertly avoided splits in the party. This is true (at least, he has contained splits in the party and prevented them from breaking out into open warfare). However, he has done this by avoiding any commitment to serious policies; this in the short-term helps keep the party unified, and by extension helps to keep the switchers on-board. Probably David M would have been more coherent and more specific, which as you imply might well have led to more disgruntlement, in the party generally but specifically amongst the switchers.
The weakness in Ed's approach, though, is obvious: at some point, he'll have to choose a policy direction. He is either leaving it to absolutely the last moment, or (perhaps more likely) hoping to get away with avoiding it altogether before the GE. In the former case he risks disappointing a chunk of supporters just before the election. In the latter he risks allowing the Tories to frame his strategy on his behalf; if he can get away with that, he is setting himself up for a disastrously unpopular premiership when he actually has to make some real decisions.
So he might have been tactically smart but strategically stupid.
@TSE – Many thanks. @Pulpstar – Yes, I suspect there would have been many that did not read the small print.
Back in 2005, when Liverpool were 3 nil down at half time in the Champions League, one of my friends staked £20 on Liverpool to win it at 185/1.
Liverpool went on to win the trophy on penalties.
He assumed it was a winner, and the next morning he went on a splurge. It was only when he had spent around £500 that he became aware that it was only a winner if Liverpool won in 90 mins and not on penalties.
I realise it is bound to happen. I also rather like Nigel, despite not agreeing with his policies.
Shame people have to resort to childish and sinister personal attacks - shows they have run out of arguments.
You mean like referring to PB Tories thinking North London is a nightmare place?
No. Because that isn't a personal attack. Duh.
Doh! It kind of is - smearing people with quasi-racist views about the utopian multi-cultural melting pot that you claim is north London is decidedly personal. I am a PB Tory and resent the implications you make.
Morning all, contacting IBAS about my Each way Messi Top goalscorer (1/4, Top 4) bet being settled as a loser !
Who was the bookie?
www.winner.com
Me: Personally I think the bet should be settled as follows: Me: 3 players tied on 4 goals Me: And there are 2 places Me: So 2/3 of th place part of an each way bet on Neymar, Van Persie, Messi Me: Should be returned Me: £5 * (2/3) * (9/1) / 4 + (2/3 * £5) = £10.83 returned
And they've returned £10.83
You have probably been a bit hard on yourself there - the FIFA rankings for top goal scorer have goals scored first, then assists, then minutes played. That means that Messi finished 4th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/2014/top-scorers You shouldn't have the 2/3 in that calculation.
Edit: Oh my days, the final bit of Professor King's piece
Any UK government would be legally entitled to invite the Scots to vote a second time. A “Yes” vote in September is unlikely. Even if it happens, that may well not be the end of the affair.
So a non-EU immigrant who pays upper rate tax and has been here working ten years has to pay more than the cost of a healthcare treatment, despite the fact they're already paying for themselves and subsidising everyone else through the tax system, while a Romanian beggar who's never paid anything can turn up tomorrow and get free treatment?
This just shows how screwed up our EU immigration policy is. If you want to make sure people are paying in, then base NHS access on the amount of contributions you've paid. It's obscene to charge some people twice - at over the odds both time - while others get it scot-free.
Morning all, contacting IBAS about my Each way Messi Top goalscorer (1/4, Top 4) bet being settled as a loser !
Who was the bookie?
www.winner.com
Me: Personally I think the bet should be settled as follows: Me: 3 players tied on 4 goals Me: And there are 2 places Me: So 2/3 of th place part of an each way bet on Neymar, Van Persie, Messi Me: Should be returned Me: £5 * (2/3) * (9/1) / 4 + (2/3 * £5) = £10.83 returned
And they've returned £10.83
You have probably been a bit hard on yourself there - the FIFA rankings for top goal scorer have goals scored first, then assists, then minutes played. That means that Messi finished 4th: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/2014/top-scorers You shouldn't have the 2/3 in that calculation.
That is the Golden boot market
2014-06-21 18:04 2014 FIFA World Cup / Top Goalscorer - Top 4 / Lionel Messi Lay 3.25 3.00 Lost (3.50)
My Betfair lay of top 4 scorer was settled as follows, which indicates a push of sorts at the odds.
(A non split top 4 scorer would have recorded a loss of £6.75)
Edit: Oh my days, the final bit of Professor King's piece
Any UK government would be legally entitled to invite the Scots to vote a second time. A “Yes” vote in September is unlikely. Even if it happens, that may well not be the end of the affair.
Same with an EU exit vote. Even if the government wanted to leave, they'd be scared that their exit negotiation would be portrayed as a betrayal, so they'd want it ratified in a referendum to give them cover. And more likely, the government wouldn't want to leave.
@TSE – Many thanks. @Pulpstar – Yes, I suspect there would have been many that did not read the small print.
Back in 2005, when Liverpool were 3 nil down at half time in the Champions League, one of my friends staked £20 on Liverpool to win it at 185/1.
Liverpool went on to win the trophy on penalties.
He assumed it was a winner, and the next morning he went on a splurge. It was only when he had spent around £500 that he became aware that it was only a winner if Liverpool won in 90 mins and not on penalties.
