@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
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?
Have to agree. Cameron has messed this one up very badly.
It's hard to fathom Cameron out.
Sometimes he can be excellent, but at other times he can make a complete mess of the most simple of tasks.
His performance as Prime Minister remains as patchy as ever.
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?
I don't think that's what delayed it. I thought they'd just moved it tomorrow to distract attention from the the all-party stitch-up to extend surveillance based on a pretend emergency.
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.
You are absolutely correct, Mr. Charles, but having participated in two zero based spending reviews in the public sector you would be wrong to think that one across the whole of government would result in any savings. Both of mine demonstrated that I actually needed more staff and a bigger discretionary budget (which on the second occasion I actually got). Maybe I was just very good in playing the system but there are civil servants out there who are even better at it than I was.
What has to happen first is for a very brave PM (and that knocks out the current clown) to set down and get the agreement of the general public what government is for. Then when you have decided what functions are actually necessary, bin those that aren't. That means closing whole departments. Then you bring in the cost accountants to sort out what remains and ensure that service delivery not supplier interest triumphs.
That will take about ten years all told and generate more bad headlines than you can shake a stick at. We will be a better governed and more prosperous nation at the end of the process. However, the timescales involved will mean a general election in the middle of the process. So no PM will ever do it. Much easier to salami slice and tinker around the edges, upsets less people, more chance of being re-elected.
Cameron and Clegg had the biggest and best opportunity to re-face the economy and governance of this country since WWII. The people in 2010 would have been prepared to go along with a radical redesign, as long as we were genuinely all in it together. The pair of weak-kneed jessies never had the bottle to even try.
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
Interesting confirmation that the Conservative constituency odds are longer than implied by the bands/lines/most seats etc.
Compare the above with the Over/Under lines which are 284.5 Con, 303.5 Lab.
Yes, and before a filter was used to rectify the short ones not being short enough/long ones not long enough, this was. The projection
PARTY SEATS Conservatives 260.21 Labour 286.80 Liberal Democrats 42.96 SNP 12.12 Plaid Cymru 3.18 Greens 1.78 UKIP 22.68 Other 2.28
So it seems right that the value is with individual Tory seats I guess... Ukip and labour poor value, LD neutral
In fairness I have backed a few ukip wins at bigger odds than currently available as have Pulpstar and TSE... The over reaction to a few quid on an outsider may be the reason for the over estimation of ukip seats
@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Yes, and before a filter was used to rectify the short ones not being short enough/long ones not long enough, this was. The projection
PARTY SEATS Conservatives 260.21 Labour 286.80 Liberal Democrats 42.96 SNP 12.12 Plaid Cymru 3.18 Greens 1.78 UKIP 22.68 Other 2.28
So it seems right that the value is with individual Tory seats I guess... Ukip and labour poor value, LD neutral
In fairness I have backed a few ukip wins at bigger odds than currently available as have Pulpstar and TSE... The over reaction to a few quid on an outsider may be the reason for the over estimation of ukip seats
I think the UKIP figures are a bit special because they are a small number of related contingencies, so it's a very skewed probability distribution.
Yes, and before a filter was used to rectify the short ones not being short enough/long ones not long enough, this was. The projection
PARTY SEATS Conservatives 260.21 Labour 286.80 Liberal Democrats 42.96 SNP 12.12 Plaid Cymru 3.18 Greens 1.78 UKIP 22.68 Other 2.28
So it seems right that the value is with individual Tory seats I guess... Ukip and labour poor value, LD neutral
In fairness I have backed a few ukip wins at bigger odds than currently available as have Pulpstar and TSE... The over reaction to a few quid on an outsider may be the reason for the over estimation of ukip seats
I think the UKIP figures are a bit special because they are a small number of related contingencies, so it's a very skewed probability distribution.
Yes, you're probably right.
Surely this analysis is worthy of a thread... It doesn't get much more about political betting!
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?
Almost, but it is not that they did not do enough checks -- it is not as if EBS's relationship to the then Attorney General was hidden, and her previous experience was what made her attractive for the role -- so much as they did not do enough thinking about how things would look in the papers or to the public.
''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.
Precisely.
This is also why he and his brother were prepared to do each other over to be leader: they don't give a fig for family except where there is some personal gain, like inheriting a house or grabbing a few votes.
In no circumstances would I ever apply for a job if my getting it meant my brother did not. this is obviously not a concern to the Milibands; maybe they hate each other. Yet another strike against them.
