BTW there is an answer to all those questions about the Foley murder.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but US/UK intel now believe the film was made over time, splicing together different sequences: which is obvious when you watch it (as I have - it's actually not as bad as prior AQ in Iraq vids). e.g. you don't see the actual murder, and there is a weird, faintly wonky jump cut to the final scene.
Intelligence agents now believe Foley's speech was recorded earlier - which makes sense. Foley would have done it in the hope his life would be spared. Then ISIS spliced the confession with the actual beheading, making it look as if Foley had converted to the ISIS cause even as he knew was going to die.
It is also unsure whether the terrorist speaking is the terrorist who does the butchery - quite possibly it is a voiceover.
Horrific, but clever. And that's ISIS. Horrific but clever. Which is why we must make maximum efforts to extirpate them, before they get any bigger. They are the biggest threat to the West since communism.
Not that clever. If they had expanded their "state" with less sadistic butchery, then the West may have stayed out for longer.
BTW there is an answer to all those questions about the Foley murder.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but US/UK intel now believe the film was made over time, splicing together different sequences: which is obvious when you watch it (as I have - it's actually not as bad as prior AQ in Iraq vids). e.g. you don't see the actual murder, and there is a weird, faintly wonky jump cut to the final scene.
Intelligence agents now believe Foley's speech was recorded earlier - which makes sense. Foley would have done it in the hope his life would be spared. Then ISIS spliced the confession with the actual beheading, making it look as if Foley had converted to the ISIS cause even as he knew was going to die.
It is also unsure whether the terrorist speaking is the terrorist who does the butchery - quite possibly it is a voiceover.
Horrific, but clever. And that's ISIS. Horrific but clever. Which is why we must make maximum efforts to extirpate them, before they get any bigger. They are the biggest threat to the West since communism.
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
BTW there is an answer to all those questions about the Foley murder.
Your analysis is interesting. If correct, it also means that were we ever to identify and arrest "John", there might be some difficulty in convicting him on an indictment charging murder. He would be banged to rights on sundry terrorist offences, certainly.
For those of us (like me) who still find Denis MacShane interesting despite what happened, he's published a book on his prison experiences, which I'd expect to be interesting reading - whatever one thinks of him, he's a good writer:
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers. I'd be happy for any prisoner, including mass murderers, to spend their time in prison reading and writing, and active suggestions on reading matter would be good too (I'd support censorship of anything encouraging criminality). To forbid it just encourages the idea that prison is just a temporary parking place.
The teenage son of a friend is serving 30 years for murder (he's not very bright and insanely agreed to help a domineering acquaintance murder his errant girlfriend) and has apparently taken an interest in a pacifist religion. I think he should be encouraged in it, not told he can't read anything about it.
" Let me say that I, like so many others, have been guilty of making the wrong assumptions about where UKIP support is coming from."
Why is that Mike, after all it is not for lack of being told repeatedly by Kippers. Seemingly the only people whose view on the UKIP demographic that was ignored were Kippers themselves. For years any opinion no matter how half baked or stereotypical, coming from any member of the chattering classes who could string two words together was considered more credible than that of anybody in UKIP from Nigel Farage down.
I have lost count of the number of times over the years, across various blogs, and I am only one amongst many, that have explained to those who have persisted with the UKIP are golf club Tories rhetoric, the error of their ways, but all to no avail.
As somebody working and campaigning in the North, most of my campaigning for the last 20 years has been to ex and current Labour voters, and in that group I include what are jokingly called LibDem to Labour switches, which in my opinion were never real LibDems in the first place but simply NOTA's who were not prepared to waste their vote. A little tip about them, let's see where all those LIbDem to Labour switches actually go to after the GE, things may not be quite as the polls suggest.
The Kipper demographic has always been hidden in plain view to those who choose to look, and of course invisible to those who maintain that the old certainties will eventually prevail, despite all the evidence to the contrary, but probably brought on by the dawning realisation that UKIP fading into obscurity before the GE is not going according to plan.
Kipper voters come from a variety of sources. The public school city trader Farage, and old Etonian Lord, and their fielding of such progressives as Bloom, Hamilton and Helmer shows that there is more than a little misalignment with their leadership.
For those of us (like me) who still find Denis MacShane interesting despite what happened, he's published a book on his prison experiences, which I'd expect to be interesting reading - whatever one thinks of him, he's a good writer:
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers. I'd be happy for any prisoner, including mass murderers, to spend their time in prison reading and writing, and active suggestions on reading matter would be good too (I'd support censorship of anything encouraging criminality). To forbid it just encourages the idea that prison is just a temporary parking place.
The teenage son of a friend is serving 30 years for murder (he's not very bright and insanely agreed to help a domineering acquaintance murder his errant girlfriend) and has apparently taken an interest in a pacifist religion. I think he should be encouraged in it, not told he can't read anything about it.
He's entitled to free pens, paper and envelopes and two second class stamps per week to send regular letters home (plus anything for legal matters)
If he wants to write his memoirs he needs buy pens and paper from his weekly canteen list (the stuff prisoners buy on a weekly basis, such as tobacco, tea, phone credit, chocolates etc)
The only way he'd be barred from this was if he lost his privileges as a standard or enhanced prisoner or if he has misused the privilege (such as using letters to send abusive letters or contacted people he shouldn't)
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers.
The Secretary of State's policy is, as I understand it, slightly more nuanced in theory, but, in practice, has that effect. It has always seemed to me that we should encourage prisoners to pursue the life of contemplation while under sentence, and any limitation on books (beyond restricting works which actually encourage serious criminality or providing for a maximum permitted number per prisoner at a given time) is likely to prove utterly counter-productive.
Edit: Seen TSE's post, which concerns writing materials, not books.
For those of us (like me) who still find Denis MacShane interesting despite what happened, he's published a book on his prison experiences, which I'd expect to be interesting reading - whatever one thinks of him, he's a good writer:
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers. I'd be happy for any prisoner, including mass murderers, to spend their time in prison reading and writing, and active suggestions on reading matter would be good too (I'd support censorship of anything encouraging criminality). To forbid it just encourages the idea that prison is just a temporary parking place.
The teenage son of a friend is serving 30 years for murder (he's not very bright and insanely agreed to help a domineering acquaintance murder his errant girlfriend) and has apparently taken an interest in a pacifist religion. I think he should be encouraged in it, not told he can't read anything about it.
He's entitled to free pens, paper and envelopes and two second class stamps per week to send regular letters home (plus anything for legal matters)
If he wants to write his memoirs he needs buy pens and paper from his weekly canteen list (the stuff prisoners buy on a weekly basis, such as tobacco, tea, phone credit, chocolates etc)
The only way he'd be barred from this was if he lost his privileges as a standard or enhanced prisoner or if he has misused the privilege (such as using letters to send abusive letters or contacted people he shouldn't)
I have not read the underlying paper but one assumes that the key driver is the English language and those nice telegraph-cables to Septica. This gives England a God-given advantage and one we should not waste.
So how is the UK to grow to match future projections? Outwith PWC's calculations I will assume that the drivers are:
# Education reform: Lewisham has silently introduced 'Grammar-Schools'. The ability to read, comprehend and express oneself is more important than using a 4GL tool to develop a mobile web-app. I am lead to believe Latin is a good cognitive primer.
# Benefit reform: Imperial guilt is over. Many of my English countrymen have relations to 'The Colonies' and have no responsibility for mistakes made over a hundred years ago.
# Engineering: We have the best and brightest (as well as knuckle-dragging benefit monkees) streaming to England. We have ability but we also need to import good management (and not PC place-holders)!
# We are intrinsically a 'global nation': Sticking our oar in and telling people why they are wrong (and we are always correct). That gives us English a voice to be listened to (or sniggered at; a mistake to be smouldered over).
# Constitutional Reform: A Lower House based upon population and not the latest Idiot-of-Socialism's latest Jihadi election plan for Cornwall. For every 125K population/electorate a seat for each nation within the UK (plus one for stragglers). A fully accountable, PR-elected Upper Lords (with Clegg hanging from the rafters).