Ouch! - and perchance, did this ‘friend’ splurge £500 smackers on shoe? - only joking ; )
So a non-EU immigrant who pays upper rate tax and has been here working ten years has to pay more than the cost of a healthcare treatment, despite the fact they're already paying for themselves and subsidising everyone else through the tax system, while a Romanian beggar who's never paid anything can turn up tomorrow and get free treatment?
This just shows how screwed up our EU immigration policy is. If you want to make sure people are paying in, then base NHS access on the amount of contributions you've paid. It's obscene to charge some people twice - at over the odds both time - while others get it scot-free.
I may be missing something but doesn't that report say
"The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment."
@TSE – Many thanks. @Pulpstar – Yes, I suspect there would have been many that did not read the small print.
Back in 2005, when Liverpool were 3 nil down at half time in the Champions League, one of my friends staked £20 on Liverpool to win it at 185/1.
Liverpool went on to win the trophy on penalties.
He assumed it was a winner, and the next morning he went on a splurge. It was only when he had spent around £500 that he became aware that it was only a winner if Liverpool won in 90 mins and not on penalties.
Ouch! - and perchance, did this ‘friend’ splurge £500 smackers on shoe? - only joking ; )
Lol no.
I was in Istanbul at the time. Enjoying the abuse at half time via text from non Liverpool fans.
You were the one who made the original contention, you do your own research.
Given that the North London middle class earns sognificantly more on average than the average family while using similar levels of public services (trading efficient rail for inefficient roads) you might well struggle.
One of your points does perhaps support Mike's proposition that David M would have had less appeal to the LibDem switchers. That is where you say that Ed has expertly avoided splits in the party. This is true (at least, he has contained splits in the party and prevented them from breaking out into open warfare). However, he has done this by avoiding any commitment to serious policies...
I think there are a few things here. First, the idea that David M would have cruised to victory is mistaken, for lots of reasons. There would have been significantly more discontent from the Labour left, there would have been much more attention to past foreign affairs choices and so on. Each of these would have been negatives that Ed either does not have, or has acted smartly to avoid. So I'd agree wholeheartedly that there are voters to whom Ed appeals significantly more than David 'Would have' and many of those may have been 2010 LDs.
However, there are related questions to this. Even just taking 2010 LibDems, and ignoring whether it might have been possible to pursue a ''50% Strategy" by appealing to Tories, it's a mistake to assume all 2010 Lds are on the centre-left.
For example, in Sunday's YG, A QUARTER of 2010 LDs say they won't vote at all, while of the remainder, 23% say they'll vote either Con or UKIP (and 11% say they'll vote green). I would suggest that this group are as significant to the result of the next GE as the c30% of voting LDs who have moved to Labour. Would David have appealed more to these 'Lost Yellows'? I've no idea, but I can't rule it out either, given the figures I cited earlier.
Where I disagree though is that EM has not been clear about what he wants to do. I think he's been remarkably clear about the direction he wishes to take the party, in opposition and in government, and I think voters have a pretty good sense of his values/priorities. For me the challenge is whether people believe they will be achievable/make a difference, Valence, not values in other words.
So a non-EU immigrant who pays upper rate tax and has been here working ten years has to pay more than the cost of a healthcare treatment, despite the fact they're already paying for themselves and subsidising everyone else through the tax system, while a Romanian beggar who's never paid anything can turn up tomorrow and get free treatment?
This just shows how screwed up our EU immigration policy is. If you want to make sure people are paying in, then base NHS access on the amount of contributions you've paid. It's obscene to charge some people twice - at over the odds both time - while others get it scot-free.
I may be missing something but doesn't that report say
"The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment."
So wouldn't the Romanian beggar have to pay?
You know full well that won't stand up in European Court. So does the government, which is presumably why its what they "want to" do rather than what they will do.
Edit: Oh my days, the final bit of Professor King's piece
Any UK government would be legally entitled to invite the Scots to vote a second time. A “Yes” vote in September is unlikely. Even if it happens, that may well not be the end of the affair.
Same with an EU exit vote. Even if the government wanted to leave, they'd be scared that their exit negotiation would be portrayed as a betrayal, so they'd want it ratified in a referendum to give them cover. And more likely, the government wouldn't want to leave.
Really? How does that square with the Treaty of Lisbon? The process for leaving the EU is laid down and contains no clause for a "Sorry we didn't mean it" moment after a referendum on the post exit-negotiations.
It's lines like this which as particularly grating:
"We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said.
Does the numpty Hunt not realise that people resident and working here do play for the NHS through their taxes?
Like taffys said, the Tories have no clue about the public's value system on immigrants. They're too inept to actually reduce immigration down to reasonable levels, so they think they can make up for it by unfairly hurting immigrants financially.
If you want to make sure those using the NHS have contributed, then make it a contributory system.
''Given that the North London middle class earns significantly more on average than the average family while using similar levels of public services (trading efficient rail for inefficient roads) you might well struggle.''
I wouldn;t expect you to see the huge gulf between high earners in the public sector and high earners in the private sector. The fact remains the former drain the public purse, the latter line it.
I only said Islington is seen as the enclave of wealthy public sector workers, I did not claim it was true. It is merely an explanation for why Islington is quoted on here in pejorative terms.
Mr. Llama, I suspect the EU would offer far greater flexibility to accepting the right result than it would to accepting the 'wrong' one (cf past votes, where a referendum that says Yes is a permanent and true reflection of the will of people, and one where No is the answer required the question to be asked a second time).