So: he's anti-business, anti-family, inherited rather than paid for his house, and got married for political convenience. That's four counts on which he deserves the utmost contempt. And the GE campaign hasn't started yet.
@isam - In fact Dr. Hanretty is slightly wrong (or not expressing himself clearly) when he says:
bookmakers repeatedly offer 1-in-100 odds for parties like UKIP without realizing that they’re implying that UKIP should win six-and-a-half seats even if they’re at 1/100 everywhere.
Offering 1-in-100 odds in all 650 seats does NOT imply that UKIP should win six and a half seats. It implies that that is the sum of the probability distribution, but, since they are related contingencies, it might still be that by far the most likely single outcome is zero seats, with a small probability of a massive UKIP surge which takes them to (say) 50+ seats.
@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
In the past Socrates has linked to variations on this graph and expressed a desire to return to the situation of the 1960s - ie net migration ~0 and immigration ~200,000.
This is a long way from zero immigration.
I feel that the complete absence of any discussion of emigration from this debate to be a bit strange, particularly given that Cameron's target was to reduce net migration, rather than immigration, and given that emigrants from the UK are necessarily immigrants elsewhere.
@Charles My apologies. It was unnecessarily provocative. 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.
......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. ........
I agree that EdM's flaw is trust. His brother certainly cannot trust him. His mother was clearly upset over it. Very few people would do that to an older sibling. Also the arrogance to think they could do the job so much better.
''No. Because that isn't a personal attack. Duh.''
North London is cited because it is seen as the area of people who are doing very nicely out of the publicly funded sector.
Labour has the unfortunate habit of picking leaders who personify the notion that the only legitimate personal fortune is one made in the public sector.
@isam - In fact Dr. Hanretty is slightly wrong (or not expressing himself clearly) when he says:
bookmakers repeatedly offer 1-in-100 odds for parties like UKIP without realizing that they’re implying that UKIP should win six-and-a-half seats even if they’re at 1/100 everywhere.
Offering 1-in-100 odds in all 650 seats does NOT imply that UKIP should win six and a half seats. It implies that that is the sum of the probability distribution, but, since they are related contingencies, it might still be that by far the most likely single outcome is zero seats, with a small probability of a massive UKIP surge which takes them to (say) 50+ seats.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
Here are the numbers for immigration over the last half century. Apologies for lack of precision - I'm reading off a graph:
@isam - In fact Dr. Hanretty is slightly wrong (or not expressing himself clearly) when he says:
bookmakers repeatedly offer 1-in-100 odds for parties like UKIP without realizing that they’re implying that UKIP should win six-and-a-half seats even if they’re at 1/100 everywhere.
Offering 1-in-100 odds in all 650 seats does NOT imply that UKIP should win six and a half seats. It implies that that is the sum of the probability distribution, but, since they are related contingencies, it might still be that by far the most likely single outcome is zero seats, with a small probability of a massive UKIP surge which takes them to (say) 50+ seats.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Whilst this kind of research is not that important ,one hopes that people who do it understand related contingencies more than apparently seems to be the case.
What all this comparison between Ed and David masks is surely that they're both just a bit shit. The only virtue I can see in David over Ed is that he is marginally less awkward looking and doesn't have a lisp. Neither is remotely plausible as a leading politician, and if they do have the immense brains attributed to them, they should have gone into the civil service. It isn't a beauty contest, as Churchill, Bo Jo, Ann Widdecombe etc. would attest, but you must have something about you -a robustness, a fluency, a presence. Ed is a complete charisma vacuum.
@isam - In fact Dr. Hanretty is slightly wrong (or not expressing himself clearly) when he says:
bookmakers repeatedly offer 1-in-100 odds for parties like UKIP without realizing that they’re implying that UKIP should win six-and-a-half seats even if they’re at 1/100 everywhere.
Offering 1-in-100 odds in all 650 seats does NOT imply that UKIP should win six and a half seats. It implies that that is the sum of the probability distribution, but, since they are related contingencies, it might still be that by far the most likely single outcome is zero seats, with a small probability of a massive UKIP surge which takes them to (say) 50+ seats.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Whilst this kind of research is not that important ,one hopes that people who do it understand related contingencies more than apparently seems to be the case.
I've only backed 1 100-1 outsider I think, UKIP in Burton - just to cover an under-round on Lib Dem/Con/Labour
The people doing this analysis know their stuff, the second seat table effectively takes out alot of the skewing on the UKIP odds.
Edited: Would be in the poor house dutching Lib Dem/Con in Burton !
@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.
