Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
Edmund Burke:
- British patriot - Had clear moral clarity - Supportive of the American rebels - Opposed to the French revolution - Anti-slavery - Anti-colonialism - Anti-corporate power - Combined support for liberal rights with gradual reform - Father of the progressive brand of conservatism
Call me an old leftie, but could I nominate Tom Paine?
He was in many ways the polar opposite of Burke, apart from also supporting the american revolutionaries, even to the point of being elected to the French revolutionary assembly.
His books "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" were the political best sellers of their day, and still read very well.
No one can tell you who to choose. Unsurprisingly, we have all chosen along vaguely political lines!
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Agree with that too. If something is illegal but socially approved then the second trumps the first.
Reading minutes of the Rotherham Safeguarding Children's Board to get a better understanding of what went wrong. Found this gem from September 2009:
In relation to other regions in the country, Rotherham is reported to have taken the most proactive approach to dealing with the issue of sexual exploitation. Mr Perry responded that Rotherham therefore has a responsibility to share good practice and added that a recommendation should be made for the Board to commend the work done by staff in this area.
Did they really believe this? Could those responsible for safeguarding children have been so in denial about what was happening that they could actually believe Rotherham was an exemplar for others to follow? I just cannot bring myself to believe that anyone could consciously write this stuff to cover up something they knew to be happening.
Of course, if it is never reported or recorded, the figures would look exemplary.
It has been said by many apologists that these British-Pakistani men are outnumbered by white men in paedophilia figures. Once again, if cases like Rotherham are unrecorded, well, they would do!
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Which is all very well but given the corruption, immorality, venality, incompetence and negligence exposed in the last decade or so that then excludes the political class, the police, the media, the celebrity classes, sportspeople and just about everyone in public office. There may be the odd one or two who still have pristine reputations but in large part the establishment is now well and truly tainted........
Appear to be reasonable, but actually try and smear anyone obsessed with THE BIGGGEST SCANDAL IN MODERN BRITISH POLITICS as a "racist, Powellite, cranky salivating wanker".
Etc.
Ad nauseam.
Do f*ck off, there's a good chap.
And he's doing it in exactly the same language ("salivating") as tim once did. Funny that. Maybe they've been sharing notes.
I noticed "Hugh" made some very bitchy comments about our cat-loving former POTY the other night.
Then there's all the aside's about "Dave and Sam"
The evidence is growing...
I remarked on this weeks back, but who really cares? I care as much as I do about the ludicrous Clacton poll where the Tory candidate had not even been interviewed or adopted by the local CA. Whilst I think the Cons candidate will lose, polls at this time and of this nature are pointless.
Oh Jesus.
tim was clever, knowledgeable and at times extremely funny. Anyone who detects those qualities in Hugh wants their head feeling.
You PBTories all loved Tim, didn't you.
So much so that he doesn't post here any more.
Perhaps out of concern after his personal details were maliciously revealed, gosh how you brave Tory troopers all valued his input.
Reading minutes of the Rotherham Safeguarding Children's Board to get a better understanding of what went wrong. Found this gem from September 2009:
In relation to other regions in the country, Rotherham is reported to have taken the most proactive approach to dealing with the issue of sexual exploitation. Mr Perry responded that Rotherham therefore has a responsibility to share good practice and added that a recommendation should be made for the Board to commend the work done by staff in this area.
Did they really believe this? Could those responsible for safeguarding children have been so in denial about what was happening that they could actually believe Rotherham was an exemplar for others to follow? I just cannot bring myself to believe that anyone could consciously write this stuff to cover up something they knew to be happening.
In 2002, to cover up an earlier report into child abuse in Rotherham, they ordered documents destroyed.
Carnyx Arguably a Farage visit to Glasgow would do less damage to No than a Cameron or Clegg one
Interesting thought. I notice you see both as 'damage to No' - my impression is that the official BT shares your view as it doesn't seem too eager about the planned UKIP/Mr Farage visit on the ??Friday or Saturday before indyref, or for that matter about the almost simultaneous Orange Order mass march in Edinburgh.
Mr F's visit could be more damaging than you think if it reminds people of the possibility of a Tory-UKIP coalition (given the constituency level agreements discussed on this site. But it's relative. You do know Mr C has just been there, but didn't talk to the public, and just attended the private CBI dinner at which he got lectured by the CBI head for his Brexit plans? I suspect the general public sentiment here is moving on from TV debates to a genuine astonishment why isn't he up here more often and in greater degree of engagement if he is fighting heart and soul as he claimed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (or words to that effect). Okay, it might be counterproductive on a political level but he would at least be respected for it. But we have 18 days ...