# Public-sector reform of Pensions and Institutions. Effective collaborative privatisation.
UKIP's initial ascendancy that commences around poll number 400, can be compared against a corresponding fall in Conservative support, without affecting support for the other parties.
However, UKIP's subsequent improvement can be compared against a fall in support for the LibDems and Labour, whereas the Conservative support treads water, and possibly improves slightly.
Interesting that May has been talking about following a "drain the swamp" strategy that she and Gove had such a huge falling out over. Apologies may be necessary from her to Gove given that he is right about the need to drain the swamp and that fact has slowly dawned on the Home Office after seeing British born terrorists in Iraq and Syria beheading innocent people.
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
Interesting and sounds familiar. A difficulty for politicians chasing votes (and I appreciate that your MP is probably not one of them) is that there are only X hours available. If you spend them on an alienated estate and try to take up their issues, you will gain a little bit of credit for turning up and listening, but mostly they'll still be alienated and won't vote for you or, probably, anyone. If you spend them in a prosperous suburb and pursue their issues, you'll get lots of votes. However, if you conclude that you should NEVER go to alienated estates, you are precisely proving their point.
A possible answer is to spend almost every available day of your life knocking on doors so you can meet and interact with as varied as possible a cross-section of everyone. For whatever cause you espouse, it's probably a good idea. As a way to have a pleasant, balanced social life, it sucks, and it's odd enough to make you unaware of other normal preoccupations (e.g. I have no idea who is winning the Premier League or what the current hot movies are like). I'm not sure what the best answer is!
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
FoxTaffys Russia has unemployment benefits and social housing, Cuba probably has more accessible healthcare than the US, China has recently introduced a minimum income, even in India Congress was often doling out gifts to the poor.
History suggests (Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) that a developing country can get to $20,000 GDP-per-capita quite quickly and easily. But after that point, closing the gap gets much, much harder. Of course, for China, that means a trebling of GDP per capita from here.
There is another reason not to expect Chinese GDP-per-capita to slow in the future. Just as in Japan and Italy, there are substantial demographic challenges. GDP is created by workers, but GDP per capita is made by dividing GDP by the total number of people. Since 1979, China has benefitted hugely from the one-child policy which has meant that a very high proportion of the population was working (and that few resources needed to be devoted to looking after the old or the young). Chinese working age population peaks in 2017, and the number of old (non-working) Chinese relative to the number of working ones worsens. This means that - even if you assume that labour productivity rises at 7% p.a. - then GDP per capita growth must slow sharply from here.
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
Interesting and sounds familiar. A difficulty for politicians chasing votes (and I appreciate that your MP is probably not one of them) is that there are only X hours available. If you spend them on an alienated estate and try to take up their issues, you will gain a little bit of credit for turning up and listening, but mostly they'll still be alienated and won't vote for you or, probably, anyone. If you spend them in a prosperous suburb and pursue their issues, you'll get lots of votes. However, if you conclude that you should NEVER go to alienated estates, you are precisely proving their point.
A possible answer is to spend almost every available day of your life knocking on doors so you can meet and interact with as varied as possible a cross-section of everyone. For whatever cause you espouse, it's probably a good idea. As a way to have a pleasant, balanced social life, it sucks, and it's odd enough to make you unaware of other normal preoccupations (e.g. I have no idea who is winning the Premier League or what the current hot movies are like). I'm not sure what the best answer is!
Nottingham Forest are currently top of the Championship. 10 places below premiership Leicester City, which I am sure that the voters of Broxtowe would want to be reminded of.
" Let me say that I, like so many others, have been guilty of making the wrong assumptions about where UKIP support is coming from."
Why is that Mike, after all it is not for lack of being told repeatedly by Kippers. Seemingly the only people whose view on the UKIP demographic that was ignored were Kippers themselves. For years any opinion no matter how half baked or stereotypical, coming from any member of the chattering classes who could string two words together was considered more credible than that of anybody in UKIP from Nigel Farage down.
I have lost count of the number of times over the years, across various blogs, and I am only one amongst many, that have explained to those who have persisted with the UKIP are golf club Tories rhetoric, the error of their ways, but all to no avail.
As somebody working and campaigning in the North, most of my campaigning for the last 20 years has been to ex and current Labour voters, and in that group I include what are jokingly called LibDem to Labour switches, which in my opinion were never real LibDems in the first place but simply NOTA's who were not prepared to waste their vote. A little tip about them, let's see where all those LIbDem to Labour switches actually go to after the GE, things may not be quite as the polls suggest.
The Kipper demographic has always been hidden in plain view to those who choose to look, and of course invisible to those who maintain that the old certainties will eventually prevail, despite all the evidence to the contrary, but probably brought on by the dawning realisation that UKIP fading into obscurity before the GE is not going according to plan.
Farage used to say that when Conservatives do well, UKIP does well. If that linkage is broken, and UKIP can power ahead while Conservatives stagnate, he's on his way. His carefully calibrated policy programme will need a little more bite to achieve such a result. That said, he'll probably leave the best until the Doncaster debauch.
Is Southam Observer about? If so he might like to read a interesting piece into today's Telegraph about how globalisation is leading to concentrations of wealth that are incompatible with continued democracy.
Is Southam Observer about? If so he might like to read a interesting piece into today's Telegraph about how globalisation is leading to concentrations of wealth that are incompatible with continued democracy.
For those of us (like me) who still find Denis MacShane interesting despite what happened, he's published a book on his prison experiences, which I'd expect to be interesting reading - whatever one thinks of him, he's a good writer:
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers. I'd be happy for any prisoner, including mass murderers, to spend their time in prison reading and writing, and active suggestions on reading matter would be good too (I'd support censorship of anything encouraging criminality). To forbid it just encourages the idea that prison is just a temporary parking place.
The teenage son of a friend is serving 30 years for murder (he's not very bright and insanely agreed to help a domineering acquaintance murder his errant girlfriend) and has apparently taken an interest in a pacifist religion. I think he should be encouraged in it, not told he can't read anything about it.
He's entitled to free pens, paper and envelopes and two second class stamps per week to send regular letters home (plus anything for legal matters)
If he wants to write his memoirs he needs buy pens and paper from his weekly canteen list (the stuff prisoners buy on a weekly basis, such as tobacco, tea, phone credit, chocolates etc)
The only way he'd be barred from this was if he lost his privileges as a standard or enhanced prisoner or if he has misused the privilege (such as using letters to send abusive letters or contacted people he shouldn't)
What about books being banned?
I know Grayling put a ban on prisoners receiving books and magazines from the outside.
Which is another example of Grayling being a complete reactionary and not fit to be justice secretary or Lord Chancellor
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
BTW there is an answer to all those questions about the Foley murder.
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but US/UK intel now believe the film was made over time, splicing together different sequences: which is obvious when you watch it (as I have - it's actually not as bad as prior AQ in Iraq vids). e.g. you don't see the actual murder, and there is a weird, faintly wonky jump cut to the final scene.
Intelligence agents now believe Foley's speech was recorded earlier - which makes sense. Foley would have done it in the hope his life would be spared. Then ISIS spliced the confession with the actual beheading, making it look as if Foley had converted to the ISIS cause even as he knew was going to die.
It is also unsure whether the terrorist speaking is the terrorist who does the butchery - quite possibly it is a voiceover.
Horrific, but clever. And that's ISIS. Horrific but clever. Which is why we must make maximum efforts to extirpate them, before they get any bigger. They are the biggest threat to the West since communism.
Ah, so the question I asked to some derision the other night wasn't so ridiculous
Is Southam Observer about? If so he might like to read a interesting piece into today's Telegraph about how globalisation is leading to concentrations of wealth that are incompatible with continued democracy.
@HurstLlama There is little we seem to agree on historically, but oddly we seem to have the same view of the present. Long article, but makes much the same point
"Privatisation promised to turn the UK into an island of small shareholders. It failed: the faceless state bureaucrats have been replaced by faceless (better-paid) private bureaucrats – and big foreign corporations. How did we get to this point?"
These figures confirm what I've told you lot previously, those of us on the ground know exactly where our support is coming from, it's working class people who are seeing the impact of immigration on jobs, schools, health etc. Labour and conservative need to be equally concerned, neither have any coherent plan or response to the immigration problem. And despite what some people in the bubble say, the problem is enormous and growing.
