"Let’s assume that Farage is behaving rationally. Logic suggests why he wants Labour to win. It is that his real ambition is to reshape Britain’s political Right. He wants the Tories to lose, tear themselves apart as the different wings blame each other for defeat, and then split over the best way forward. Farage would be waiting in the wings, offering to join forces with Conservative eurosceptics – so that, before long, he could take them over."
UKIP want what is best for UKIP - They are not Tory-Lite (Or heavy)
I'm guessing here that a form of Survivor's Guilt plays a huge part. Even the most unlikely treatment options become *necessary* because the parents/spouse/whomever feel that they must exhaust every tiny chance. Otherwise, they'll be haunted by the guilt that they didn't *do enough*.
That's where the rational and the irrational split apart.
advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
Key word here - advising
The proton treatment may well not work, could well be a waste of £100,000... but the parents can try it if they wish to do so.
THere is an interesting question here - how much does the NHS value the child's life, and how much do the parents. To the parents I would suggest their son's life has an almost infinite monetary worth, and so even if the chances of survival are raised from 0.1% to 0.11% by the proton beam treatment which would value his life at £1Bn - that is a price worth paying for the parents. Clearly the NHS could not afford to value each life at (effectively) £1 Bn as it just doesn't have that much money.
The 0.1 and 0.11% chances I have made up (Perhaps it is 30%/35% ?) but there simply must have to be a value placed on people's lives in the NHS, as heartless as it sounds. It could be the marginal benefit of this treatment is simply not cost effective.
I am all for patients becoming empowered and looking for new solutions themselves. But when facing imminent mortality, parents and patients need a lot of help to make what are very difficult choices. It is very easy to be attracted by the possibility that something out there will save your life or you child's life when doctors say there is nothing more that can be done. But it's rarely true.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
"Let’s assume that Farage is behaving rationally. Logic suggests why he wants Labour to win. It is that his real ambition is to reshape Britain’s political Right. He wants the Tories to lose, tear themselves apart as the different wings blame each other for defeat, and then split over the best way forward. Farage would be waiting in the wings, offering to join forces with Conservative eurosceptics – so that, before long, he could take them over."
UKIP want what is best for UKIP - They are not Tory-Lite (Or heavy)
Pity they don't want want what is best for the Uk.
My mate whose Brother works at Manchester Airport, has said Falcao is arriving today to sign for United. Loan deal.
Your mates brother should be doing his job at the airport instead of reading twitter #oldnews
Incidentally, did TSE's mate's brother first hear about this story from his aunt's cousin's sister-in-law?
Nah. From his dog's vet's milkman who delivers to Carrington
Wow ..... do you really still have milkmen oop North?
I certainly have a milkman delivering in God's country
And the sun shines from down from which one of Salmond's orifices?
Dear Dear another numpty unionist who is very confused. Maybe in your tiny brain Salmond = Scotland, not in any normal person's brain. Alex Salmond is a citizen of Scotland, Scotland is the country he is a citizen of. I look forward to encountering an intelligent unionist who knows the difference.
Unlike Farage, I'm a sceptic who wants to leave, not a politician hunting for glory. Farage is putting his party and himself before what was his political raison d'etre. Carswell likewise.
Nonsense. Farage and Carswell are looking out for the long-term interest of Britain. Having built up a real movement for change, they're not going to throw it all away for a long-shot of a referendum stacked against our position.
Mr. Socrates, our interests would be best served by leaving the EU as soon as possible.
Earliest date possible (for a vote) is 2017. If UKIP do well in 2015 then the earliest date then becomes 2022 (give or take) and quite possibly later.
Carswell's main concern is the political career of Carswell. Farage, I have no doubt, wants to leave the EU, but I think his own career also means more to him than that.
Better a long shot soon, than a possible referendum at an unspecified date far off in the future in unknown circumstances ahead of which hundreds of billions will have been flung into the scrofulous pit of Brussels.
Mr. Woolie, he lacks Blair's Messiah complex. I concur entirely that he should've had some serious red meat for his own side, the lack of it is insignificant. He was also wrong to cut Defence.
For all that, he's still the best realistic candidate for the job by a distance.
It's well and good dreaming of Trajan or Aurelian, but we've got the choice between someone worthy of a shrug, and two other chaps worthy of rather more offensive gestures.
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
Even if Farage were to disband UKIP (and he'd face immense resistance if he tried) he can't deliver 15% of the electorate to the Conservative Party.
Typically, about 40-45% of current UKIP voters are ex-Conservatives (the current Populus poll has 50%, probably due to Carswell). Many of them would probably vote Conservative in the absence of UKIP, but some wouldn't. The other 55-60% most likely wouldn't vote Conservative.
So, in the absence of UKIP, the Conservatives get a boost of maybe 3-4%.
Mr. Socrates, our interests would be best served by leaving the EU as soon as possible.