UK exit from the EU would be a watershed moment, and one they'd prefer to avoid, I suspect.
With the BBC, the leaderships of all three parties and almost all of the Lib Dems/Labour on-side, it'd be hard for UKIP et al. to win a vote. The three million jobs deception (copyright Clegg) will play well on people's fears.
"The new measures are expected to come into force by next spring. The crackdown follows plans already unveiled to charge migrants a £200 "NHS" levy when they apply for a visa."
So non-EU citizens resident in the UK are now going to have to pay three times for the same thing.
Rubbish. Islington is seen as an enclave of wealthy lefties - hence why it is quoted on here in pejorative terms. Nothing to do with the public sector I'm afraid.
It's lines like this which as particularly grating:
"We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said.
Does the numpty Hunt not realise that people resident and working here do play for the NHS through their taxes?
Like taffys said, the Tories have no clue about the public's value system on immigrants. They're too inept to actually reduce immigration down to reasonable levels, so they think they can make up for it by unfairly hurting immigrants financially.
If you want to make sure those using the NHS have contributed, then make it a contributory system.
Exactly... People don't want to live in a two tier society. If immigration was managed properly, or at all, then we could have an integrated country with less resentment of immigrants due to economic factors from the poor... That's what it boils down to really.
"Given that the North London middle class earns sognificantly more on average than the average family ..."
A person who earns more than the average family earns more than the average family? A statement of the bleedin' obvious. What North London has go to do with it I don't know.
As for the public sector, nobody employed therein is a net financial contributor. They may contribute to the general good in other ways through their work, but they are financially 100% a drain. Does North London have a disproportionate number of public sector workers? If not I cannot see the relevance.
@Socrates - You should really try to understand what is proposed before going off your trolley. Admittedly the Beeb (as so often) are not terribly coherent in that article.
So a non-EU immigrant who pays upper rate tax and has been here working ten years has to pay more than the cost of a healthcare treatment, despite the fact they're already paying for themselves and subsidising everyone else through the tax system, while a Romanian beggar who's never paid anything can turn up tomorrow and get free treatment?
This just shows how screwed up our EU immigration policy is. If you want to make sure people are paying in, then base NHS access on the amount of contributions you've paid. It's obscene to charge some people twice - at over the odds both time - while others get it scot-free.
I may be missing something but doesn't that report say
"The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment."
So wouldn't the Romanian beggar have to pay?
You know full well that won't stand up in European Court. So does the government, which is presumably why its what they "want to" do rather than what they will do.
Ah right, we'll if it is all the same to you, I'll wait for the "European Court" to make a decision.
Edit: Oh my days, the final bit of Professor King's piece
Any UK government would be legally entitled to invite the Scots to vote a second time. A “Yes” vote in September is unlikely. Even if it happens, that may well not be the end of the affair.
Same with an EU exit vote. Even if the government wanted to leave, they'd be scared that their exit negotiation would be portrayed as a betrayal, so they'd want it ratified in a referendum to give them cover. And more likely, the government wouldn't want to leave.
Really? How does that square with the Treaty of Lisbon? The process for leaving the EU is laid down and contains no clause for a "Sorry we didn't mean it" moment after a referendum on the post exit-negotiations.
Fair point. Assuming the UK government invoked Article 50 immediately after the referendum, it looks like you'd have to extend (for as long you like) the exit date. Everyone has to agree to this, but presumably they would, although in theory it only takes one awkward member state to veto the extension.
It's also possible the UK government would say that 2 years looked a bit tight, and they'd ask the other member states to start negotiating right away but save formally invoking Article 50 until they'd worked out what they were going to do.
Rubbish. Islington is seen as an enclave of wealthy lefties - hence why it is quoted on here in pejorative terms. Nothing to do with the public sector I'm afraid.
No they are seen as wealthy out of touch lefties who actively despise everything about this country, including the former core of Labour's support, the patriotic white working class. Indeed everything about Miliband and his background screams New left. The faux intellectual background, the Marxism, the weird family and relationship arrangements, the inherited privelege and the alien background. Frankly not enough has been made of him and his family's background. Intimately involved in supporting an participating in the most murderous and evil regime in human history. It's to the great credit to the Daily Mail they in some way went towards analysing this.
Mr. Llama, I suspect the EU would offer far greater flexibility to accepting the right result than it would to accepting the 'wrong' one (cf past votes, where a referendum that says Yes is a permanent and true reflection of the will of people, and one where No is the answer required the question to be asked a second time).
UK exit from the EU would be a watershed moment, and one they'd prefer to avoid, I suspect.
With the BBC, the leaderships of all three parties and almost all of the Lib Dems/Labour on-side, it'd be hard for UKIP et al. to win a vote. The three million jobs deception (copyright Clegg) will play well on people's fears.
I see what you are getting at, Mr. Dancer, the EU will ignore any law, any treaty in furtherance of its own sense of what is a good thing. Nonetheless, formulation of policy really ought to be with regard to what is in the Treaty and in law.
Is this really going to stop the African woman who turns up in London to have her baby, sometimes with serious and hugely costly complications, then legs it back home with no intention to pay anything, ever?