Your views on any issue are hard to take seriously given that you supported the 1997-2010 Labour government, whose most significant actions in office were to wreck the social fabric of this country by mass immigration from the third world, dodge a referendum to hand over swathes of sovereignty to Brussels, ramp up public and private debt more than any other G7 economy, utterly fail to regulate the financial sector and plunging the country into financial crisis, and lie about weapons of mass destruction to enter into a reckless war in the Middle East.
People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
Its amazing how the situation is changed. Your graphic shows that in the 1960s and 1970s here was net emigration. Did that make the immigration easier to handle?
Could the Conservative Party go bust if there's mass litigation of abuse victims?
The man who claims to have procured boys for Conservative ministers sounds like a complete fantasist to me.
He would also be admitting to having committed a very serious criminal offence, if he were telling the truth. Another reason for me to believe that he isn't.
Its Ed Miliband's policies that I cannot fathom really. Ok, be the solid (if not hard) left type but come up with something better than banning zero hours contracts and nationalising railway trains (both of which are arguably doing fine if with some inevitable abuses that can be ironed out). Its the tory equivalent of banning the BBC or privatising forests
Could the Conservative Party go bust if there's mass litigation of abuse victims?
The man who claims to have procured boys for Conservative ministers sounds like a complete fantasist to me.
He would also be admitting to having committed a very serious criminal offence, if he were telling the truth. Another reason for me to believe that he isn't.
Is it another Ben Fellows fresh from the loony shop ?
Shadsy - please would you consider offering a market for banded SNP seats at the GE as you have done for the other parties? Not wishing to do your job for you, but I had in mind something along the lines of :
@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
Here are the numbers for immigration over the last half century. Apologies for lack of precision - I'm reading off a graph:
My preference for immigration would be in the 1965-1995 range. People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
I'm pretty sure if you polled voters with a neutral question asking for the appropriate number you'd find you were way out on the extreme pro-immigration end. Sometimes the voters just don't know what they're doing.
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.
This, I suspect. If he sets policies out in advance, he may gain or he may take a hit if they get ripped to shreds. If he sets out no policies he takes a trivial hit ("'E ain't got no bleedin' policies") but the bigger hit need never happen because his inbuilt electoral advantage may waft him into power without any.
Let's face it, the 35% or so of votes he needs are not, on the whole, thoughtful people carefully considering the offerings of the various parties and choosing the one they think is best. They're Labour's core of 28% or so plus another 7% who'd vote Labour if they can be arsed on the day. If you present them with Michael Foot or Gordon Brown you get just the 28% and if you present them with Tony Liar you get the 35, 36% kind of result.
Could the Conservative Party go bust if there's mass litigation of abuse victims?
The man who claims to have procured boys for Conservative ministers sounds like a complete fantasist to me.
He would also be admitting to having committed a very serious criminal offence, if he were telling the truth. Another reason for me to believe that he isn't.
Is it another Ben Fellows fresh from the loony shop ?
I think so. The people he mentioned have never come up in stories about child abuse, and are all conveniently dead, now.
So everything the government gets wrong is Cameron's fault?
In any case Cameron is at Farnborough today, so this talk of "delayed reshuffles because of botched appointment" is just delusional horse feathers from the confirmed haters.....
Presumably you reserve similar opprobrium for David, who also stood against his own brother. Or do you believe older brothers should get preference?
Definition of 'pompous, prejudiced, garbage in BaF's world = any criticism of Ed Miliband, his values, his father, his eating habits......................
@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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
Here are the numbers for immigration over the last half century. Apologies for lack of precision - I'm reading off a graph:
My preference for immigration would be in the 1965-1995 range. People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
I'm pretty sure if you polled voters with a neutral question asking for the appropriate number you'd find you were way out on the extreme pro-immigration end. Sometimes the voters just don't know what they're doing.
Only because they've never had chance to look into the facts. If you gave them some basic details on those numbers, they'd probably say similar numbers to what I have, or slightly below that.
The people that really need to justify themselves as those that think we need immigration at three times the rate of what we had during the mid-1990s economic boom.
Shadsy - please would you consider offering a market for banded SNP seats at the GE as you have done for the other parties? Not wishing to do your job for you, but I had in mind something along the lines of :
@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.
Your views on any issue are hard to take seriously given that you supported the 1997-2010 Labour government, whose most significant actions in office were to wreck the social fabric of this country by mass immigration from the third world, dodge a referendum to hand over swathes of sovereignty to Brussels, ramp up public and private debt more than any other G7 economy, utterly fail to regulate the financial sector and plunging the country into financial crisis, and lie about weapons of mass destruction to enter into a reckless war in the Middle East.