Yes, UKIP is a "respectable racist" Party which is something British politics hasn't had before. How the shade of Enoch Powell must be gloating! I would only add that if half its support appears to come from people who usually don't vote, I wonder how many of them will actually vote next time. Getting such people to turn out requires an on-the-ground operation UKIP simply hasn't got.
In a nutshell that sums up the problem the english poshos have with UKIP
you want to dismiss their supporters problems as meaningless and chuck in a few insults as you tell them to clear off.
meanwhile you're wringing your hands about low turnouts and "engagement" from the very people you denigrate.
'respectable racist'? What we have is UKIP and Farage with his dog whistles making racism respectable--- which of course it never is. Is it...?
Real wanker of a post.
You quite evidently don't know what racism is but bandy the word about like some teenager wearing a designer label to try and make himself look good.
Some people like stereotypmg. All black people are muggers, all scousers are thieves, all Muslims are Jihadists, all Kippers are racists. Don't try and muddy the water with facts.
@HurstLlama There is little we seem to agree on historically, but oddly we seem to have the same view of the present. Long article, but makes much the same point
"Privatisation promised to turn the UK into an island of small shareholders. It failed: the faceless state bureaucrats have been replaced by faceless (better-paid) private bureaucrats – and big foreign corporations. How did we get to this point?"
Thanks for bringing that article to my attention. As you say we seldom agree about the past and having lived through the the sixties and seventies, my memory of what happened and why is somewhat different to the author's, who I would guess leaned about it at college.
However, when it comes to our present state you and I do indeed agree on a lot, as I do with the author of that article. As I said on here yesterday, if you cut through the political speak, there is an awful lot of agreement on what the problems are and where we would like to be. The debate is about the means not the ends. Between the big parties I don't think there is even much disagreement about the means, there wasn't in the 50s, 60s and 70s either. However, I am far from convinced that this new consensus will benefit anyone other than the already wealthy.
'respectable racist'? What we have is UKIP and Farage with his dog whistles making racism respectable--- which of course it never is. Is it...?
Real wanker of a post.
You quite evidently don't know what racism is but bandy the word about like some teenager wearing a designer label to try and make himself look good.
No it is not. The real 'wankers' increasingly are people like you willing to apologise for outrageous opportunists like Farage. Who makes Farage say he would not like a Romanian living next door to him? Or complain about foreign languages spoken on the tube? Or who makes a UKIP MEP make quite pathetic ignorant comments about her constituent (and UKIP supporter!)?
No one - its the real kipper speaking and the fact that you will make apologies for it is truly disgusting. I know a racist bigot when I see and hear one - especially when he is grubbing amongst votes for the lowest common denominator.
Evidently its you who does not know the meaning of racism.
Is Southam Observer about? If so he might like to read a interesting piece into today's Telegraph about how globalisation is leading to concentrations of wealth that are incompatible with continued democracy.
"It is not a Left/Right issue. It is common sense. Democracies will not last long with the wealth concentration of pre-modern despotisms."
Ah, Ambrose 'Seer' Pritchard...
The flip side is that as countries get richer, then the rising middle class makes democracy inevitable: see South Korea and Taiwan
So what happens when wealth is increasingly concentrated and the middle class shrinks?
There are three separate questions, really:
1. Is wealth becoming more concentrated? If so, it it bad for democracy? 2. Is income becoming more concentrated? Ditto. 3. Does globalisation mean that some traditional (middle class) industries are facing pressure from abroad?
The answers, I would suggest are:
1. Yes, because the low interest rate environment has boosted the value of income generating investments - and these are owned disproportionately by the risk. However, the idea that keeping interest rates high (as happened in some parts of the Eurozone, as a consequence of sovereign debt default risks) would have been good for the middle classes is farcical.
2. No. The top 1%, 5%, and 20% of earners all saw their portion of the income 'pot' fall post 2007 - largely as a result of the decline of the financial services industry.
3. Yes. An accountant in Mumbai can now do your tax returns, and that's inevitably going to put pressure on what an accountant in Middlesborough can charge. But the costs to the whole of imposing widespread tariffs would be enormous. And I notice the middle classes weren't complaining when the off-shoring of manufacturing led to cheaper stereo systems.
You mean they are not. Come on! You'll be telling me next that Morris Dancer doesn't wear a flat cap, that his dog is not a whippet and he doesn't eat tripe for his tea.
You mean they are not. Come on! You'll be telling me next that Morris Dancer doesn't wear a flat cap, that his dog is not a whippet and he doesn't eat tripe for his tea.
Surely one doesn't morris in a flat cap? Not even in Yorkshire.
Good post Mike and difficult to argue with. The people I have spoken to who would vote UKIP are not really political party people. They have got fed up with Con/Lab/Lib, may not have voted at every election and like some of what they have heard from Farage. Their main concern does appear to be immigration affecting the quality of life for their family now and in the future.
The problem for UKIP is breaking through and winning seats. If they are seen as helping* Labour win a majority with only 35% of the vote, then I am not sure how well UKIP would do after May 2015. Labour are currently not offering a referendum on EU membership, unless there is a new treaty.
* Although UKIP would only take small percentage of the Tory 2010 votes, it would make quite a lot of difference in marginals, as it looks like Labour will benefit from Lib Dems moving to them. So Labour could win a number of seats as a result of UKIP doing better than they did in 2010.
Is Southam Observer about? If so he might like to read a interesting piece into today's Telegraph about how globalisation is leading to concentrations of wealth that are incompatible with continued democracy.
"It is not a Left/Right issue. It is common sense. Democracies will not last long with the wealth concentration of pre-modern despotisms."
Ah, Ambrose 'Seer' Pritchard...
The flip side is that as countries get richer, then the rising middle class makes democracy inevitable: see South Korea and Taiwan
So what happens when wealth is increasingly concentrated and the middle class shrinks?
There are three separate questions, really:
1. Is wealth becoming more concentrated? If so, it it bad for democracy? 2. Is income becoming more concentrated? Ditto. 3. Does globalisation mean that some traditional (middle class) industries are facing pressure from abroad?
The answers, I would suggest are:
1. Yes, because the low interest rate environment has boosted the value of income generating investments - and these are owned disproportionately by the risk. However, the idea that keeping interest rates high (as happened in some parts of the Eurozone, as a consequence of sovereign debt default risks) would have been good for the middle classes is farcical.
2. No. The top 1%, 5%, and 20% of earners all saw their portion of the income 'pot' fall post 2007 - largely as a result of the decline of the financial services industry.
3. Yes. An accountant in Mumbai can now do your tax returns, and that's inevitably going to put pressure on what an accountant in Middlesborough can charge. But the costs to the whole of imposing widespread tariffs would be enormous. And I notice the middle classes weren't complaining when the off-shoring of manufacturing led to cheaper stereo systems.
Fair go, but you seem to have dodged the question. If, as you say the rise of the middle class brings democracy in its wake. Then what happens when the middle class shrinks and loses its purchasing power?
You mean they are not. Come on! You'll be telling me next that Morris Dancer doesn't wear a flat cap, that his dog is not a whippet and he doesn't eat tripe for his tea.
Surely one doesn't morris in a flat cap? Not even in Yorkshire.
You mean they are not. Come on! You'll be telling me next that Morris Dancer doesn't wear a flat cap, that his dog is not a whippet and he doesn't eat tripe for his tea.
Surely one doesn't morris in a flat cap? Not even in Yorkshire.
O/T Have any of you given a thought to the idea that the Russian aid convoy might not have been a matter of bringing stuff in, but instead is a means of extracting key personnel who the Russians would like not to be found in the Ukraine? (driver identity swaps)
These figures confirm what I've told you lot previously, those of us on the ground know exactly where our support is coming from, it's working class people who are seeing the impact of immigration on jobs, schools, health etc. Labour and conservative need to be equally concerned, neither have any coherent plan or response to the immigration problem. And despite what some people in the bubble say, the problem is enormous and growing.