Ludicrous though it may seem, I remain convinced that the Tories' poor showing in the polls over the past 10 days resulted in part from England's early exit from the World Cup. Not that Brazil has the remotest connection with British politics, but our (as in English) dreadful showing certainly increased the nation's "feel bad" factor. Now that the tournament is over and thankfully Argentina were beaten by Germany, our closest and most important European ally whether we like it or not, we can now at last start to forget about the whole damn thing and start looking forward to our own all-consuming new domestic footy season .... hurrah! OK, we may only be talking about the odd 1% here in terms of political support levels, but then again 1% equates to quite a few seats at the General Election. If I'm right, look out for that Labour lead to shrink back to 2%-3% over the next week or so. Here's hoping so anyway!
Is this really going to stop the African woman who turns up in London to have her baby, sometimes with serious and hugely costly complications, then legs it back home with no intention to pay anything, ever?
That risk should be considered at the visa application stage, but, except by barring visitors altogether, you are never going to eliminate bad debts altogether.
I have been very riled and deeply disturbed by the Ed is Weird stuff - this was a reaction to that.
Thank you.
I'm not sure that the 'ed is weird stuff' is a party campaign
it's just lazy & underfunded journos looking for something easy to write
Either way it's pretty childish.
Although character debates are very reasonable: for me the way that Ed behaved over Syria suggests to me that he's not someone you can trust.
The way things have turned out, Ed may yet get the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping us intervening on behalf of our enemies' enemies' enemies who might not be our friends after all.
The Nobel Prize lost a lot of its cachet when it was awarded to Obama. He hadn't - at that point - done anything to deserve it. With hindsight it may be that his policies have created a vacuum that has resulted in massive instability in the region & a risk to world peace.
My point, though, wasn't about outcome, but about trust. Ed Miliband received confidential briefings from the PM and the team. On the basis of this he committed to a certain action. The PM therefore recalled Parliament and set out a policy. At which point Miliband switched sides and did not commicate his change of position to the PM.
Why did he switch sides? Two possible reasons: (1) he was unable to carry his party or (2) he wanted to stitch up the PM. If (1), that happens. If (2) then he is unfit to be Prime Minister - seeking party advantage on a matter of national security
Why didn't he inform the PM? Again, two reasons: (1) he wanted to extract party advantage, or (2) he didn't have time. I don't believe (2) is credible, which leave (1). While seeking party advantage in this case is not as bad as in the first case, it clearly - together with other situations where he has behaved similarly - sets him up as a man who can't be trusted to keep his word. That, for me, is a major character flaw - and means I think he is unworthy to be Prime Minister.
Who will replace Lady BS? The public will probably only be happy with Gary Lineker or Sir Bruce Forsyth
Probably no-one for a few days, which supports the view that Dame EBS was overwhelmingly the best candidate for the job, but also the opposing view that the Home Office gave it no thought whatsoever and EBS was the first judge to answer the phone when they rang round the usual suspects.
@Socrates - You should really try to understand what is proposed before going off your trolley. Admittedly the Beeb (as so often) are not terribly coherent in that article.
If I've got a wrong impression of things based on a misleading BBC article, then I apologise. Lines like "Patients from outside the EU are to be charged 150% of the cost of treatment in the NHS in a fresh crackdown on so-called "health tourism" certainly sound like they are applying to all non-EU citizens using the NHS.
"For those who are temporary migrants from outside the EEA and are here for longer than six months, a new health surcharge will be applied when they submit an application for leave to enter or remain in the UK. This surcharge could generate up to £200 million per annum in the future."
Is this the £200 increase in visa fees already announced?
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
It might not be certain to you Richard but it is certain to me. I live and work in an ultra marginals where I stood as LD candidate in 92. I know many and the level of switching, some of it tactical, will be large. It's the same message I'm hearing from three other super marginals where I have local contacts.
The Tories, assisted by your Mr. Gove, are toxic.
So actually, most of your view is being made up of some anecdotal evidence which we can't prove or disprove, and judgement? Same as Rentoul essentially, only difference is that you come to differing conclusions?
... It's also possible the UK government would say that 2 years looked a bit tight, and they'd ask the other member states to start negotiating right away but save formally invoking Article 50 until they'd worked out what they were going to do.
Isn't that actually what Cameron's strategy is. Start the negotiations in 2015, put the result to a referendum in 2017 and if he loses then he will invoke Article 50, when the hardball talks will happen. I don't think that he could at that point go back and ask for another referendum, why would anyone negotiate seriously with him if they thought he was going to do that and why would they let him say, "Oh I didn't mean it after all" if he did?
Article 50 says we want out, not can we talk about what our position would be if we decided that on balance we want to go.
You are waffling. First it was because they were disproportionately public servants, now we have found that to be baseless you advance spurious prejudiced arguments about N1 being a hive of unpatriotic rich Commies. Laughable.
Butler-Sloss ..... what an incredibly inept appointment by Cameron. He really isn't very good at these things is he? Has this complete and utter mess delayed the heavily trailed Cabinet reshuffle, which anyway is a complete waste of time with Parliament about to take its annual 3 month summer/autumn holiday, closely followed by its dissolution and the start of the General Election campaign?
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
It might not be certain to you Richard but it is certain to me. I live and work in an ultra marginals where I stood as LD candidate in 92. I know many and the level of switching, some of it tactical, will be large. It's the same message I'm hearing from three other super marginals where I have local contacts.
The Tories, assisted by your Mr. Gove, are toxic.