I think that puts a needlessly positive gloss on Labour's achievements.
The main thing they did was to make lying respectable.
Presumably you reserve similar opprobrium for David, who also stood against his own brother. Or do you believe older brothers should get preference?
They are as odious as each other.
My older brother died 3 years ago, thanks, but he wouldn't have done the same to me either. We'd both have passed rather than do each other over.
That you do not understand this speaks volumes about you.
If your brother wants the job you have to give it to Ed Balls? If you thought it was unethical to let the voters choose you could at least flip a coin or something, for your country's sake.
Could the Conservative Party go bust if there's mass litigation of abuse victims?
The man who claims to have procured boys for Conservative ministers sounds like a complete fantasist to me.
He would also be admitting to having committed a very serious criminal offence, if he were telling the truth. Another reason for me to believe that he isn't.
The same thought crossed my mind at the time the article first appeared - he was either admitting to procuring these alleged 'victims' or he didn't, in which case the alleged incident never took place. Perhaps further questions need to be asked of his involvement when the inquiry eventually starts.
you must have something about you -a robustness, a fluency, a presence. Ed is a complete charisma vacuum.
Atlee was no matinee idol nor rafter raiser, what he was however, was an effective leader of a group of impressive talents - with the prospect of a Miliband premiership not receding, I wouldn't mind the "weirdness" (which he should embrace, much better he fail at being himself, than fail at trying to be someone else, and more likely to succeed) were there some other pre-24 news cycle discernible significant strengths. So far we may have ruthlessness (which can be effective if a function of strength, not weakness) and principles (however mistaken I fear him to be, I don't doubt his sincerity) - the PLP has also shown remarkable discipline post-defeat - and to the leader must go much of the credit (something the Tories most obligingly spent nearly a decade showing Labour "how not to do it"....) - but what else?
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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
Here are the numbers for immigration over the last half century. Apologies for lack of precision - I'm reading off a graph:
My preference for immigration would be in the 1965-1995 range. People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
I'm pretty sure if you polled voters with a neutral question asking for the appropriate number you'd find you were way out on the extreme pro-immigration end. Sometimes the voters just don't know what they're doing.
Only because they've never had chance to look into the facts. If you gave them some basic details on those numbers, they'd probably say similar numbers to what I have, or slightly below that.
The people that really need to justify themselves as those that think we need immigration at three times the rate of what we had during the mid-1990s economic boom.
If you're selectively feeding them facts you can get pretty much any answer you like.
I find it very difficult to imagine any circumstance where the Conservative party would owe a duty of care to a minor. Perhaps if they operated a crèche at a party conference?
The idea that because someone who holds a position in the Conservative party is a paedophile the party has any kind of legal liability is a real stretch. I am aware of one case where a priest abused a boy who was engaged to clean his car. The church was liable in that case but the court emphasised that there were clear connections between his role as a priest and the abuse. For example he met the boy through the church and employed him wearing his priestly garb. The boy trusted him because he was a priest. etc etc.
The scope of vicarious liability has increased in recent years but this seems extremely unlikely to me.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Yes, certainly. However that is a slightly different point - odds for long-shots are usually too mean.
You mean like the 50/1 I got an Obama, the 33/1 bets on Galloway in Bradford & EdM for LAB leader and the my lay at 1.01 on Romney in Colorado primary.
I do wonder about the intelligence of ministers. Mark Francois Defence minister believes that it should not be difficult to recruit 75,000 to join the TA by 2018/19, as this was done in the 1980's with a smaller population.
I would have thought that the nature of most peoples working lifes has changed since the 1980's, with work less secure. Also we have had reserves deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq etc, so it is much more likely for reserves to face active duty than they did in the 1980's.
Seems to me that the government are being overly optimistic, because they don't have the budget for full time armed forces personnel.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Yes, certainly. However that is a slightly different point - odds for long-shots are usually too mean.
You mean like the 50/1 I got an Obama, the 33/1 bets on Galloway in Bradford & EdM for LAB leader and the my lay at 1.01 on Romney in Colorado primary.
Shadsy - please would you consider offering a market for banded SNP seats at the GE as you have done for the other parties? Not wishing to do your job for you, but I had in mind something along the lines of :
Yes indeed, I thought my suggestion might just make things just a little more interesting especially with the referendum looming, rather than simply offering line betting.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Yes, certainly. However that is a slightly different point - odds for long-shots are usually too mean.