I'm inclined to think Mr Clegg would make little difference, when we have plenty of homegrown LDs (who have mostly kept a very low profile, apart from Moore (ret. hurt) and Carmichael (still at a sticky wicket). Except that if the DPM why not the PM? Which lays the No side wide open to an escalation of the inquiry why Mr Cameron is hiding behind both him and Mr Darling, etc. etc.
Appear to be reasonable, but actually try and smear anyone obsessed with THE BIGGGEST SCANDAL IN MODERN BRITISH POLITICS as a "racist, Powellite, cranky salivating wanker".
Etc.
Ad nauseam.
Do f*ck off, there's a good chap.
And he's doing it in exactly the same language ("salivating") as tim once did. Funny that. Maybe they've been sharing notes.
I noticed "Hugh" made some very bitchy comments about our cat-loving former POTY the other night.
Then there's all the aside's about "Dave and Sam"
The evidence is growing...
I remarked on this weeks back, but who really cares? I care as much as I do about the ludicrous Clacton poll where the Tory candidate had not even been interviewed or adopted by the local CA. Whilst I think the Cons candidate will lose, polls at this time and of this nature are pointless.
Oh Jesus.
tim was clever, knowledgeable and at times extremely funny. Anyone who detects those qualities in Hugh wants their head feeling.
You PBTories all loved Tim, didn't you.
So much so that he doesn't post here any more.
Perhaps out of concern after his personal details were maliciously revealed, gosh how you brave Tory troopers all valued his input.
Well, yes. I value intelligence, knowledge and wit very highly. The posting of his personal details was utterly disgraceful.
Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
Edmund Burke:
- British patriot - Had clear moral clarity - Supportive of the American rebels - Opposed to the French revolution - Anti-slavery - Anti-colonialism - Anti-corporate power - Combined support for liberal rights with gradual reform - Father of the progressive brand of conservatism
Call me an old leftie, but could I nominate Tom Paine?
He was in many ways the polar opposite of Burke, apart from also supporting the american revolutionaries, even to the point of being elected to the French revolutionary assembly.
His books "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" were the political best sellers of their day, and still read very well.
No one can tell you who to choose. Unsurprisingly, we have all chosen along vaguely political lines!
Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
King Alfred: no surrender + good manners
Lol good call. Crap cook mind. But very inclusive, tolerant and appreciative of different cultures for his time.
"Chris Kelly, Conservative MP for Dudley South, announces he will stand down at the general election next year, after serving one term"
BBC ticker
The odds just got bigger
"Along with fellow MP Justin Tomlinson, Kelly placed a bet while at university that he would be Prime Minister before the year 2038. He stands to win £500,000 should this happen"
Firm is closing their UK business because the unions demanded it as the price of the last deal...
In that case move the whole thing and just shut the German end altogether. Frau Merkel will explain to the unions that their total loss is a price that has to be paid for being part of the single market and that Germany is better off as a result.
Come on, Mr. Charles, it was only this morning you were on here having a pop a a poster that suggested the UK would be better off if we were a bit more protectionist. Well, if losing jobs because of overseas competition is good for us it must be good for Germany too. Shut the whole thing down over here and move it to, say, Leicester, the hub of the fastest growing region in the UK, and the home of some jolly good curry houses (not in my experience as good as Leeds, Birmingham or Burgess Hill but good enough for the Germans).
Not my business... Frau Merkel has a big equity stake... the decision makes sense, even if they have made it for the wrong reasons...
Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
Edmund Burke:
- British patriot - Had clear moral clarity - Supportive of the American rebels - Opposed to the French revolution - Anti-slavery - Anti-colonialism - Anti-corporate power - Combined support for liberal rights with gradual reform - Father of the progressive brand of conservatism
Call me an old leftie, but could I nominate Tom Paine?
He was in many ways the polar opposite of Burke, apart from also supporting the american revolutionaries, even to the point of being elected to the French revolutionary assembly.
His books "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" were the political best sellers of their day, and still read very well.
I wonder who the Labour MPs that will defect to UKIP will be?
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
I haven't been paying attention to any of the possible Labour ones.
Because they only exist in imaginations.
The Right are splitting and it's killing you, leave us on the centre/left out of it, we've done that and it gave you Thatcherism.
I'd be surprised if there any Labour switchers now as I think the generation that might have done it are mostly at retirement age now. One of them might do it as a swansong just to rock the boat a bit. Could be wrong.
On the other thing I think there's a reasonable chance of Labour losing a lot - even most - of the centre-left vote to the Libs over the grooming gangs if they can't figure out a response.