Yes, UKIP is a "respectable racist" Party which is something British politics hasn't had before. How the shade of Enoch Powell must be gloating! I would only add that if half its support appears to come from people who usually don't vote, I wonder how many of them will actually vote next time. Getting such people to turn out requires an on-the-ground operation UKIP simply hasn't got.
In a nutshell that sums up the problem the english poshos have with UKIP
you want to dismiss their supporters problems as meaningless and chuck in a few insults as you tell them to clear off.
meanwhile you're wringing your hands about low turnouts and "engagement" from the very people you denigrate.
'respectable racist'? What we have is UKIP and Farage with his dog whistles making racism respectable--- which of course it never is. Is it...?
Real wanker of a post.
You quite evidently don't know what racism is but bandy the word about like some teenager wearing a designer label to try and make himself look good.
I do so wish we still had a like button. That sums up Flightpath perfectly.
O/T Have any of you given a thought to the idea that the Russian aid convoy might not have been a matter of bringing stuff in, but instead is a means of extracting key personnel who the Russians would like not to be found in the Ukraine? (driver identity swaps)
Russia needs to be seen to do something for the civilians, delays the Ukrainian offensive, shows Russia can do what it likes in the Donbass and the irony of the NATO humanitarian convoy proposed for Syria. I doubt there was much besides aid in that convoy.
'respectable racist'? What we have is UKIP and Farage with his dog whistles making racism respectable--- which of course it never is. Is it...?
Real wanker of a post.
You quite evidently don't know what racism is but bandy the word about like some teenager wearing a designer label to try and make himself look good.
No it is not. The real 'wankers' increasingly are people like you willing to apologise for outrageous opportunists like Farage. Who makes Farage say he would not like a Romanian living next door to him? Or complain about foreign languages spoken on the tube? Or who makes a UKIP MEP make quite pathetic ignorant comments about her constituent (and UKIP supporter!)?
No one - its the real kipper speaking and the fact that you will make apologies for it is truly disgusting. I know a racist bigot when I see and hear one - especially when he is grubbing amongst votes for the lowest common denominator.
Evidently its you who does not know the meaning of racism.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
@FalseFlag It was the number of empty or nearly empty vehicles in the convoy. It might have been bad logistics, or some other reason. I was merely speculating.
Some people like stereotypmg. All black people are muggers, all scousers are thieves, all Muslims are Jihadists, all Kippers are racists. Don't try and muddy the water with facts.
Hypocrisy is always amusing to witness.
Crusty smelly old lefties like @roger are the one with old fashioned out of date views that just don't get that society has moved on
Still talking like he's at a 70s polytechnic and just rumbled that some people are racist and thinks he's on to something new
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
mark Hopkins (sensibly) says -- ' Not that clever. If they had expanded their "state" with less sadistic butchery, then the West may have stayed out for longer.'
This is really the way the Nazis behaved in their occupied territories. It did them no good either. ISIS and Hamas are really just modern day Nazis. As Hamas have recently shown, no one within their reach is safe from their violence no matter how thin the motive.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
It's their standard stuff these days, but the fact is the Cameroons just aren't that good at politics. They think they own votes instead of having to work for them.
mr Tyndall says (and is cheered by alanbrook) -- ''Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale ''
I did not say they were 'bad' right wingers. You rally have a problem with English comprehension. As such it really makes me wonder how to rationalise the world and form sensible opinions.
I said (rather faceciously I admit) was that right wing tories should be really angry with them. Anfry because they regularly talk themselves out of power. I rather liked Nick Ridley and his remarks would have gone down well if he was a stand up comedian - well they would have gone down well if they had been the lefty stand up equivalent.
What chance is there for right wing politics when people like Davis walk out of the shadow cabinet for no reason. What hope when a right wing defence secretary is more interested in ploughing (and doing it badly which is worse) his own self intersted furrow.
So here am I bemoaning the failure of right wingers, and Tyndall and Alanbrooke can only Pavlov Dog-like leap to an anti Cameron sentiment. This crass conclusion does of course neatly sum up the problem of right wingers. I despair. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of blogger 'Autominous Mind' ... "...too many people who claim to share my objectives exhibit staggering ignorance of history and facts, incredible stupidity, intolerance of others and unswerving belief in conspiracy theories that do not stand up to even basic factual scrutiny." "A visit to Twitter, the comment threads of the Telegraph, or on Breitbart London, reveals a particularly vicious, xenophobic and deluded collection of people who not only repel the very people the anti EU side needs to win over, but has now repelled me too. I just don’t want to be associated with such people. ''
I would have thought UKIP voters generally, in Con-Lab marginals or Con-LD marginals would have different profiles and vote origins so why should we be surprised if the statistics are contradictory ?
In East Ham, Labour's sixth safest seat, any UKIP vote is, one would suspect, going to have a high content of ex-Labour voters since there are more of them than Conservative or Lib Dem voters so profiling UKIP's vote in East Ham would show a high proportion of ex-Labour voters followed by non-voters and a very small proportion of ex-Conservative voters so seeing those figures in isolation might lead to a series of conclusions.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
It's their standard stuff these days, but the fact is the Cameroons just aren't that good at politics. They think they own votes instead of having to work for them.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
mr Tyndall says (and is cheered by alanbrook) -- ''Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale ''
I did not say they were 'bad' right wingers. You rally have a problem with English comprehension. As such it really makes me wonder how to rationalise the world and form sensible opinions.
I said (rather faceciously I admit) was that right wing tories should be really angry with them. Anfry because they regularly talk themselves out of power. I rather liked Nick Ridley and his remarks would have gone down well if he was a stand up comedian - well they would have gone down well if they had been the lefty stand up equivalent.
What chance is there for right wing politics when people like Davis walk out of the shadow cabinet for no reason. What hope when a right wing defence secretary is more interested in ploughing (and doing it badly which is worse) his own self intersted furrow.
So here am I bemoaning the failure of right wingers, and Tyndall and Alanbrooke can only Pavlov Dog-like leap to an anti Cameron sentiment. This crass conclusion does of course neatly sum up the problem of right wingers. I despair. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of blogger 'Autominous Mind' ... "...too many people who claim to share my objectives exhibit staggering ignorance of history and facts, incredible stupidity, intolerance of others and unswerving belief in conspiracy theories that do not stand up to even basic factual scrutiny." "A visit to Twitter, the comment threads of the Telegraph, or on Breitbart London, reveals a particularly vicious, xenophobic and deluded collection of people who not only repel the very people the anti EU side needs to win over, but has now repelled me too. I just don’t want to be associated with such people. ''
Your moronic defence both of Cameron and your own flacid excuse for political beliefs really does shame the Tory party. You are the epitome of unthinking party fanaticism that plagues modern politics - the belief in power without principle.
You really should despair as it is your apparent belief in the innate right of the Tory party to power that will be your downfall.
I do find it amusing by the way that you can quote the Autonomous (not 'Autominous' as you write) Mind blog without apparently agreeing with any of the things that they stood for. One thing they were very clear on was their disdain for Cameron and his lack of principle or belief.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
yep! As soon as UKIP proclaim a new policy, the Tories try and pinch it to put in their bag
Bored waiting for the markets to be put up on Ladbrokes or get going on Betfair. So I'm going off for a little bit, and put the pre-race piece up this afternoon (possibly this evening if things still haven't warmed up when I get back on).
I notice our resident Cameroon is blethering on this Saturday afternoon.
I think the Cameroons are simply not very good at politics.
They seem to see politics as a continuum, a spectrum. So, they see trimming left as the way to achieve a majority. But this relies on their being no non-racist party to the right of the Conservatives. This no longer holds (by sheer accident, perhaps).
Hence the desperation to seek out any non-PC comment by a Ukipper, even if it mimics a popular BBC TV series.
Also, it is such a reductive view of humanity. Seemingly, religion, race and national identity have no part in political discourse or World affairs.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
yep! As soon as UKIP proclaim a new policy, the Tories try and pinch it to put in their bag
"Although there is precious little to be proud of in being English these days."