Earliest date possible (for a vote) is 2017. If UKIP do well in 2015 then the earliest date then becomes 2022 (give or take) and quite possibly later.
Carswell's main concern is the political career of Carswell. Farage, I have no doubt, wants to leave the EU, but I think his own career also means more to him than that.
Better a long shot soon, than a possible referendum at an unspecified date far off in the future in unknown circumstances ahead of which hundreds of billions will have been flung into the scrofulous pit of Brussels.
Even if UKIP collapsed, the Conservatives will not win an outright majority in 2015, which means the 2017 referendum will not happen.
If Carswell was driven by self-interest, he would not have resigned his seat. If Farage was driven by self-interest, he wouldn't have thrown in a career as a well-paid financier to be a minor party politician. I know this is the line conservatives are trying to throw together, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
Can you think of any potential downsides to this course of action?
If you didn't do anything that had potential downsides then you'd never take any political actions ever. There's a simple question here: do we want to stand up for the principle of territorial integrity against imperialist powers, or not?
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
Don't confuse him with polling evidence! Like the Yessers the Tory right prefer "truth" to "facts"!
Not at all. I prefer my party a little less split asunder and a little more disciplined. You move to the centre to attract support, then, as you watch the polling and the vox pop increasingly swing right, you drag the centre voters with you back to the right. The opposite of what Miliband is trying to do with what remains of the New Lab centrists. Given everything that has happened lately, given the undercurrent of resentment, the right is exactly where a populist Government will emerge from.
Mr. Socrates, if he had knowledge of strong UKIP polling then resigning becomes less a contest than the precursor to a little Triumph through Clacton. And if Carswell really believed in local democracy he would not allow himself to be thrust upon the locals by central office.
If Farage were driven by really wanting us out pronto he would have spent years building up support to try and take out pro-EU MPs of all parties. Instead he's mostly targeting (9/12, I think) MPs from the most sceptical major party.
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
Cameron seems bizarrely paralysed. A list of what he wants to get back from Brussels and what he would do to meet his immigration target in the next five year period would win back lots of votes. Yet he's scared to do it.
I know AndyJS said he expected Dundee to have the 2nd highest 'yes' vote on the mainland, I'd be interested in seeing his spreadsheet. Should the Western Isles really be 25/1? I havent done enough (any!) research to spot obvious value but it's the kind of market Paddy can (and does) get very wrong.
I think the case of a very ill childs parents being treated by Police as criminals, will make the UK look really cruel and heartless. If parents have been driven to take a child from an NHS hospital, because they did not feel they were being looked after properly, it could indicate very poor communications by the Doctors concerned. Now the hospital are saying that alternative treatment will be considered, but I wonder whether they have been made to do this, due to what has happened.
A sick child has been separated from his parents, those parents have been arrested for seeking treatment elsewhere, and all of this has happened because of an international arrest warrant that didn't respect traditional liberties or need evidence of an actual crime.
This is the crap that Theresa May has opted into. She's truly a useless Home Secretary.
Again, I ask what you expected the hospital to do in this situation? And the police?
Parents state clear intention to seek alternative, legitimate, treatment for their kid.
Since when did the NHS get to decide that was against the law?
the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
Can you think of any potential downsides to this course of action?
If you didn't do anything that had potential downsides then you'd never take any political actions ever. There's a simple question here: do we want to stand up for the principle of territorial integrity against imperialist powers, or not?
Surely even you arent suggesting lining up US soldiers on the Russian border?
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
Cameron seems bizarrely paralysed. A list of what he wants to get back from Brussels and what he would do to meet his immigration target in the next five year period would win back lots of votes. Yet he's scared to do it.
Because he doesn't believe in the former and cannot deliver the latter
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
Cameron seems bizarrely paralysed. A list of what he wants to get back from Brussels and what he would do to meet his immigration target in the next five year period would win back lots of votes. Yet he's scared to do it.
The respective answers to that question are restoring John Major's opt-out from the social chapter amd hoping the Eurozone economy gets better, neither of which would win back lots of votes.
the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
Can you think of any potential downsides to this course of action?
If you didn't do anything that had potential downsides then you'd never take any political actions ever. There's a simple question here: do we want to stand up for the principle of territorial integrity against imperialist powers, or not?
It depends -
1) Are the territory takers good guys (Protecting their people) or bad guys (Imperialist aggressors) 2) Are the territory takees good guys (Freedom fighters) or bad guys (Terrorists) 3) Does either side have nukes 4) How much will it cost, can we afford it, can we afford not to do it. 5) Do we need a vital resource from either side (Oil, gas) 6) Does either side have a large ex-pat voting bloc, or influence in the affairs of the 3rd party country.