You mean like the 50/1 I got an Obama, the 33/1 bets on Galloway in Bradford & EdM for LAB leader and the my lay at 1.01 on Romney in Colorado primary.
If you backed 100-1 shots in all seats at the GE you'd end up with a massive loss I expect.
Yes, certainly. However that is a slightly different point - odds for long-shots are usually too mean.
You mean like the 50/1 I got an Obama, the 33/1 bets on Galloway in Bradford & EdM for LAB leader and the my lay at 1.01 on Romney in Colorado primary.
No, I mean the smart guys will occasionally find a goody amongst the mean shots!
Shadsy - please would you consider offering a market for banded SNP seats at the GE as you have done for the other parties? Not wishing to do your job for you, but I had in mind something along the lines of :
Hmm I've just stuck £10 on the SNP in Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross @ 6-1 and Gordon @ 5-4 Caithness will be massive result (And is better value I think) but I'd expect Gordon to fall (And to the SNP)
Has John Thurso been reselected or is he thinking of standing down?
Hmm I've just stuck £10 on the SNP in Caithness Sutherland & Easter Ross @ 6-1 and Gordon @ 5-4 Caithness will be massive result (And is better value I think) but I'd expect Gordon to fall (And to the SNP)
Has John Thurso been reselected or is he thinking of standing down?
Presumably you reserve similar opprobrium for David, who also stood against his own brother. Or do you believe older brothers should get preference?
They are as odious as each other.
My older brother died 3 years ago, thanks, but he wouldn't have done the same to me either. We'd both have passed rather than do each other over.
That you do not understand this speaks volumes about you.
If your brother wants the job you have to give it to Ed Balls? If you thought it was unethical to let the voters choose you could at least flip a coin or something, for your country's sake.
Not the same as EdM vs DavidM. I just could not do that to an older brother who had clearly set his ambitions on that goal ahead of myself.
Of all the things to criticise Ed M for, standing for leader when his brother was also standing, is the least important. Dave M had no entitlement to the leadership. Nor, indeed, did G Brown. There may have been some personal betrayal, who knows? But a certain ruthlessness in a politician is a necessary quality, I'd have thought.
The fact that there was a contest may be one reason why the widely predicted "Labour tearing itself apart in a civil war" did not happen after the 2010 defeat.
Theresa May is giving evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on the "Work of the Home Secretary".
In her quarterly appearance, the home secretary is expected to face questions on extremism in schools, passports and historical child abuse allegations
"Atlee was no matinee idol nor rafter raiser, what he was however, was an effective leader of a group of impressive talents"
I think if you look at the cabinet papers you will discover that Atlee was an effective follower. On the public face he led, but actually he was forced into agreeing to a series of conflicting policies many of which he did not want or agree with.
Now, I knew that socialists hate the UK and everything it stands for. But today I have learned that they also hate their families. I never realised. They are really are the lowest of the low.
Now, I knew that socialists hate the UK and everything it stands for. But today I have learned that they also hate their families. I never realised. They are really are the lowest of the low.
Kollontai, the People’s Commissar of Social Welfare "Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family. We already have homes for very small babies, creches, kindergartens, children’s colonies and homes, hospitals and health resorts for sick children. restaurants, free lunches at school and free distribution of text books, warm clothing and shoes to schoolchildren. All this goes to show that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective." Close to how socialists run Government etc etc.
Now, I knew that socialists hate the UK and everything it stands for. But today I have learned that they also hate their families. I never realised. They are really are the lowest of the low.
You've only just realised ?
I mean Labour elected Ed Miliband as their leader, a man who hated the UK.
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.
Being against mass immigration doesn't mean almost zero immigration , gross misrepresentation
I realise that. Nevertheless, my sense is that Socrates is indeed in favour of near zero immigration.
Your views are perhaps quite different.
Here are the numbers for immigration over the last half century. Apologies for lack of precision - I'm reading off a graph:
My preference for immigration would be in the 1965-1995 range. People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
I'm pretty sure if you polled voters with a neutral question asking for the appropriate number you'd find you were way out on the extreme pro-immigration end. Sometimes the voters just don't know what they're doing.
Only because they've never had chance to look into the facts. If you gave them some basic details on those numbers, they'd probably say similar numbers to what I have, or slightly below that.
The people that really need to justify themselves as those that think we need immigration at three times the rate of what we had during the mid-1990s economic boom.
If you're selectively feeding them facts you can get pretty much any answer you like.