I wonder who the Labour MPs that will defect to UKIP will be?
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
I haven't been paying attention to any of the possible Labour ones.
Because they only exist in imaginations.
The Right are splitting and it's killing you, leave us on the centre/left out of it, we've done that and it gave you Thatcherism.
The difference is that Thatcherism turned around the British economy from 1970s socialism to the booming success of the 1990s. Ed Miliband is going to give us what France is going through. Come 2020 we'll have a united, eurosceptic Right that will restore Britain to being a true success story again.
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
I wonder who the Labour MPs that will defect to UKIP will be?
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
I haven't been paying attention to any of the possible Labour ones.
Because they only exist in imaginations.
The Right are splitting and it's killing you, leave us on the centre/left out of it, we've done that and it gave you Thatcherism.
I think you're confused. A split party is bad. A split 'sector' over two parties is great. Look at Coke and Pepsi; their rivalry has vastly increased interest in the sector for over half a decade. Have you not noticed the fact that the right has been consistently outpolling the left recently?
I wonder who the Labour MPs that will defect to UKIP will be?
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
I haven't been paying attention to any of the possible Labour ones.
Because they only exist in imaginations.
The Right are splitting and it's killing you, leave us on the centre/left out of it, we've done that and it gave you Thatcherism.
I'd be surprised if there any Labour switchers now as I think the generation that might have done it are mostly at retirement age now. One of them might do it as a swansong just to rock the boat a bit. Could be wrong.
On the other thing I think there's a reasonable chance of Labour losing a lot - even most - of the centre-left vote to the Libs over the grooming gangs if they can't figure out a response.
On your first point, Andrew Rawnsley's article in the Observer today is worth a read.
Ed Miliband is going to give us what France is going through. Come 2020 we'll have a united, eurosceptic Right that will restore Britain to being a true success story again.
So all good rightwingers should campaign for Labour next year to secure a true victory in 2020?
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
Woah what?!?! I kinda understand the other thing but....
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
Reminds me of this speech (from 1.05 onwards)
(having watched it again, it really is one of the worst speeches I recall)
Who is everyone's favourite politician living or dead? I warm to Disraeli the most in character, because I think my brain works a little like his brain worked (not claiming to be a great political thinker btw). A good historian (I forget who) said something like 'His mind was like a catherine wheel, spitting out ideas like sparks. Most fell on dead earth, but occasionally one fell on the straw, caught fire, and illuminated the night' about Disraeli, and I like to think about that when most of my ideas are falling on dead earth.
Edmund Burke:
- British patriot - Had clear moral clarity - Supportive of the American rebels - Opposed to the French revolution - Anti-slavery - Anti-colonialism - Anti-corporate power - Combined support for liberal rights with gradual reform - Father of the progressive brand of conservatism
Call me an old leftie, but could I nominate Tom Paine?
He was in many ways the polar opposite of Burke, apart from also supporting the american revolutionaries, even to the point of being elected to the French revolutionary assembly.
His books "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" were the political best sellers of their day, and still read very well.
Tom Paine was one of the nasty types always egging on the extreme end of the Revolution, one that led France into the abyss.
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Carnyx As I said, UKIP now has 1/6 Scottish MEPs, Yes cannot now play the card that Scotland is 'a UKIP free zone.' As for Cameron, Farage and Clegg none live in Scotland and so none can vote and none should play or have played a significant part in the campaign
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
Reminds me of this speech (from 1.05 onwards)
(having watched it again, it really is one of the worst speeches I recall)
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
To clarify, that's anything discussing the connections between those two in particular, right?
Just that "anything Rupert Murdoch related" is a pretty big net...a link to the Times, for example...
Carnyx As I said, UKIP now has 1/6 Scottish MEPs, Yes cannot now play the card that Scotland is 'a UKIP free zone.' As for Cameron, Farage and Clegg none live in Scotland and so none can vote and none should play or have played a significant part in the campaign
It's ironic that BT proudly embrace the support of multimillionaire pop stars in England or Switzerland or wherever, but are embarassed of their own UK MP's.
Andrea Astonishing news, I remember attending events, canvass days, conferences etc with Chris Kelly as a student when I was with Warwick Tories and he was with Oxford Brookes, we did not really know each other, but am astonished he has not only now been elected to Parliament but is now standing down, barely more than 10 years later! I know his father had a successful trucking business, perhaps he wants to take over the family firm and feels his prospects are not that bright next year, but we shall see
We're getting a lot of thinkers mentioned! I was thinking more of UK parliamentarians, but I didn't say that. My favourite thinkers are Hobbes and Machiavelli.