The most accurate observation so far. I can't recall a time of bigotry racism and hypocrisy like it. While the media are crucifying a football manager for a few ill chosen text messages we have Farage being hailed as the Messiah.
and you don't have to visit Guido...there was a time when the likes of Isam wouldn't have been allowed to post on 'Stormfront'
"Although there is precious little to be proud of in being English these days."
The most accurate observation so far. I can't recall a time of bigotry racism and hypocrisy like it. While the media are crucifying a football manager for a few ill chosen text messages we have Farage being hailed as the Messiah.
and you don't have to visit Guido...there was a time when the likes of Isam wouldn't have been allowed to post on 'Stormfront'
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
"...unthinking party fanaticism that plagues modern politics - the belief in power without principle. "
Very true and applicable equally to the Labour Party. Cameron really wasn't joking when he said he thought he was the, "Heir to Blair". Power for power's sake and then a nice long career making mega-bucks on the lecture/consultancy circuit seems like his mark too.
I am sure Mr. Nabavi will be along soon to tell us that the coalition have done terribly well in government, but they haven't really, have they? I rather suspect that if my cat had been PM for the past couple of years we wouldn't be far off now where we actually are. Rather too much of the modern PM's role is convincing everyone how hard he is working and how much he is achieving. Do you remember a couple of years back Cameron stood up in the House of Commons and announced that the RAF was buying an aeroplane? Yup, one single, solitary aeroplane of a type already in service, but Cameron took upon himself the announcement. One may wonder why. Remember Blair and his eye-catching initiatives with which he can be personally associated? Keep that in mind and think about what Cameron does and says. The expression PR spiv may come to mind.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
Is it that or 24 hours news ? More time means more needs to be reported and politicians rush about. Probably one feeds off the other.
However you might wish to consider if your mob have caused this more than the others, Blair loved to blitz us with activity to make it look as if he was doing something.
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
Maybe people shouldn't accuse others do being a far right white supremacist. Probably wouldn't have to be so tiresome as to defend myself then
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
I'm not sure, it looks to me like the people pushing that he Do Something About It generally want somebody bombed and somebody else armed, and they're the same people who have always wanted somebody bombed and somebody else armed (although which is which varies, and occasionally reverses).
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
Is it that or 24 hours news ? More time means more needs to be reported and politicians rush about. Probably one feeds off the other.
However you might wish to consider if your mob have caused this more than the others, Blair loved to blitz us with activity to make it look as if he was doing something.
My old mate C. Northcote Parkinson again, "Work expands to fill the time available". Of course, most of the new work is useless and counter-productive, if it wasn't it would already being done.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Or maybe it's just the right thing to do
Mr Isam, populist is code for something that ordinary people want and will benefit them. Therefore, in some circles it is automatically a bad thing.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong.
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Like everything else there are fallouts which are not always immediately obvious. I once worked at hospital which was close to a commuter line railway station. When parking was free, there were serious allegations that commuters parked there all day rather than use the charged-for station car park. Given the difficulty of parking in Cambridge, what would be the effect of free parking at Addenbrookes?
Probably significant parking control costs with no possibility of recouping them!
Mr Isam, populist is code for something that ordinary people want and will benefit them. Therefore, in some circles it is automatically a bad thing.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong.
It means something people will want, often because it will benefit them _directly_ for reasons that are simple to understand, but won't be the best policy for reasons that are more complicated to understand.
The classic was Ed Miliband's energy price freeze. People want their energy prices to stop going up. It will benefit them directly, in a way that's simple to understand. But there are some downsides...
The UK is one of the least racist countries on the planet. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd use the word with more sparingly. But you don't.
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Like everything else there are fallouts which are not always immediately obvious. I once worked at hospital which was close to a commuter line railway station. When parking was free, there were serious allegations that commuters parked there all day rather than use the charged-for station car park. Given the difficulty of parking in Cambridge, what would be the effect of free parking at Addenbrookes?
Probably significant parking control costs with no possibility of recouping them!
Given that Addenbrokes is bleedin' miles from anywhere that anyone sensible should want to be, damn all I should say.
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
O/T Have any of you given a thought to the idea that the Russian aid convoy might not have been a matter of bringing stuff in, but instead is a means of extracting key personnel who the Russians would like not to be found in the Ukraine? (driver identity swaps)
I think things were looking very bad for the rebels and Pooty didn't want to invade but had to "do something" for domestic public opinion (as unlike the UK Ruski telly has been showing the Ukraine army doing a Gaza on Luhansk and Donetsk) so he came up with the massive convoy idea (as that's definitely a something).
As it happens it looks like the rebels may have turned the tables in the interim so it might not matter.
@FalseFlag It was the number of empty or nearly empty vehicles in the convoy. It might have been bad logistics, or some other reason. I was merely speculating.
According to the Ruskis the trucks were only half-loaded because they expected to have to take back roads to avoid mines.
Mr Isam, populist is code for something that ordinary people want and will benefit them. Therefore, in some circles it is automatically a bad thing.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong.
It means something people will want, often because it will benefit them _directly_ for reasons that are simple to understand, but won't be the best policy for reasons that are more complicated to understand.
The classic was Ed Miliband's energy price freeze. People want their energy prices to stop going up. It will benefit them directly, in a way that's simple to understand. But there are some downsides...
Of course, Mr. Edmund, but rather than let the people decide by giving them the facts its much better to tell them it is all too complicated for them to understand and label the idea populist.
Mr Isam, populist is code for something that ordinary people want and will benefit them. Therefore, in some circles it is automatically a bad thing.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong.
It means something people will want, often because it will benefit them _directly_ for reasons that are simple to understand, but won't be the best policy for reasons that are more complicated to understand.
The classic was Ed Miliband's energy price freeze. People want their energy prices to stop going up. It will benefit them directly, in a way that's simple to understand. But there are some downsides...
That can certainly be true, although it would be wrong to assume that merely because something is what the people want that it would not be the right thing to do, and the use of 'populist' as a derogatory term often stops at that point, that is presuming because it is popular it is not correct with no further explanation.
Some people like stereotypmg. All black people are muggers, all scousers are thieves, all Muslims are Jihadists, all Kippers are racists. Don't try and muddy the water with facts.
Hypocrisy is always amusing to witness.
Crusty smelly old lefties like @roger are the one with old fashioned out of date views that just don't get that society has moved on
Still talking like he's at a 70s polytechnic and just rumbled that some people are racist and thinks he's on to something new
"like he's at a 70s polytechnic"
I'd say the biggest part of all these problems is the political and media class are dominated by people who came up during the civil rights era and see everything through that lens.
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
It sounds a bit unlikely that everything would be one or the other. In any case there must be cases where you wouldn't provide a car park if you couldn't pay for some of it by charging.
Presumably what happens if you make a rule that they can't charge is that the hospitals sell off their car parks to a private company, says, "Sorry, we don't provide parking", and the private company charges the patients to park there instead.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
A good example of this was when I quoted a ukip policy to scrap hospital parking charges for visitors and was jumped by Tories saying it was populist nonsense typical ukip tooth fairy politics etc... It's a motion being put forward by a Tory mp with 100 backbench supporters
Scrapping hospital parking charges sounds like the kind of policy any of the parties could put forward, but sadly that doesn't mean it's not populist nonsense tooth fairy politics etc. For extra populist pandering points, promise to fund it with a tax on somebody untelegenic.
Like everything else there are fallouts which are not always immediately obvious. I once worked at hospital which was close to a commuter line railway station. When parking was free, there were serious allegations that commuters parked there all day rather than use the charged-for station car park. Given the difficulty of parking in Cambridge, what would be the effect of free parking at Addenbrookes?
Probably significant parking control costs with no possibility of recouping them!
Given that Addenbrokes is bleedin' miles from anywhere that anyone sensible should want to be, damn all I should say.
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
Only a relatively short bus ride from the city centre, IIRC. The point is that there has, very often, to be some sort of control on car-park users otherwise they may well be used by "inappropriate" people. And that control will be a cost on hospital resources.
" Let me say that I, like so many others, have been guilty of making the wrong assumptions about where UKIP support is coming from."
Why is that Mike, after all it is not for lack of being told repeatedly by Kippers. .