If you choose to do it on an arbitrary basis sure. But simply setting out what the numbers are and have been is hardly arbitrary.
There was one 100/1 shot that won in the 2010 constituencies; The Alliance Party in Belfast East were available at that price for a while, until we took a few bets and I realised their candidate was the former Lord Mayor. I think she still went off at 16/1. The Nationalist vote switched en-masse as people realised she had a shot at unseating Peter Robinson
Ladbrokes have their markets up. I'll have a look later today, after checking how the FRIC business is going/has gone.
Top teams seemed content to keep it in until 2015, suggesting value may exist for lower midfield teams to perhaps gain a competitive advantage by having the top teams lose an edge.
Now, I knew that socialists hate the UK and everything it stands for. But today I have learned that they also hate their families. I never realised. They are really are the lowest of the low.
Kollontai, the People’s Commissar of Social Welfare "Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family. Communist society will come to the aid of the parents. In Soviet Russia the Commissariats of Public Education and of Social Welfare are already doing much to assist the family. We already have homes for very small babies, creches, kindergartens, children’s colonies and homes, hospitals and health resorts for sick children. restaurants, free lunches at school and free distribution of text books, warm clothing and shoes to schoolchildren. All this goes to show that the responsibility for the child is passing from the family to the collective." Close to how socialists run Government etc etc.
F1: sounds like Force India have vetoed the agreement/consensus of most other teams to keep FRIC suspension. If they're the only team nearish the top not to run it, the relative running order may be more or less unaffected (excepting Force India). Fine for most, probably bad news for Ferrari in the Constructors'.
Sounds like the kind of thing people said about troubled/badly behaved kids from children's homes who report they were abused by celebrities
Celebrity charity campaigners word against a kid who's been caught thieving?
That may be so. However, just because child abuse really does exist, it doesn't follow that each and every accusation is true. Allegations of ritual Satanic abuse, for example, turned out to be unfounded.
If Gilberthorpe really is telling the truth, then he should go to the police.
That may be so. However, just because child abuse really does exist, it doesn't follow that each and every accusation is true. Allegations of ritual Satanic abuse, for example, turned out to be unfounded.
A more relevant example is the libellous and wholly unfounded allegation against poor old Lord McAlpine, which the media and the left took up with such disgusting enthusiasm. You'd have thought they'd have learnt a lesson from that unsavoury episode, but apparently not.
Sounds like the kind of thing people said about troubled/badly behaved kids from children's homes who report they were abused by celebrities
Celebrity charity campaigners word against a kid who's been caught thieving?
That may be so. However, just because child abuse really does exist, it doesn't follow that each and every accusation is true. Allegations of ritual Satanic abuse, for example, turned out to be unfounded.
If Gilberthorpe really is telling the truth, then he should go to the police.
Maybe, just pointing out the similarity in response
I wouldn't have any idea if it's true what this fellow says, but to say his word is dodgy because he has suffered from issues etc seems too similar to what Saviles defenders said to be sensible
@TC So Ed should have stood aside purely as a consequence of an accident of birth, that he happens to be younger?
He knew his brother was going to stand, he may even have disuaded his brother from standing against Brown a year or two before. But it comes down to the principles of how you view people should act with regard to their family. Mine are different to yours.
That may be so. However, just because child abuse really does exist, it doesn't follow that each and every accusation is true. Allegations of ritual Satanic abuse, for example, turned out to be unfounded.
A more relevant example is the libellous and wholly unfounded allegation against poor old Lord McAlpine, which the media and the left took up with such disgusting enthusiasm. You'd have thought they'd have learnt a lesson from that unsavoury episode, but apparently not.
I'm still waiting for him to post prices on Mike Smithson winning the Tour de France whilst wearing Burnley FC lycra and jointed sponsored by UKIP, John Rentoul and the Belgravia Hair Centre.
If the political class were serious about inquiring into 50 years of systematic covering up of child molesting MPs then it would need to involve immunity from prosecution over the official secrets act and any other gagging type orders for evidence solely related to this issue.
If the political class were serious about inquiring into 50 years of systematic covering up of child molesting MPs then it would need to involve immunity from prosecution over the official secrets act and any other gagging type orders for evidence solely related to this issue.
Look as long as a Tory or two is burned at the stake we shouldn't worry about process or scope.
Comments
CON 275
LAB 312
LIB 28
NAT 14
UKIP 3
Thats my prediction from June 29.
Nice to see the bookie analysis sort of confirms it.