Socrates So you want to see our economy move from being the fastest growing in the EU and G7 to going down the toilet, have Cameron involved in a corruption scandal and Farage move left on economic issues but right on a hardline anti immigration, anti EU message emulating Marine Le Pen?
The Independent @Independent · 35m Exclusive: Tory Eurosceptics to defy Cameron with manifesto pledges to vote to leave EU http://ind.pn/1sTqdgh
Smart. Might make me reconsider voting Tory if my local candidate does it. I still need to know what they'd do on immigration though. How are they going to get non-EU migration down to 50k.
We're getting a lot of thinkers mentioned! I was thinking more of UK parliamentarians, but I didn't say that. My favourite thinkers are Hobbes and Machiavelli.
Hugh your comments on Louise Mensch are potentially defamatory - So you can add anything Rupert Murdoch and Louise Mensch related to the list of topics you're not permitted to talk about.
To clarify, that's anything discussing the connections between those two in particular, right?
Just that "anything Rupert Murdoch related" is a pretty big net...a link to the Times, for example...
It is anything to do with either of those.
A link to the Times, the Sun or anything publication ultimately owned by Rupert Murdoch is fine.
I wonder who the Labour MPs that will defect to UKIP will be?
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
Maybe - but the Tory losses to UKIP are far greater. As long as LAB is losing fewer voters in marginals than CON then they win seats.
Paddy have cut UKIP over 9.5% to 4/6, but you can still get better than that by combining Lads 10-15% & 15-20% bands at 7/4 & 4/1 which comes to just better than 8/11
We're getting a lot of thinkers mentioned! I was thinking more of UK parliamentarians, but I didn't say that. My favourite thinkers are Hobbes and Machiavelli.
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Consequences change behaviour.
for a social animal social exclusion is a huge consequence
Labour had 2 MPs standing down in 2001 after one term: Gloucester and Wolverhampton SW
I think we might have to go back to the Seventies to find a single Tory MP voluntarily stepping down after one term. [There have been a handful since, but they either seem to have been under some sort of cloud, or lost out in boundary changes]
Andrea Astonishing news, I remember attending events, canvass days, conferences etc with Chris Kelly as a student when I was with Warwick Tories and he was with Oxford Brookes, we did not really know each other, but am astonished he has not only now been elected to Parliament but is now standing down, barely more than 10 years later! I know his father had a successful trucking business, perhaps he wants to take over the family firm and feels his prospects are not that bright next year, but we shall see
Perhaps, Mr. Hyfud, he has worked out that being lobby fodder for Cameron is not actually a great career for a bright young man. Good for him. I don't for one moment suppose that his majority of just 3k had anything to do with his decision.
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Consequences change behaviour.
The perpetrators in Rotherham faced neither social or legal disapproval, hence no consequenses.
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Consequences change behaviour.
for a social animal social exclusion is a huge consequence
Oh, I absolutely agree. I just think consequences sums it up. We all look for antecedents ( culture, religion, upbringing) to explain behaviour. But consequences are where the answer lies.
Socrates So you want to see our economy move from being the fastest growing in the EU and G7 to going down the toilet, have Cameron involved in a corruption scandal and Farage move left on economic issues but right on a hardline anti immigration, anti EU message emulating Marine Le Pen?
For the first half, I don't want it, I just think it will happen.
I wouldn't want to emulate Marine Le Pen at all, as she's a horrible racist. I would like a pro-independence platform and a controlled immigration platform. Among other things.
David Jack (@DJack_Journo) 31/08/2014 22:46 Seven out of ten voters want free movement within the EU stopped, says @ConHome poll in @thetimes pic.twitter.com/P2g2RpPBt4
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Consequences change behaviour.
The perpetrators in Rotherham faced neither social or legal disapproval, hence no consequenses.
The problem of how to tackle nationwide large scale law breaking is, in practical terms, tricky.
For instance the use of mobile 'phones while driving is illegal, causes deaths, and damages people, but it is still not uncommon though it is decreasing.
Viewed over many thousands of miles from the bicycle saddle I can say that in the early days there was no such law and people routinely carried on such conversations. When it was made illegal the practice certainly decreased, perhaps to many thousands of times a day. Nowadays, with a few successful prosecutions, and also increased fines, I do still see people breaking the law but now also more people are pulling over to talk on their mobiles. This dangerous illegal practice has yet to be stopped, but things are moving in the right direction.
The point? With nation-wide law breaking it may not be feasible to nail all toe-rag criminals at the start in one go. But by gradually tightening the legal machinery and enforcing it, in full measure case by case, a change in behaviour might be effected in the end. Hopefully.