I imagine it is because sections of the Tories make such huge noises about it being true, by implication or directly, as it is pretty much their only hope of victory as well as a way to argue that tacking hard right will be good for the party as a whole, not just that section of it that hates the Cameroons, and that desperate hope drowns out the inconveniences of the polling that UKIP's support was wider than that. It does feel to me like UKIP made a conscious effort in the last couple of years to appeal to more than just disaffected Tories, and before that their own presentation may have given the impression that was where they were all coming from.
Also, as the Tories will be hurt most (and first) by losses to UKIP given Labour is boosted by other factors even as they too take a hit, it is easier to argue it is only their problem.
That can certainly be true, although it would be wrong to assume that merely because something is what the people want that it would not be the right thing to do, and the use of 'populist' as a derogatory term often stops at that point, that is presuming because it is popular it is not correct with no further explanation.
When it comes to opposition manifesto promises you can almost assume that if it's popular it wouldn't be the right thing to do, because every minister loves announcing policies that are both popular and the right thing to do, so if the policy was both of those things then they'd have done it already.
The main exceptions are where the policy: a) Upsets some key constituency that the government needs but the opposition doesn't. b) Implicitly involves admitting that something the government did before was wrong. c) Improves the quality of government by making life more difficult for the people doing it (freedom of information etc). ...or very, very occasionally where the minister previously in charge was a complete and utter eejit.
"Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof"
Well some of us could catch up on Diplomacy and maybe actually doing some diploming for a change.
P.S. I have enjoyed watching the Death Match enormously.
Yes, the absence of a draw option has markedly changed the way we all play and made deadlocks much harder. Only question is whether we'll EVER finish, since when anyone puts a nose in front everyone pounces on him. Now in 1918 and no clear winner in sight.
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
Is it that or 24 hours news ? More time means more needs to be reported and politicians rush about. Probably one feeds off the other.
However you might wish to consider if your mob have caused this more than the others, Blair loved to blitz us with activity to make it look as if he was doing something.
Sure. I'm not always that partisan here (can't be bothered!) - my comment was a defence of Cameron. But I think it's a symptom of the media-driven climate rather than something politicians think up because they want to. I'd MUCH prefer to work quietly on a problem for 3 months and come up with a 20-page set of recommendations than to denounce Cameron for surfing, but the former will get zero coverage and have no impact on affairs, whereas the latter will at least get some coverage.
Given that Addenbrokes is bleedin' miles from anywhere that anyone sensible should want to be, damn all I should say.
(snip)
Hmmm, Mr Llama. For the second time in two days I sadly have to call you out on something. Parking's been bad on streets neighbouring Addenbrookes for years, e.g.:
Addenbrookes is very much becoming a destination in itself, especially with the biomedical complexes being built (wrongly, IMHO) on the campus, which will include AstraZeneca's new headquarters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Biomedical_Campus
There has also been massive development in the area (e.g. the lamentable Trumpington Meadows), and the local (Tory) county council's crazy parking fees are not exactly helping the situation. http://www.trumpingtonmeadows.com/
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
It sounds a bit unlikely that everything would be one or the other. In any case there must be cases where you wouldn't provide a car park if you couldn't pay for some of it by charging.
Presumably what happens if you make a rule that they can't charge is that the hospitals sell off their car parks to a private company, says, "Sorry, we don't provide parking", and the private company charges the patients to park there instead.
It might come as a shock to you, but hospitals have a function that is not wholly economic. They are actually there to treat sick people, so selling off land and so being able to say to patients and visitors, "Nothing to do with us", may not come high on their priority list.
A small example, The Royal Sussex County Hospital is on a very small site in the middle of Brighton it has very little land to spare and car-parking is at a premium, in reality non-existent. Nonetheless, the oncology unit has a small car park of its own. When my wife was being treated there the deal was you rolled up to the barrier, pushed the intercom button and told the chap who you were and what your business was, if your name was on the list (as visitor or a patient) the barrier went up if it wasn't you got told to piss off. Funnily enough it worked.
Now, for that chap to sit on the end of the intercom checking his lists cost. Probably not much more than a minimum wage job, but then there was the cost of making sure the data he was working from was up to date, but we are still not talking huge sums, not least because that data is already available as far as patients and their location is concerned.
So really, maybe this populist idea that people want because they are too ignorant to understand is actually down to well paid administrators not taking the trouble to think things through.
Thanks Mr J; over the years I've visited all sorts of places in Cambridge and it's my firm impression that without the Park and Ride (which gets full on the Babraham route) it's a nightmare.
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
It sounds a bit unlikely that everything would be one or the other. In any case there must be cases where you wouldn't provide a car park if you couldn't pay for some of it by charging.
Presumably what happens if you make a rule that they can't charge is that the hospitals sell off their car parks to a private company, says, "Sorry, we don't provide parking", and the private company charges the patients to park there instead.
It might come as a shock to you, but hospitals have a function that is not wholly economic. They are actually there to treat sick people, so selling off land and so being able to say to patients and visitors, "Nothing to do with us", may not come high on their priority list.
Well sure, but in that case there's no need for a national policy micro-managing how much they do or don't charge for parking. Just let them do what they think is sensible.
What's being proposed here is to ban them from doing certain things that they currently think are the best way to help their patients. If you're stopping them doing that by closing off options to them, you shouldn't be surprised if the options they then choose from the ones you've left them with aren't the ones you'd have wanted.
"Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof"
Well some of us could catch up on Diplomacy and maybe actually doing some diploming for a change.
P.S. I have enjoyed watching the Death Match enormously.
Yes, the absence of a draw option has markedly changed the way we all play and made deadlocks much harder. Only question is whether we'll EVER finish, since when anyone puts a nose in front everyone pounces on him. Now in 1918 and no clear winner in sight.
Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof, yawn.
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
Is it that or 24 hours news ? More time means more needs to be reported and politicians rush about. Probably one feeds off the other.
However you might wish to consider if your mob have caused this more than the others, Blair loved to blitz us with activity to make it look as if he was doing something.
Sure. I'm not always that partisan here (can't be bothered!) - my comment was a defence of Cameron. But I think it's a symptom of the media-driven climate rather than something politicians think up because they want to. I'd MUCH prefer to work quietly on a problem for 3 months and come up with a 20-page set of recommendations than to denounce Cameron for surfing, but the former will get zero coverage and have no impact on affairs, whereas the latter will at least get some coverage.
I think it's more a case of what UK politicians actually do. I'm quite happy that the PM takes a proper holiday.
But this modern nonsense of play-acting to the media is just nonsense. However maybe it's also because our politicians have very little to do these days. With powers passed to Brussels and reginal assmeblies we should have the number of MPs pay them properly and get them gainfully employed.
Comments
Not that clever. If they had expanded their "state" with less sadistic butchery, then the West may have stayed out for longer.
Agree about their threat level.
" If you asked a Democrat or Republican in the US if he'd rather target a middle-class suburb or a trailer park for votes, he'd always go for the suburb. But he can't then reasonably complain if the trailer park resident takes up with some extreme group. "
And if you asked my local MP he'd say, "I have got a 15,000 majority and don't need to talk to little people"
I have got two areas near me in which I have been doing some canvassing over the past week. One is an early 1970s three-bed semi development with a mixture of original residents whose children have no left home and young families with a pretty reasonable incomes (they have to have, house prices are £350K plus). The other area is a 1940s council estate, lots of single parent families in the flats but the houses mainly occupied by working families (not much unemployment around here). What I have learned so far is how similar the issues are as expressed in both places.
Some appear local but are symptoms of a wider issue, e.g. the local school being grossly oversubscribed is really down to planning consents being handed out willy-nilly with no thought of the infrastructure needed to support the increasing population. Some are of a more obvious national character ("my wages haven't increased for years"). The big one though is "They" don't care about people like us.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/prison-diaries-hardback
If it's correct that books and writing materials were confiscated and that's a general practice, it seems to me entirely bonkers. I'd be happy for any prisoner, including mass murderers, to spend their time in prison reading and writing, and active suggestions on reading matter would be good too (I'd support censorship of anything encouraging criminality). To forbid it just encourages the idea that prison is just a temporary parking place.