It's hard to fathom Cameron out.
Sometimes he can be excellent, but at other times he can make a complete mess of the most simple of tasks.
His performance as Prime Minister remains as patchy as ever.
Compare the above with the Over/Under lines which are 284.5 Con, 303.5 Lab.
Could the Conservative Party go bust if there's mass litigation of abuse victims?
What has to happen first is for a very brave PM (and that knocks out the current clown) to set down and get the agreement of the general public what government is for. Then when you have decided what functions are actually necessary, bin those that aren't. That means closing whole departments. Then you bring in the cost accountants to sort out what remains and ensure that service delivery not supplier interest triumphs.
That will take about ten years all told and generate more bad headlines than you can shake a stick at. We will be a better governed and more prosperous nation at the end of the process. However, the timescales involved will mean a general election in the middle of the process. So no PM will ever do it. Much easier to salami slice and tinker around the edges, upsets less people, more chance of being re-elected.
Cameron and Clegg had the biggest and best opportunity to re-face the economy and governance of this country since WWII. The people in 2010 would have been prepared to go along with a radical redesign, as long as we were genuinely all in it together. The pair of weak-kneed jessies never had the bottle to even try.
This "Cameron has made a mess of this" criticism is just trotted out by those perpetually disappointed in Cameron......so no surprise there......
PARTY SEATS
Conservatives 260.21
Labour 286.80
Liberal Democrats 42.96
SNP 12.12
Plaid Cymru 3.18
Greens 1.78
UKIP 22.68
Other 2.28
So it seems right that the value is with individual Tory seats I guess... Ukip and labour poor value, LD neutral
In fairness I have backed a few ukip wins at bigger odds than currently available as have Pulpstar and TSE... The over reaction to a few quid on an outsider may be the reason for the over estimation of ukip seats
Your views are perhaps quite different.
So Dave had nothing to do with it then?
You say that as if it were bad thing, Mr. Fett.
Surely this analysis is worthy of a thread... It doesn't get much more about political betting!
This is also why he and his brother were prepared to do each other over to be leader: they don't give a fig for family except where there is some personal gain, like inheriting a house or grabbing a few votes.
In no circumstances would I ever apply for a job if my getting it meant my brother did not. this is obviously not a concern to the Milibands; maybe they hate each other. Yet another strike against them.
So: he's anti-business, anti-family, inherited rather than paid for his house, and got married for political convenience. That's four counts on which he deserves the utmost contempt. And the GE campaign hasn't started yet.
bookmakers repeatedly offer 1-in-100 odds for parties like UKIP without realizing that they’re implying that UKIP should win six-and-a-half seats even if they’re at 1/100 everywhere.
Offering 1-in-100 odds in all 650 seats does NOT imply that UKIP should win six and a half seats. It implies that that is the sum of the probability distribution, but, since they are related contingencies, it might still be that by far the most likely single outcome is zero seats, with a small probability of a massive UKIP surge which takes them to (say) 50+ seats.
" ...they did not do enough thinking ..."
Surely that will be carved on the tombstone of Cameron's administration.
This song was much thrown at Gordon Brown when he was PM but, really, the longer Cameron has been PM the more it seems to apply to him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRUDmLP6wlU
What pompous, prejudiced garbage.
Presumably you reserve similar opprobrium for David, who also stood against his own brother. Or do you believe older brothers should get preference?
This is a long way from zero immigration.
I feel that the complete absence of any discussion of emigration from this debate to be a bit strange, particularly given that Cameron's target was to reduce net migration, rather than immigration, and given that emigrants from the UK are necessarily immigrants elsewhere.
I make no judgment here, other than to say his worldview colours his analysis of specific cases he talks about.
1965: 200,000
1970: 220,000
1975: 200,000
1980: 180,000
1985: 230,000
1990: 260,000
1995: 220,000
2000: 380,000
2005: 500,000
2010: 570,000
Source: Page 222 here: http://www.eufreshstart.org/downloads/immigration-chapter.pdf
My preference for immigration would be in the 1965-1995 range. People that want it to continue to surge are the extremists.
The people doing this analysis know their stuff, the second seat table effectively takes out alot of the skewing on the UKIP odds.
Edited: Would be in the poor house dutching Lib Dem/Con in Burton !
Its amazing how the situation is changed. Your graphic shows that in the 1960s and 1970s here was net emigration. Did that make the immigration easier to handle?
He would also be admitting to having committed a very serious criminal offence, if he were telling the truth. Another reason for me to believe that he isn't.