What really changes behaviour is social disapproval for an act from people whose opinions are valued. Changing laws is a big part of that but it's not sufficient of itself.
Consequences change behaviour.
for a social animal social exclusion is a huge consequence
Oh, I absolutely agree. I just think consequences sums it up. We all look for antecedents ( culture, religion, upbringing) to explain behaviour. But consequences are where the answer lies.
As returning officer for the Worldwide Association for the Assessment, Appreciation and Advancement of Gorgeousness and Hunkiness (WAAAAGH), I hereby give notice that the number of votes cast for each candidate in the 12 months from September 2013 to August 2014 (and the changes since last month) was as follows:
1. Daniel Radcliffe 100 (-16) 2. Gareth Bale 75 (-7) 3. Ivan Garcia 74 (+0) 4. Peter Phillips 64 (+0) 5. Prince Louis of Luxembourg 49 (-1) 6. Freddie Woodward 35 (new entrant) 7. (down 1) Alex Pettyfer 28 (-1) 8. (down 1) Dane DeHaan 28 (+0) 9. (down 1) Prince Harry 27 (+0) 10. (down 1) Skandar Keynes 23 (-3) 11. (down 1) Ben Hardy 22 (+2) 12. Jamie Bell 12 (+0) 13. (down 2) Shaun Smith 9 (-3) 14. (down 1) Liam Payne 5 (-1) 15. (down 1) Danny Casey 5 (+0) 16. (down 1) Gil Yehezkel 5 (+0) 17. (down 1) Austin Butler 4 (+0) 18. (down 1) James Alexandrou 4 (+0) 19. (down 1) Adam Gemili 2 (+0)
Andrea Astonishing news, I remember attending events, canvass days, conferences etc with Chris Kelly as a student when I was with Warwick Tories and he was with Oxford Brookes, we did not really know each other, but am astonished he has not only now been elected to Parliament but is now standing down, barely more than 10 years later! I know his father had a successful trucking business, perhaps he wants to take over the family firm and feels his prospects are not that bright next year, but we shall see
Perhaps, Mr. Hyfud, he has worked out that being lobby fodder for Cameron is not actually a great career for a bright young man. Good for him. I don't for one moment suppose that his majority of just 3k had anything to do with his decision.
His father is aparently very Eurosceptic. There was a commons rebellion, I forgetting what over, where his father was insisting he vote one way but Cameron was bullying him the other. Think I read this on conhome. Can't have been much fun.
BBC Scotland News @BBCScotlandNews 5h UKIP leader Nigel Farage is to address a pro-Union rally in Glasgow ahead of the #indyref vote http://bbc.in/1zYWFR5
Should be fun him in Glasgow and Orange Order in Edinburgh next day , sure to boost YES by a big margin. All we need now are BT's other nice friends to follow suit and it will be a walkover.
UKIP is the fastest growing party in Scotland so I'm sure the YESNP will be keen to organize a passionate group of greeters.
David Herdson Indeed, if Farage gets all the Scottish voters who voted for UKIP in May to vote No that would help in a tight race, he will make little difference to the Yes total either way, Yes voters who hate him will still vote Yes and No Labour and LD voters who dislike him will be residents of Edinburgh town houses not the working class Labour voters who could swing the election, they will like his populist message on immigration
Interesting point to raise. My gut feeling is however that the people who'd be attracted by Mr F's visit are hardcore No anyway, and voting No already. A quick check for Glasgow confirms that UKIP did poorly in the Euros, below the Greens (but above the Tories, though this was an Euro election). (Different turnout for indyref is, however, a big joker in the pack.)
I disagree, Salmond and Farage are fishing in the same pool. That's why Eck loathes and fears UKIP so much.
A monstering of "the other" - the source of all that ails us and the quick fix to all our problems is getting out of it, with no conceivable downside - our former partners will give us all we want - they'll be sorry if they don't.
A nasty old tune dressed up in prettier garb - yet just as ugly underneath when the mask slips.
HurstLlama I think your last sentence probably hits the nail on the head, but this election is the most open for years, anything can happen? Although on the right hopefully he will not move to the Kippers but time will tell
Labour had 2 MPs standing down in 2001 after one term: Gloucester and Wolverhampton SW
I think we might have to go back to the Seventies to find a single Tory MP voluntarily stepping down after one term. [There have been a handful since, but they either seem to have been under some sort of cloud, or lost out in boundary changes]
Now 8 (or 9) in one go... remarkable!
e.g. Roy Thomason 1997, Bromsgrove. Facing bankruptcy, he was secretly bailed out by the Tory party. When the facts became known, it transpired he had "forgotten" to declare it. Constituency party re-opened nominations. Stood down after one term...