So actually, most of your view is being made up of some anecdotal evidence which we can't prove or disprove, and judgement? Same as Rentoul essentially, only difference is that you come to differing conclusions?
Hmmmmm....
"toxic" is just lazy abuse. And look what being non-toxic (as they presumably are) has done for the LD vote share.
As a pension is deferred income why should people avoid tax on it?
There needs to be an incentive to lock up resources for 30+ years. Otherwise why would people do it for anything more than the minimum amount
Well firstly this is the sort of long term thinking that politicians are really not good at.
Putting that aside it makes sense to average your income over your lifetime and reduce your marginal rate of tax as a result. It also shelters that income so it can grow without tax like an open ended ISA (or whatever they are called this week). The wealthy, as you will know better than me, also seem to see pensions as an IHT avoidance device rather than a source of income.
I am not saying it will be eliminated completely but from a government point of view this is an easy hit. If it means people do not take so much out of their pensions future dependency will also be reduced.
The government needs another £130bn a year from cuts and tax increases (so it can start paying back even modest amounts). There are no easy or pain free solutions.
Fundamentally, we need a zero based review of government spending.
Simply put (and only highlighting the major points obviously), the government is responsible for (1) defence of the realm (2) national infrastructure (3) funding an acceptable minimum level of education and health care (4) ensuring an acceptable minimum level of income for people who are retired / unable to work, etc (5) provision of local services
The government spends £720 billion pounds per year. That's more than £10K per head.
I find it very difficult to believe that government can't deliver what it needs to deliver with less pending than that.
No. It's based on clear polling data as Mike clearly says in the threader.
If you read the conversation back, Richard say's Rentoul is basing his view on his judgement.
Mike say's you should look at the polling numbers, but when Richard points out that it's highly likely the polling numbers will change (in his and Rentouls judgement) Mike counters by saying that his judgement, based mainly on anecdotal evidence from Bedford and other places, is that the polls won't move because 2010 Lib-Dem switchers hate the Tories (and Gove)
Remember, polls can only tell you the situation as it is now, they can't tell you what the situation will be in 9 months. In saying that the polls won't move much between now and polling day Mike is using his judgement just like Rentoul is when he say's the polls will move quite a lot.
Of course Mike's judgement may well be right, but it is mainly just that. Mike's opinion and judgement.
On topic: Of course Mike is right to say it is dangerous to ignore the polling numbers. These are the probabilities which, based on Stephen Fisher's analysis, those polling numbers currently indicate:
Con largest party = 49% Lab largest party = 51% Con majority = 23% Lab majority = 25%
In other words, wide open: any outcome equally possible.
If we were looking at the current polling figures a few weeks before the election, it would of course be a different matter. but at this stage of the electoral cycle the polling is a fairly poor guide.
So, we know that is really quite likely that the polling will shift in the next ten months. That being the case, John Rentoul is right to use his judgement to try to assess how much it will shift and in what direction. The polling won't tell you that; there is no substitute for using your judgement, taking account of such factors as the economy, the incoherence of Labour's economic policy, and Ed Miliband.
On the narrow point of the LD -> Lab switchers, which Mike thinks is so important, it's by no means certain that their enthusisasm for Ed will survive a manifesto.
As for David Miliband, I tend to agree that he wouldn't have been much better than his brother. He's a bit more grown-up, certainly, and not so anti-business, but otherwise quite similar.
It might not be certain to you Richard but it is certain to me. I live and work in an ultra marginals where I stood as LD candidate in 92. I know many and the level of switching, some of it tactical, will be large. It's the same message I'm hearing from three other super marginals where I have local contacts.
The Tories, assisted by your Mr. Gove, are toxic.
So actually, most of your view is being made up of some anecdotal evidence which we can't prove or disprove, and judgement? Same as Rentoul essentially, only difference is that you come to differing conclusions?
Hmmmmm....
"toxic" is just lazy abuse. And look what being non-toxic (as they presumably are) has done for the LD vote share.
"Toxic" is one of those words that can be manipulated to mean whatever the speaker wants nowadays...
Ukip went up 22% in Newark while all the other parties lost votes... Apparently because of their toxicity
@Socrates - You should really try to understand what is proposed before going off your trolley. Admittedly the Beeb (as so often) are not terribly coherent in that article.
If I've got a wrong impression of things based on a misleading BBC article, then I apologise. Lines like "Patients from outside the EU are to be charged 150% of the cost of treatment in the NHS in a fresh crackdown on so-called "health tourism" certainly sound like they are applying to all non-EU citizens using the NHS.
"For those who are temporary migrants from outside the EEA and are here for longer than six months, a new health surcharge will be applied when they submit an application for leave to enter or remain in the UK. This surcharge could generate up to £200 million per annum in the future."
Is this the £200 increase in visa fees already announced?
As I have said before, your views on such matters are hard to take seriously given that you appear to favour almost zero immigration.
It's hard to see how your analyses aren't coloured by that overarching worldview.
Re Dame Butler-Sloss: isn't it most likely that, given the time pressure to make an announcement, they thought she had all the right credentials - and, in many ways, she does - but simply did not do enough checks?
One of the problems is that they are going to look for someone who is, almost by definition, a member of the Establishment (particularly if they have the necessary skills/experience to lead such an inquiry) but that very fact makes them vulnerable to the charge that the "Establishment" will be investigating itself.