Its the tory equivalent of banning the BBC or privatising forests
0 - 7 seats ....... Evens
8 - 10 seats ..... 6/4
11+ seats ......... 9/2
Whaddya think?
Let's face it, the 35% or so of votes he needs are not, on the whole, thoughtful people carefully considering the offerings of the various parties and choosing the one they think is best. They're Labour's core of 28% or so plus another 7% who'd vote Labour if they can be arsed on the day. If you present them with Michael Foot or Gordon Brown you get just the 28% and if you present them with Tony Liar you get the 35, 36% kind of result. Ah, but Kinnock didn't unfortunately have Ed's intellecutal self-confidence that we all so admire.
In any case Cameron is at Farnborough today, so this talk of "delayed reshuffles because of botched appointment" is just delusional horse feathers from the confirmed haters.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28289331
They are as odious as each other.
My older brother died 3 years ago, thanks, but he wouldn't have done the same to me either. We'd both have passed rather than do each other over.
That you do not understand this speaks volumes about you.
The people that really need to justify themselves as those that think we need immigration at three times the rate of what we had during the mid-1990s economic boom.
The Milibands instead figured screw my brother, give me the job. Says it all.
6.5- at 6-5
The main thing they did was to make lying respectable.
The idea that because someone who holds a position in the Conservative party is a paedophile the party has any kind of legal liability is a real stretch. I am aware of one case where a priest abused a boy who was engaged to clean his car. The church was liable in that case but the court emphasised that there were clear connections between his role as a priest and the abuse. For example he met the boy through the church and employed him wearing his priestly garb. The boy trusted him because he was a priest. etc etc.
The scope of vicarious liability has increased in recent years but this seems extremely unlikely to me.
Caithness will be massive result (And is better value I think) but I'd expect Gordon to fall (And to the SNP)
I would have thought that the nature of most peoples working lifes has changed since the 1980's, with work less secure. Also we have had reserves deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq etc, so it is much more likely for reserves to face active duty than they did in the 1980's.
Seems to me that the government are being overly optimistic, because they don't have the budget for full time armed forces personnel.
Do you think the north London middle class are a) more likely to work in the public sector than average or b) less likely.
Simple multiple choice question, simply responding a or b will suffice.
I am merely asking whether Dave was at all involved in the hire, a question you have yet to answer!
The fact that there was a contest may be one reason why the widely predicted "Labour tearing itself apart in a civil war" did not happen after the 2010 defeat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28290730
Theresa May is giving evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee on the "Work of the Home Secretary".
In her quarterly appearance, the home secretary is expected to face questions on extremism in schools, passports and historical child abuse allegations
I think if you look at the cabinet papers you will discover that Atlee was an effective follower. On the public face he led, but actually he was forced into agreeing to a series of conflicting policies many of which he did not want or agree with.
All we do know is that she was appointed by May. The rest is speculation.
Unless you know otherwise?
Close to how socialists run Government etc etc.
Mr Gilberthorpe, is frank about the battles he has fought with bankruptcy and depression and frustrations over his failed political ambitions.
Last night he said: “Yes, I was very angry about how the Tory party had used me and then later snubbed me. But none of that alters what I saw.
“Yes, I have had my fair share of issues and problems in the past but it doesn’t change what happened and what I saw those men doing.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172#ixzz37S6nMq4w
I mean Labour elected Ed Miliband as their leader, a man who hated the UK.
It's in the blood.
Celebrity charity campaigners word against a kid who's been caught thieving?
Your saying you don't know is a perfectly reasonable response! Thanks!
I merely asked the question.
Indeed. It's amazing how much you learn from the PB Tory's radical wing. Wisdom you'll never find in books.
Ladbrokes have their markets up. I'll have a look later today, after checking how the FRIC business is going/has gone.
Top teams seemed content to keep it in until 2015, suggesting value may exist for lower midfield teams to perhaps gain a competitive advantage by having the top teams lose an edge.
May also be springtime for Williams.
So Ed should have stood aside purely as a consequence of an accident of birth, that he happens to be younger?
If Gilberthorpe really is telling the truth, then he should go to the police.
I wouldn't have any idea if it's true what this fellow says, but to say his word is dodgy because he has suffered from issues etc seems too similar to what Saviles defenders said to be sensible
Why say anything?
I'm still waiting for him to post prices on Mike Smithson winning the Tour de France whilst wearing Burnley FC lycra and jointed sponsored by UKIP, John Rentoul and the Belgravia Hair Centre.
Apparently.