"We are going all out for the working class vote now. Five of our most winnable seats are Labour held and there are even some Labour MP's thinking of joining us.. I'll be going hell for leather in these northern seats"
I reckon Danczuk to UKIP is not a million to one
His rather pretty wife is a Labour councillor in Rochdale.
MPs used to be respected, now they are actively loathed by many people.
Probably explains why so many young MPs are standing down. They don't want the stigma.
Older MPs like Ken Clarke and Alan Haselhurst are too old to care about it.
There's a lot in that. I've had a *lot* of comments from both current and former MPs, saying in effect: "You have a good job that you enjoy but you're willing to be an MP again? That's bonkers!"
Tory MPs to announce their retirements in the last 3 months:
Chris Kelly (36) Mark Simmonds (50) David Ruffley (52) Dan Byles (40) Andrew Lansley (57) Greg Barker (48) David Willetts (58) William Hague (53) John Randall (59) Mike Weatherley (57) James Clappison (57)
Tory MPs to announce their retirements in the last 3 months:
Chris Kelly (36) Mark Simmonds (50) David Ruffley (52) Dan Byles (40) Andrew Lansley (57) Greg Barker (48) David Willetts (58) William Hague (53) John Randall (59) Mike Weatherley (57) James Clappison (57)
Average age = 51.5.
Kelly might be the youngest person to voluntarily leave the Commons in quite a while...
Tory MPs to announce their retirements in the last 3 months:
Chris Kelly (36) Mark Simmonds (50) David Ruffley (52) Dan Byles (40) Andrew Lansley (57) Greg Barker (48) David Willetts (58) William Hague (53) John Randall (59) Mike Weatherley (57) James Clappison (57)
Average age = 51.5.
Kelly might be the youngest person to voluntarily leave the Commons in quite a while...
I thought Alan Amos might have been around the same age but in fact he was 39 when he had to stand down from Hexham after one term in 1992.
Tory MPs to announce their retirements in the last 3 months:
Chris Kelly (36) Mark Simmonds (50) David Ruffley (52) Dan Byles (40) Andrew Lansley (57) Greg Barker (48) David Willetts (58) William Hague (53) John Randall (59) Mike Weatherley (57) James Clappison (57)
Average age = 51.5.
Kelly might be the youngest person to voluntarily leave the Commons in quite a while...
Tory MPs to announce their retirements in the last 3 months:
Chris Kelly (36) Mark Simmonds (50) David Ruffley (52) Dan Byles (40) Andrew Lansley (57) Greg Barker (48) David Willetts (58) William Hague (53) John Randall (59) Mike Weatherley (57) James Clappison (57)
Average age = 51.5.
Kelly might be the youngest person to voluntarily leave the Commons in quite a while...
Bobby Sands the youngest volunteer.
Not actually. Aside from the fact that Sands, 27, would have preferred to live, rather than die, there were two younger who voluntarily stood down.
John Esmonde, 25, 1918 John Wodehouse, 26, 1910 (the model for "Bertie Wooster")
On Chris Kelly: who can blame him? The majority of parliamentarians have no prospect of achieving office and the vast majority have no prospect of achieving high office. The pay is well below what most can earn outside the House, and claiming allowances, even in accordance with the rules, is fraught with risks. By being an MP approximately half the population automatically hold you in low esteem. By aligning yourself with a party, 75% do. Much of your work is repetitive and of little consequence. On matters of great consequence you are likely to be compelled by the whip. The job lacks the glamour and excitement many outside assume it must have; attempts to find that excitement often end up with a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday, an expensive divorce and a wry smile. You are pilloried if you stray off message, and condemned as an automaton if you do not. Your motives are suspected by many. Your hours are long and arduous. Your colleagues are ghastly. Your brilliance goes unrewarded, while a callow schoolboy gets the business brief and a fool is made chair of your party. Your voters are unforgiving. Your fortunes intertwined with your party.
I have nothing but admiration for those who stand, but we really should reflect on whether the system encourages or dissuades good candidates from putting themselves forward and staying once there!
"Your hours are long and arduous. Your colleagues are ghastly. Your brilliance goes unrewarded, while a callow schoolboy gets the business brief and a fool is made chair of your party."
Stop the Tory SNP privatisation of the NHS in England Scotland:
SHAMELESS Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon were urged to explain themselves or resign last night over a secretive attempt to privatise the Scottish NHS by the back door.
The Telegraph has learned that Weight Watchers, the US-based international weight loss company, has won a two-year contract to provide 4,000 overweight patients with weight management guidance in the west of Scotland.