Perhaps someone like the new head of the Royal College of Pyschiatrists - Prof Sir Simon Wessely - might be a good choice?
Comments
Other fun stuff to note, 93% of 2011 Tories are planning to vote no, whereas 70% of 2011 SNPers are planning to vote Yes.
Miliband does not believe in 'family'. He is a socialist - if in power we would soon see his marxist tendencies - he only registered the birth and got married as a political convenience. He does not belive in marriage he believes in units of cohabitation. He believes in directing us poor simple people for the benefit of our own good.
Daniel Rugg Webb, a comedian, artist and musician, as well as an employee at Franklin Barbecue in Austin, seized the opportunity to make his voice heard when he found out Potus was visiting the food joint on Thursday, The Austin Chronicle reported.
When the President approached the till, Webb, 32, cast his hand down onto the counter and said: “Equal rights for gay people!”
Obama responded: “Are you gay?!
To which Webb replied: “Only when I have sex.”
Laughing, the President told Webb to “bump me” and the pair knocked their fists together.
And for PB's many "fans" of Rick Perry
“If Rick Perry (the governor of Texas) would've walked in, I would have lost my job. I would've taken that old queen to town,” Webb said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obama-fist-bumps-texas-restaurant-employee-in-support-of-gay-rights-9602738.html
Labour in Wales is preparing its young people for litte more than a life of ignorance, failure and welfare dependency.
If we get Ed Miliband, he will do the same in England.
"Liverpool line up Rodriguez deal"
Turns out it is Jay, and not Hames
My own local council in Angus is SNP controlled by people who would have been tories (in the main) 30 years ago. They watch the pennies, they get on with the business and do not indulge in any silly political gestures. There are lots of reasons for voting for a council like that without wanting to vote for independence.
This was particularly the case in 2011 when Salmond and his team had done a goodish job as a minority government and Gray was completely uninspiring. Those who think that is the base the Yes campaign have to work from are deluding themselves.
Bet has been settled as I suggested it to winner.com within a minute of mentioning IBAS ^^;
Me: Personally I think the bet should be settled as follows:
Me: 3 players tied on 4 goals
Me: And there are 2 places
Me: So 2/3 of th place part of an each way bet on Neymar, Van Persie, Messi
Me: Should be returned
Me: £5 * (2/3) * (9/1) / 4 + (2/3 * £5) = £10.83 returned
And they've returned £10.83
But you need to keep on top of this sort of thing !
North London is cited because it is seen as the area of people who are doing very nicely out of the publicly funded sector.
They enjoy the trappings of capitalist society to the full, whilst taking a political position that might well lead to the demise of that society.
They purport to help those in need, whilst their politics only entrenches social immobility.
The biggest complaint I've seen this world cup is that punters seem to forget most markets apply to 90mins only.
Tories claim they spent £96,191 in Newark by-election; Ukip £83,349; Labour £25,272 and Lib Dems £16,782
So had Muller scored in extra time, my bet would not have been a winner.
Anyone who backed Germany to win in 90 mins would have have lost.
edit: no's and yes' wrong way round!
Demonstrably prejudiced garbage.
@Taffys
Given that most of the leftie North London middle class is a massive net contributor, see my message to Flightpath above.
When asked in June 2014 if David Cameron or Ed Miliband would be the best Prime Minister, 2010 LibDems broke 22-21 for Cameron.
Asked who would have been better if David Miliband was Labour leader, 2010 LibDem break 41-11 for David M over Cameron.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rfcp6fnk0n/ProspectResults_140602_Ed_Miliband_Labour.pdf
Now, this is a straw in the wind, as such a poll does not reflect the media hostility David M would have faced, or the internal splits that Ed M has (rather expertly, IMO) avoided. So I don't regard it as evidence the David would have been 'better'. The challenges he would have faced would have been different to Ed, but no less significant.
However, I do question whether there is much evidence that David Miliband would have found it significantly more difficult to get the support of c30% of 2010 LibDems.
Of course, if Yougov broke out it's polls by 2010 vote before the Labour leadership election, we could make a more definitive answer. But given that Labour was scoring c38/39 in Sept 2010 before the leadership results were announced, and that the LibDems were on c12/13, it seems likely that a significant number of 2010 LDs broke for Labour when Labour had not decided it's leader. I'd be surprised if the election of David M would have sent them back to the LDs.
It seems to be quite a common view that education should prepare young people for life in the adult world. From that perspective the education system in Wales seems to be doing what is required.
@Pulpstar – Yes, I suspect there would have been many that did not read the small print.
I'm looking forward to seeing THAT link!
Liverpool went on to win the trophy on penalties.
He assumed it was a winner, and the next morning he went on a splurge. It was only when he had spent around £500 that he became aware that it was only a winner if Liverpool won in 90 mins and not on penalties.
I agree with you here 100 percent. But you might just as well try to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.
Edited extra bit: still waiting for Ladbrokes to put their markets up for Hockenheim...
Its the silly tribalism that leads to the chronic short-term outlook which is the ruin of good governance.
One of your points does perhaps support Mike's proposition that David M would have had less appeal to the LibDem switchers. That is where you say that Ed has expertly avoided splits in the party. This is true (at least, he has contained splits in the party and prevented them from breaking out into open warfare). However, he has done this by avoiding any commitment to serious policies; this in the short-term helps keep the party unified, and by extension helps to keep the switchers on-board. Probably David M would have been more coherent and more specific, which as you imply might well have led to more disgruntlement, in the party generally but specifically amongst the switchers.