The teenage son of a friend is serving 30 years for murder (he's not very bright and insanely agreed to help a domineering acquaintance murder his errant girlfriend) and has apparently taken an interest in a pacifist religion. I think he should be encouraged in it, not told he can't read anything about it.
If he wants to write his memoirs he needs buy pens and paper from his weekly canteen list (the stuff prisoners buy on a weekly basis, such as tobacco, tea, phone credit, chocolates etc)
The only way he'd be barred from this was if he lost his privileges as a standard or enhanced prisoner or if he has misused the privilege (such as using letters to send abusive letters or contacted people he shouldn't)
Edit: Seen TSE's post, which concerns writing materials, not books.
So how is the UK to grow to match future projections? Outwith PWC's calculations I will assume that the drivers are:
# Education reform: Lewisham has silently introduced 'Grammar-Schools'. The ability to read, comprehend and express oneself is more important than using a 4GL tool to develop a mobile web-app. I am lead to believe Latin is a good cognitive primer.
# Benefit reform: Imperial guilt is over. Many of my English countrymen have relations to 'The Colonies' and have no responsibility for mistakes made over a hundred years ago.
# Engineering: We have the best and brightest (as well as knuckle-dragging benefit monkees) streaming to England. We have ability but we also need to import good management (and not PC place-holders)!
# We are intrinsically a 'global nation': Sticking our oar in and telling people why they are wrong (and we are always correct). That gives us English a voice to be listened to (or sniggered at; a mistake to be smouldered over).
# Constitutional Reform: A Lower House based upon population and not the latest Idiot-of-Socialism's latest Jihadi election plan for Cornwall. For every 125K population/electorate a seat for each nation within the UK (plus one for stragglers). A fully accountable, PR-elected Upper Lords (with Clegg hanging from the rafters).
# Public-sector reform of Pensions and Institutions. Effective collaborative privatisation.
# BOO!
My opinion: Not that of PWC.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/k9i99pg8xy9k5cg/10-poll_MA_since_2010_GE.jpg
UKIP's initial ascendancy that commences around poll number 400, can be compared against a corresponding fall in Conservative support, without affecting support for the other parties.
However, UKIP's subsequent improvement can be compared against a fall in support for the LibDems and Labour, whereas the Conservative support treads water, and possibly improves slightly.
Indeed, it could equate to an extra 1.5 to 2 million votes.
A possible answer is to spend almost every available day of your life knocking on doors so you can meet and interact with as varied as possible a cross-section of everyone. For whatever cause you espouse, it's probably a good idea. As a way to have a pleasant, balanced social life, it sucks, and it's odd enough to make you unaware of other normal preoccupations (e.g. I have no idea who is winning the Premier League or what the current hot movies are like). I'm not sure what the best answer is!
There is another reason not to expect Chinese GDP-per-capita to slow in the future. Just as in Japan and Italy, there are substantial demographic challenges. GDP is created by workers, but GDP per capita is made by dividing GDP by the total number of people. Since 1979, China has benefitted hugely from the one-child policy which has meant that a very high proportion of the population was working (and that few resources needed to be devoted to looking after the old or the young). Chinese working age population peaks in 2017, and the number of old (non-working) Chinese relative to the number of working ones worsens. This means that - even if you assume that labour productivity rises at 7% p.a. - then GDP per capita growth must slow sharply from here.
The flip side is that as countries get richer, then the rising middle class makes democracy inevitable: see South Korea and Taiwan
Which is another example of Grayling being a complete reactionary and not fit to be justice secretary or Lord Chancellor
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27304228
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-28892903
There is little we seem to agree on historically, but oddly we seem to have the same view of the present.
Long article, but makes much the same point
"Privatisation promised to turn the UK into an island of small shareholders. It failed: the faceless state bureaucrats have been replaced by faceless (better-paid) private bureaucrats – and big foreign corporations. How did we get to this point?"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/22/sale-of-century-privatisation-scam
You quite evidently don't know what racism is but bandy the word about like some teenager wearing a designer label to try and make himself look good.
Some people like stereotypmg. All black people are muggers, all scousers are thieves, all Muslims are Jihadists, all Kippers are racists. Don't try and muddy the water with facts.
Hypocrisy is always amusing to witness.
However, when it comes to our present state you and I do indeed agree on a lot, as I do with the author of that article. As I said on here yesterday, if you cut through the political speak, there is an awful lot of agreement on what the problems are and where we would like to be. The debate is about the means not the ends. Between the big parties I don't think there is even much disagreement about the means, there wasn't in the 50s, 60s and 70s either. However, I am far from convinced that this new consensus will benefit anyone other than the already wealthy.
No one - its the real kipper speaking and the fact that you will make apologies for it is truly disgusting. I know a racist bigot when I see and hear one - especially when he is grubbing amongst votes for the lowest common denominator.
Evidently its you who does not know the meaning of racism.
1. Is wealth becoming more concentrated? If so, it it bad for democracy?
2. Is income becoming more concentrated? Ditto.
3. Does globalisation mean that some traditional (middle class) industries are facing pressure from abroad?
The answers, I would suggest are:
1. Yes, because the low interest rate environment has boosted the value of income generating investments - and these are owned disproportionately by the risk. However, the idea that keeping interest rates high (as happened in some parts of the Eurozone, as a consequence of sovereign debt default risks) would have been good for the middle classes is farcical.
2. No. The top 1%, 5%, and 20% of earners all saw their portion of the income 'pot' fall post 2007 - largely as a result of the decline of the financial services industry.
3. Yes. An accountant in Mumbai can now do your tax returns, and that's inevitably going to put pressure on what an accountant in Middlesborough can charge. But the costs to the whole of imposing widespread tariffs would be enormous. And I notice the middle classes weren't complaining when the off-shoring of manufacturing led to cheaper stereo systems.
"... all scousers are thieves ..."
You mean they are not. Come on! You'll be telling me next that Morris Dancer doesn't wear a flat cap, that his dog is not a whippet and he doesn't eat tripe for his tea.
The problem for UKIP is breaking through and winning seats. If they are seen as helping* Labour win a majority with only 35% of the vote, then I am not sure how well UKIP would do after May 2015. Labour are currently not offering a referendum on EU membership, unless there is a new treaty.
* Although UKIP would only take small percentage of the Tory 2010 votes, it would make quite a lot of difference in marginals, as it looks like Labour will benefit from Lib Dems moving to them. So Labour could win a number of seats as a result of UKIP doing better than they did in 2010.
Have any of you given a thought to the idea that the Russian aid convoy might not have been a matter of bringing stuff in, but instead is a means of extracting key personnel who the Russians would like not to be found in the Ukraine?
(driver identity swaps)
Still no news on MH-17.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/08/on-truth-and-honor-the-mh17-shootdown-and-the-centenary-of-world-war-i-.html#more
Currently like most unthinking tribalists you wheel out your tired mantras and expect the rest of us to be impressed. We're not.
between now and the election I suppose we'll have to listen to more twattish sulks from so-called conservatives like yourself. Your choice seems to be between insulting thiose whom you can't persuade to vote for you and priggish self-adulation that your a higher category of being.
Much as I'd like to insult your intelligence I really can't be arsed to look for something that small.
It was the number of empty or nearly empty vehicles in the convoy. It might have been bad logistics, or some other reason. I was merely speculating.
Still talking like he's at a 70s polytechnic and just rumbled that some people are racist and thinks he's on to something new
Sad party fanaticism that deserves nothing but scorn.
Not that clever. If they had expanded their "state" with less sadistic butchery, then the West may have stayed out for longer.'
This is really the way the Nazis behaved in their occupied territories. It did them no good either. ISIS and Hamas are really just modern day Nazis. As Hamas have recently shown, no one within their reach is safe from their violence no matter how thin the motive.
'British mosques aren't that moderate after all' http://specc.ie/1s77cLm via @spectator #Islam #immigration
One would never guess.
Very surprised at the dominance, in the wet, of the Mercedes. Writing the pre-race piece now.
''Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale ''
I did not say they were 'bad' right wingers. You rally have a problem with English comprehension. As such it really makes me wonder how to rationalise the world and form sensible opinions.