"Your hours are long and arduous. Your colleagues are ghastly. Your brilliance goes unrewarded, while a callow schoolboy gets the business brief and a fool is made chair of your party."
Funniest thing I've read for a long time!
And your enemies sit behind you, as Churchill said...
On Chris Kelly: who can blame him? The majority of parliamentarians have no prospect of achieving office and the vast majority have no prospect of achieving high office. The pay is well below what most can earn outside the House, and claiming allowances, even in accordance with the rules, is fraught with risks. By being an MP approximately half the population automatically hold you in low esteem. By aligning yourself with a party, 75% do. Much of your work is repetitive and of little consequence. On matters of great consequence you are likely to be compelled by the whip. The job lacks the glamour and excitement many outside assume it must have; attempts to find that excitement often end up with a double-page spread in the Mail on Sunday, an expensive divorce and a wry smile. You are pilloried if you stray off message, and condemned as an automaton if you do not. Your motives are suspected by many. Your hours are long and arduous. Your colleagues are ghastly. Your brilliance goes unrewarded, while a callow schoolboy gets the business brief and a fool is made chair of your party. Your voters are unforgiving. Your fortunes intertwined with your party.
I have nothing but admiration for those who stand, but we really should reflect on whether the system encourages or dissuades good candidates from putting themselves forward and staying once there!
It would be brilliant if we could just click on any archive film like that and find out the name, date or whatever of the people shown on screen. Even the youngest interviewee in that clip was about 35-to-45 so probably those vox pops are all dead by now.
"Your hours are long and arduous. Your colleagues are ghastly. Your brilliance goes unrewarded, while a callow schoolboy gets the business brief and a fool is made chair of your party."
I think it an excellent idea. The by election would have to be a bit later in the year, but with Carswell apparently so far in the lead, why hurry a defeat? In the delay period there are all sorts of possibilities for things to improve, and for the novelty to wear off.
It is also quite possible that there will be friction between Carswells libertarian agenda and the wwc social conservatives, and indeed between Farage and the principled individualist/ loose cannon Carswell.
It occurs to me that betting on UKIP winning constituencies in 2015, but not winning any with a coastline, is a bit like betting on the Conservative Party getting a majority of seats but with Labour getting the plurality of votes.
Comments
All true. Goodnight all.
It has been said by many apologists that these British-Pakistani men are outnumbered by white men in paedophilia figures. Once again, if cases like Rotherham are unrecorded, well, they would do!
So much so that he doesn't post here any more.
Perhaps out of concern after his personal details were maliciously revealed, gosh how you brave Tory troopers all valued his input.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11062758/Scandal-hit-Rotherham-deleted-abuse-files.html
Mr F's visit could be more damaging than you think if it reminds people of the possibility of a Tory-UKIP coalition (given the constituency level agreements discussed on this site. But it's relative. You do know Mr C has just been there, but didn't talk to the public, and just attended the private CBI dinner at which he got lectured by the CBI head for his Brexit plans? I suspect the general public sentiment here is moving on from TV debates to a genuine astonishment why isn't he up here more often and in greater degree of engagement if he is fighting heart and soul as he claimed at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (or words to that effect). Okay, it might be counterproductive on a political level but he would at least be respected for it. But we have 18 days ...
I'm inclined to think Mr Clegg would make little difference, when we have plenty of homegrown LDs (who have mostly kept a very low profile, apart from Moore (ret. hurt) and Carmichael (still at a sticky wicket). Except that if the DPM why not the PM? Which lays the No side wide open to an escalation of the inquiry why Mr Cameron is hiding behind both him and Mr Darling, etc. etc.
BBC ticker
"Along with fellow MP Justin Tomlinson, Kelly placed a bet while at university that he would be Prime Minister before the year 2038. He stands to win £500,000 should this happen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kelly_(British_politician)
That WWC vote is gonna leave them in droves next MAy
He sounds like UKIP fodder if he's that much of a c*ck.
Labour are having his seat at a canter before breakfast in 2015 mind.
The Right are splitting and it's killing you, leave us on the centre/left out of it, we've done that and it gave you Thatcherism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kelly_(British_politician)
Definitely some kind of record...
South Ribble, Erewash, Hove, North Warwickshire, Cannock Chase, South Thanet, Dudley South
right?
The Independent @Independent · 35m
Exclusive: Tory Eurosceptics to defy Cameron with manifesto pledges to vote to leave EU http://ind.pn/1sTqdgh
On the other thing I think there's a reasonable chance of Labour losing a lot - even most - of the centre-left vote to the Libs over the grooming gangs if they can't figure out a response.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/douglas-carswell-tory-schism-battle-over-europe
OK, your rules.