The weakness in Ed's approach, though, is obvious: at some point, he'll have to choose a policy direction. He is either leaving it to absolutely the last moment, or (perhaps more likely) hoping to get away with avoiding it altogether before the GE. In the former case he risks disappointing a chunk of supporters just before the election. In the latter he risks allowing the Tories to frame his strategy on his behalf; if he can get away with that, he is setting himself up for a disastrously unpopular premiership when he actually has to make some real decisions.
So he might have been tactically smart but strategically stupid.
You shouldn't have the 2/3 in that calculation.
A Scottish Yes vote would see the gloves come off. The wise will recognise that there can be no velvet divorce, says Anthony King
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea520ece-02c1-11e4-a68d-00144feab7de.html#axzz37RITmaVH
Edit: Oh my days, the final bit of Professor King's piece
Any UK government would be legally entitled to invite the Scots to vote a second time. A “Yes” vote in September is unlikely. Even if it happens, that may well not be the end of the affair.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28291276
So a non-EU immigrant who pays upper rate tax and has been here working ten years has to pay more than the cost of a healthcare treatment, despite the fact they're already paying for themselves and subsidising everyone else through the tax system, while a Romanian beggar who's never paid anything can turn up tomorrow and get free treatment?
This just shows how screwed up our EU immigration policy is. If you want to make sure people are paying in, then base NHS access on the amount of contributions you've paid. It's obscene to charge some people twice - at over the odds both time - while others get it scot-free.
2014-06-21
18:04 2014 FIFA World Cup / Top Goalscorer - Top 4 / Lionel Messi
Lay 3.25 3.00 Lost (3.50)
My Betfair lay of top 4 scorer was settled as follows, which indicates a push of sorts at the odds.
(A non split top 4 scorer would have recorded a loss of £6.75)
I said she would have to on Friday night, when I read that Times article.
"The government also wants to charge EU patients 125% of the normal cost of treatment."
So wouldn't the Romanian beggar have to pay?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-mp-cover-up-claim-detective-1785273
"But the officer suddenly found himself booted off the case and put on a disciplinary after revealing politicians were named among the suspects."
The government seems to have zero clue as to what the public's value system with regard to immigrants really is.
I was in Istanbul at the time. Enjoying the abuse at half time via text from non Liverpool fans.
You were the one who made the original contention, you do your own research.
Given that the North London middle class earns sognificantly more on average than the average family while using similar levels of public services (trading efficient rail for inefficient roads) you might well struggle.
However, there are related questions to this. Even just taking 2010 LibDems, and ignoring whether it might have been possible to pursue a ''50% Strategy" by appealing to Tories, it's a mistake to assume all 2010 Lds are on the centre-left.
For example, in Sunday's YG, A QUARTER of 2010 LDs say they won't vote at all, while of the remainder, 23% say they'll vote either Con or UKIP (and 11% say they'll vote green). I would suggest that this group are as significant to the result of the next GE as the c30% of voting LDs who have moved to Labour. Would David have appealed more to these 'Lost Yellows'? I've no idea, but I can't rule it out either, given the figures I cited earlier.
Where I disagree though is that EM has not been clear about what he wants to do. I think he's been remarkably clear about the direction he wishes to take the party, in opposition and in government, and I think voters have a pretty good sense of his values/priorities. For me the challenge is whether people believe they will be achievable/make a difference, Valence, not values in other words.
Great call by you.
"We have no problem with international visitors using the NHS as long as they pay for it - just as British families do through their taxes," Mr Hunt said.
Does the numpty Hunt not realise that people resident and working here do play for the NHS through their taxes?
Like taffys said, the Tories have no clue about the public's value system on immigrants. They're too inept to actually reduce immigration down to reasonable levels, so they think they can make up for it by unfairly hurting immigrants financially.
If you want to make sure those using the NHS have contributed, then make it a contributory system.
I wouldn;t expect you to see the huge gulf between high earners in the public sector and high earners in the private sector. The fact remains the former drain the public purse, the latter line it.
I only said Islington is seen as the enclave of wealthy public sector workers, I did not claim it was true. It is merely an explanation for why Islington is quoted on here in pejorative terms.
UK exit from the EU would be a watershed moment, and one they'd prefer to avoid, I suspect.
With the BBC, the leaderships of all three parties and almost all of the Lib Dems/Labour on-side, it'd be hard for UKIP et al. to win a vote. The three million jobs deception (copyright Clegg) will play well on people's fears.
"The new measures are expected to come into force by next spring. The crackdown follows plans already unveiled to charge migrants a £200 "NHS" levy when they apply for a visa."
So non-EU citizens resident in the UK are now going to have to pay three times for the same thing.
Rubbish. Islington is seen as an enclave of wealthy lefties - hence why it is quoted on here in pejorative terms. Nothing to do with the public sector I'm afraid.
The public will probably only be happy with Gary Lineker or Sir Bruce Forsyth
A person who earns more than the average family earns more than the average family? A statement of the bleedin' obvious. What North London has go to do with it I don't know.