I said (rather faceciously I admit) was that right wing tories should be really angry with them. Anfry because they regularly talk themselves out of power. I rather liked Nick Ridley and his remarks would have gone down well if he was a stand up comedian - well they would have gone down well if they had been the lefty stand up equivalent.
What chance is there for right wing politics when people like Davis walk out of the shadow cabinet for no reason. What hope when a right wing defence secretary is more interested in ploughing (and doing it badly which is worse) his own self intersted furrow.
So here am I bemoaning the failure of right wingers, and Tyndall and Alanbrooke can only Pavlov Dog-like leap to an anti Cameron sentiment. This crass conclusion does of course neatly sum up the problem of right wingers.
I despair.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the words of blogger 'Autominous Mind' ...
"...too many people who claim to share my objectives exhibit staggering ignorance of history and facts, incredible stupidity, intolerance of others and unswerving belief in conspiracy theories that do not stand up to even basic factual scrutiny."
"A visit to Twitter, the comment threads of the Telegraph, or on Breitbart London, reveals a particularly vicious, xenophobic and deluded collection of people who not only repel the very people the anti EU side needs to win over, but has now repelled me too. I just don’t want to be associated with such people. ''
I would have thought UKIP voters generally, in Con-Lab marginals or Con-LD marginals would have different profiles and vote origins so why should we be surprised if the statistics are contradictory ?
In East Ham, Labour's sixth safest seat, any UKIP vote is, one would suspect, going to have a high content of ex-Labour voters since there are more of them than Conservative or Lib Dem voters so profiling UKIP's vote in East Ham would show a high proportion of ex-Labour voters followed by non-voters and a very small proportion of ex-Conservative voters so seeing those figures in isolation might lead to a series of conclusions.
You really should despair as it is your apparent belief in the innate right of the Tory party to power that will be your downfall.
I do find it amusing by the way that you can quote the Autonomous (not 'Autominous' as you write) Mind blog without apparently agreeing with any of the things that they stood for. One thing they were very clear on was their disdain for Cameron and his lack of principle or belief.
I think the Cameroons are simply not very good at politics.
They seem to see politics as a continuum, a spectrum. So, they see trimming left as the way to achieve a majority. But this relies on their being no non-racist party to the right of the Conservatives. This no longer holds (by sheer accident, perhaps).
Hence the desperation to seek out any non-PC comment by a Ukipper, even if it mimics a popular BBC TV series.
Also, it is such a reductive view of humanity. Seemingly, religion, race and national identity have no part in political discourse or World affairs.
Nice idea, shame reality doesn't agree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11051530/Brigitte-Bardot-calls-Marine-Le-Pen-modern-Joan-of-Arc.html
no thanks
Changing the subject: are our politics becoming more hypersensitive because of the immediate availability of global reporting? 20 years ago, the news that a group in Iraq was committing atrocities and maybe some Brits were involved would have prompted worried comment in the broadsheets. Now, we have it on video, yuck, and people demand that Cameron rush back to Downing Street and Do Something About It. It's not at all clear that he can do anything effective whatever.
"...unthinking party fanaticism that plagues modern politics - the belief in power without principle. "
Very true and applicable equally to the Labour Party. Cameron really wasn't joking when he said he thought he was the, "Heir to Blair". Power for power's sake and then a nice long career making mega-bucks on the lecture/consultancy circuit seems like his mark too.
I am sure Mr. Nabavi will be along soon to tell us that the coalition have done terribly well in government, but they haven't really, have they? I rather suspect that if my cat had been PM for the past couple of years we wouldn't be far off now where we actually are. Rather too much of the modern PM's role is convincing everyone how hard he is working and how much he is achieving. Do you remember a couple of years back Cameron stood up in the House of Commons and announced that the RAF was buying an aeroplane? Yup, one single, solitary aeroplane of a type already in service, but Cameron took upon himself the announcement. One may wonder why. Remember Blair and his eye-catching initiatives with which he can be personally associated? Keep that in mind and think about what Cameron does and says. The expression PR spiv may come to mind.
However you might wish to consider if your mob have caused this more than the others, Blair loved to blitz us with activity to make it look as if he was doing something.
"Slow news day so we're back to debating each other's virtue or lack thereof"
Well some of us could catch up on Diplomacy and maybe actually doing some diploming for a change.
P.S. I have enjoyed watching the Death Match enormously.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong.
Quite hard to call the third podium spot, assuming both Mercedes finish.
Given the difficulty of parking in Cambridge, what would be the effect of free parking at Addenbrookes?
Probably significant parking control costs with no possibility of recouping them!
The classic was Ed Miliband's energy price freeze. People want their energy prices to stop going up. It will benefit them directly, in a way that's simple to understand. But there are some downsides...
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
"Mr Isam, populist is code for something that ordinary people want and will benefit them. Therefore, in some circles it is automatically a bad thing.
P.S. Doing the right thing is, in those same circles, almost certainly populist and therefore wrong."
As non sequiturs go that is go that's a keeper!
As it happens it looks like the rebels may have turned the tables in the interim so it might not matter.
According to the Ruskis the trucks were only half-loaded because they expected to have to take back roads to avoid mines.
I'd say the biggest part of all these problems is the political and media class are dominated by people who came up during the civil rights era and see everything through that lens.
Presumably what happens if you make a rule that they can't charge is that the hospitals sell off their car parks to a private company, says, "Sorry, we don't provide parking", and the private company charges the patients to park there instead.
The point is that there has, very often, to be some sort of control on car-park users otherwise they may well be used by "inappropriate" people. And that control will be a cost on hospital resources.
Also, as the Tories will be hurt most (and first) by losses to UKIP given Labour is boosted by other factors even as they too take a hit, it is easier to argue it is only their problem.
The main exceptions are where the policy:
a) Upsets some key constituency that the government needs but the opposition doesn't.
b) Implicitly involves admitting that something the government did before was wrong.
c) Improves the quality of government by making life more difficult for the people doing it (freedom of information etc).
...or very, very occasionally where the minister previously in charge was a complete and utter eejit.
Phone's going to be unplugged (and switched off)
Champagnes in the the fridge.
Party poppers are on the shelf.
I'm ready for #CrossOverSaturday
How about U?
Parking's been bad on streets neighbouring Addenbrookes for years, e.g.:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Parking-near-hospital-now-a-health-hazard-19072012.htm
Addenbrookes is very much becoming a destination in itself, especially with the biomedical complexes being built (wrongly, IMHO) on the campus, which will include AstraZeneca's new headquarters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Biomedical_Campus
There has also been massive development in the area (e.g. the lamentable Trumpington Meadows), and the local (Tory) county council's crazy parking fees are not exactly helping the situation.
http://www.trumpingtonmeadows.com/
A small example, The Royal Sussex County Hospital is on a very small site in the middle of Brighton it has very little land to spare and car-parking is at a premium, in reality non-existent. Nonetheless, the oncology unit has a small car park of its own. When my wife was being treated there the deal was you rolled up to the barrier, pushed the intercom button and told the chap who you were and what your business was, if your name was on the list (as visitor or a patient) the barrier went up if it wasn't you got told to piss off. Funnily enough it worked.
Now, for that chap to sit on the end of the intercom checking his lists cost. Probably not much more than a minimum wage job, but then there was the cost of making sure the data he was working from was up to date, but we are still not talking huge sums, not least because that data is already available as far as patients and their location is concerned.
So really, maybe this populist idea that people want because they are too ignorant to understand is actually down to well paid administrators not taking the trouble to think things through.
"Crusty smelly old lefties like @roger are the one with old fashioned out of date views that just don't get that society has moved on"
That made me laugh out loud! Last time I came across someone like you I was on an ANL march.
What's being proposed here is to ban them from doing certain things that they currently think are the best way to help their patients. If you're stopping them doing that by closing off options to them, you shouldn't be surprised if the options they then choose from the ones you've left them with aren't the ones you'd have wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhyg5WA47qA
But this modern nonsense of play-acting to the media is just nonsense. However maybe it's also because our politicians have very little to do these days. With powers passed to Brussels and reginal assmeblies we should have the number of MPs pay them properly and get them gainfully employed.