Understood.
(having watched it again, it really is one of the worst speeches I recall)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOx8q3eGq3g
Just that "anything Rupert Murdoch related" is a pretty big net...a link to the Times, for example...
A link to the Times, the Sun or anything publication ultimately owned by Rupert Murdoch is fine.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-vote-percentage
The danger there being over 20% I guess, which could happen with those Northern Labour votes
EDIT
ex Labour votes
Now 8 (or 9) in one go... remarkable!
I wouldn't want to emulate Marine Le Pen at all, as she's a horrible racist. I would like a pro-independence platform and a controlled immigration platform. Among other things.
David Jack (@DJack_Journo)
31/08/2014 22:46
Seven out of ten voters want free movement within the EU stopped, says @ConHome poll in @thetimes pic.twitter.com/P2g2RpPBt4
(monthly statistics as requested)
As returning officer for the Worldwide Association for the Assessment, Appreciation and Advancement of Gorgeousness and Hunkiness (WAAAAGH), I hereby give notice that the number of votes cast for each candidate in the 12 months from September 2013 to August 2014 (and the changes since last month) was as follows:
1. Daniel Radcliffe 100 (-16)
2. Gareth Bale 75 (-7)
3. Ivan Garcia 74 (+0)
4. Peter Phillips 64 (+0)
5. Prince Louis of Luxembourg 49 (-1)
6. Freddie Woodward 35 (new entrant)
7. (down 1) Alex Pettyfer 28 (-1)
8. (down 1) Dane DeHaan 28 (+0)
9. (down 1) Prince Harry 27 (+0)
10. (down 1) Skandar Keynes 23 (-3)
11. (down 1) Ben Hardy 22 (+2)
12. Jamie Bell 12 (+0)
13. (down 2) Shaun Smith 9 (-3)
14. (down 1) Liam Payne 5 (-1)
15. (down 1) Danny Casey 5 (+0)
16. (down 1) Gil Yehezkel 5 (+0)
17. (down 1) Austin Butler 4 (+0)
18. (down 1) James Alexandrou 4 (+0)
19. (down 1) Adam Gemili 2 (+0)
Total 571 (+5)
A nasty old tune dressed up in prettier garb - yet just as ugly underneath when the mask slips.
Wonder if the bookies got any mug money at 10s?
Probably explains why so many young MPs are standing down. They don't want the stigma.
Older MPs like Ken Clarke and Alan Haselhurst are too old to care about it.
That complicates matters.
http://bit.ly/Xb3122
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2738979/Romany-Gypsy-father-offers-3-500-14-year-old-wife-son-Documentary-sees-diaspora-continue-illegally-marry-children-UK.html
Chris Kelly (36)
Mark Simmonds (50)
David Ruffley (52)
Dan Byles (40)
Andrew Lansley (57)
Greg Barker (48)
David Willetts (58)
William Hague (53)
John Randall (59)
Mike Weatherley (57)
James Clappison (57)
Average age = 51.5.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c#gid=0
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/dudleysouth/
John Esmonde, 25, 1918
John Wodehouse, 26, 1910 (the model for "Bertie Wooster")
I have nothing but admiration for those who stand, but we really should reflect on whether the system encourages or dissuades good candidates from putting themselves forward and staying once there!
Funniest thing I've read for a long time!
SHAMELESS Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon were urged to explain themselves or resign last night over a secretive attempt to privatise the Scottish NHS by the back door.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/505304/EXCLUSIVE-The-secret-sell-out-of-Scotland-s-NHS?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+daily-express-uk-news+(Daily+Express+::+UK+Feed)
The Telegraph has learned that Weight Watchers, the US-based international weight loss company, has won a two-year contract to provide 4,000 overweight patients with weight management guidance in the west of Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11066699/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-warnings-about-privatisation-of-NHS.html
"UKIP 352, Con 142, Lab 102, LD 16, Oth 36"
twitter.com/UKIPHyndburn/status/477572001222369281
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/08/great-grimsby-tynemouth-and-bury-south-select-their-candidates.html
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/08/there-should-be-a-full-open-primary-to-pick-the-conservative-candidate-in-clacton.html
"Conservatives in Cambridge deliver over 36000 leaflets over the weekend"
http://nickclarkeconservative.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/conservatives-in-cambridge-deliver-over-36000-leaflets-over-the-weekend/
Great stuff. More!
Certainly a durability record...
It is also quite possible that there will be friction between Carswells libertarian agenda and the wwc social conservatives, and indeed between Farage and the principled individualist/ loose cannon Carswell.