As for the public sector, nobody employed therein is a net financial contributor. They may contribute to the general good in other ways through their work, but they are financially 100% a drain. Does North London have a disproportionate number of public sector workers? If not I cannot see the relevance.
There is a clearer account here:
http://www.onmedica.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=cd8ff2d4-b164-4e7d-a89c-e79bd38471c1
Weird Ed is weird, after all, being a policy wonk is clearly not normal.
It's also possible the UK government would say that 2 years looked a bit tight, and they'd ask the other member states to start negotiating right away but save formally invoking Article 50 until they'd worked out what they were going to do.
Ronnie Corbett would also be acceptable.
Is this really going to stop the African woman who turns up in London to have her baby, sometimes with serious and hugely costly complications, then legs it back home with no intention to pay anything, ever?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/10/charles-clarke-ed-miliband-interview_n_5574103.html?1405334984
Edit: I like John Rentoul's take on it
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 2m
Neil Kinnock was a friend of his. EdM is no Neil Kinnock, says Charles Clarke http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5574103?1405334984 …
The irony that Miliband senior made a fortune through a system he proposed to dismantle is lost on the left.
AS it the fact he used tax payer money to earn his stripes as an academic.
Not that Brazil has the remotest connection with British politics, but our (as in English) dreadful showing certainly increased the nation's "feel bad" factor.
Now that the tournament is over and thankfully Argentina were beaten by Germany, our closest and most important European ally whether we like it or not, we can now at last start to forget about the whole damn thing and start looking forward to our own all-consuming new domestic footy season .... hurrah!
OK, we may only be talking about the odd 1% here in terms of political support levels, but then again 1% equates to quite a few seats at the General Election.
If I'm right, look out for that Labour lead to shrink back to 2%-3% over the next week or so.
Here's hoping so anyway!
We're the bookends of Europe that keep the Germans in their place.
My point, though, wasn't about outcome, but about trust. Ed Miliband received confidential briefings from the PM and the team. On the basis of this he committed to a certain action. The PM therefore recalled Parliament and set out a policy. At which point Miliband switched sides and did not commicate his change of position to the PM.
Why did he switch sides? Two possible reasons: (1) he was unable to carry his party or (2) he wanted to stitch up the PM. If (1), that happens. If (2) then he is unfit to be Prime Minister - seeking party advantage on a matter of national security
Why didn't he inform the PM? Again, two reasons: (1) he wanted to extract party advantage, or (2) he didn't have time. I don't believe (2) is credible, which leave (1). While seeking party advantage in this case is not as bad as in the first case, it clearly - together with other situations where he has behaved similarly - sets him up as a man who can't be trusted to keep his word. That, for me, is a major character flaw - and means I think he is unworthy to be Prime Minister.
"For those who are temporary migrants from outside the EEA and are here for longer than six months, a new health surcharge will be applied when they submit an application for leave to enter or remain in the UK. This surcharge could generate up to £200 million per annum in the future."
Is this the £200 increase in visa fees already announced?
Hmmmmm....
Article 50 says we want out, not can we talk about what our position would be if we decided that on balance we want to go.
You are waffling. First it was because they were disproportionately public servants, now we have found that to be baseless you advance spurious prejudiced arguments about N1 being a hive of unpatriotic rich Commies.
Laughable.
No. It's based on clear polling data as Mike clearly says in the threader.
http://www.ueapolitics.org/2014/07/14/general-election-2015-what-do-the-bookmakers-say/
Has this complete and utter mess delayed the heavily trailed Cabinet reshuffle, which anyway is a complete waste of time with Parliament about to take its annual 3 month summer/autumn holiday, closely followed by its dissolution and the start of the General Election campaign?
Simply put (and only highlighting the major points obviously), the government is responsible for (1) defence of the realm (2) national infrastructure (3) funding an acceptable minimum level of education and health care (4) ensuring an acceptable minimum level of income for people who are retired / unable to work, etc (5) provision of local services
The government spends £720 billion pounds per year. That's more than £10K per head.
I find it very difficult to believe that government can't deliver what it needs to deliver with less pending than that.
Mike say's you should look at the polling numbers, but when Richard points out that it's highly likely the polling numbers will change (in his and Rentouls judgement) Mike counters by saying that his judgement, based mainly on anecdotal evidence from Bedford and other places, is that the polls won't move because 2010 Lib-Dem switchers hate the Tories (and Gove)
Remember, polls can only tell you the situation as it is now, they can't tell you what the situation will be in 9 months. In saying that the polls won't move much between now and polling day Mike is using his judgement just like Rentoul is when he say's the polls will move quite a lot.
Of course Mike's judgement may well be right, but it is mainly just that. Mike's opinion and judgement.
Ukip went up 22% in Newark while all the other parties lost votes... Apparently because of their toxicity
It's hard to see how your analyses aren't coloured by that overarching worldview.
PARTY SEATS
Conservatives 272.99
Labour 310.43
Liberal Democrats 36.39
SNP 9.33
Plaid Cymru 2.78
Greens 0.77
UKIP 5.75
Other 0.77
Plausible
One of the problems is that they are going to look for someone who is, almost by definition, a member of the Establishment (particularly if they have the necessary skills/experience to lead such an inquiry) but that very fact makes them vulnerable to the charge that the "Establishment" will be investigating itself.
Perhaps someone like the new head of the Royal College of Pyschiatrists - Prof Sir Simon Wessely - might be a good choice?