In many cases -- I don't know about the specifics of this one -- the alternative therapy that isn't available doesn't offer a 0.11% chance compared to a 0.1% chance, or a 35% chance versus a 30% chance. Rather, the standard approach offers a 0.01% chance and the alternative approach offers a 0.01% chance, but with additional side-effects that reduce the individual's quality of life in the final days/weeks/months. Indeed, sometimes the alternative approach actually offers a 0.0095% chance.
I am all for patients becoming empowered and looking for new solutions themselves. But when facing imminent mortality, parents and patients need a lot of help to make what are very difficult choices. It is very easy to be attracted by the possibility that something out there will save your life or you child's life when doctors say there is nothing more that can be done. But it's rarely true.
Yes - it's difficult for everyone, especially the parents, partly because of Survivor Sydrome, as plato says - you feel you have to try anything. I think we do need a State backstop to protect kids in a hypothetical case of bonkers parents neglecting their interests, but deciding when to trigger it is hard, and there are too many armchair pundits on the internet feeling that they know for sure. I don't think we have enough information to assess this case fairly.
There is a not very publicised NHS policy (implemented by NICE) on what a life is worth to taxpayers paying for it - around £25,000 for a year of good health (or £12,500 for a life in only moderate health, etc.). One can argue about the figure, but I don't think a serious case can be made that it should be infinite. Clearly families should be able to spend more if they think it justified, even though it's hard for lay people to assess, as you say.
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
Cameron seems bizarrely paralysed. A list of what he wants to get back from Brussels and what he would do to meet his immigration target in the next five year period would win back lots of votes. Yet he's scared to do it.
Trying to be all things to all people on this issue has got Dave's fingers burnt - you either have free movement of people or an immigration target. To have both is a nonsense.
And whilst we're in the EU we have free movement of people.
O/T - but do we know if the Tories are planning on moving the writ for Clacton today as had been supposed? By my reckoning, under the new 'extended' campaign period the one bit that appears to have been shortened is moving of the writ to Close of Nominations (being 4pm on Day 3, Day 0 being move of the writ). This makes it Thursday, for a writ moved today which gives them precious little time to find and select a candidate.
(As an aside, it is also problematic for minor parties who may wish to contest the election, but have no base in the seat to crank up into action - if the writ is indeed moved quickly, it will be interesting to see how many minors actually contest it)
If I was David I would move the writ immediately and not even bother putting a candidate up. That would make the whole campaign utterly irrelevant..
Thus establishing the precedent that the Tories wouldn't stand candidates against UKIP for fear of splitting the right-wing vote?
I think the case of a very ill childs parents being treated by Police as criminals, will make the UK look really cruel and heartless. If parents have been driven to take a child from an NHS hospital, because they did not feel they were being looked after properly, it could indicate very poor communications by the Doctors concerned. Now the hospital are saying that alternative treatment will be considered, but I wonder whether they have been made to do this, due to what has happened.
A sick child has been separated from his parents, those parents have been arrested for seeking treatment elsewhere, and all of this has happened because of an international arrest warrant that didn't respect traditional liberties or need evidence of an actual crime.
This is the crap that Theresa May has opted into. She's truly a useless Home Secretary.
Again, I ask what you expected the hospital to do in this situation? And the police?
Parents state clear intention to seek alternative, legitimate, treatment for their kid.
Since when did the NHS get to decide that was against the law?
Why do you think they did?
Remember what we believe happened here: a seriously ill child left hospital for a few hours with his parents. When he did not return and the hospital could not contact the parents, they were faced with two actions:
1) Launch a search for him; initially on the hospital grounds, then later involving the police. 2) Ignore the fact a child is missing, and assume everything is fine.
Are people really saying option 2) is the right one?
The respective answers to that question are restoring John Major's opt-out from the social chapter amd hoping the Eurozone economy gets better, neither of which would win back lots of votes.
Given that the Eurozone economy is looking more and more like Japan in 1995 I think everyone will be waiting a long time for any improvements.
In many cases -- I don't know about the specifics of this one -- the alternative therapy that isn't available doesn't offer a 0.11% chance compared to a 0.1% chance, or a 35% chance versus a 30% chance. Rather, the standard approach offers a 0.01% chance and the alternative approach offers a 0.01% chance, but with additional side-effects that reduce the individual's quality of life in the final days/weeks/months. Indeed, sometimes the alternative approach actually offers a 0.0095% chance.
I am all for patients becoming empowered and looking for new solutions themselves. But when facing imminent mortality, parents and patients need a lot of help to make what are very difficult choices. It is very easy to be attracted by the possibility that something out there will save your life or you child's life when doctors say there is nothing more that can be done. But it's rarely true.
Yes - it's difficult for everyone, especially the parents, partly because of Survivor Sydrome, as plato says - you feel you have to try anything. I think we do need a State backstop to protect kids in a hypothetical case of bonkers parents neglecting their interests, but deciding when to trigger it is hard, and there are too many armchair pundits on the internet feeling that they know for sure. I don't think we have enough information to assess this case fairly.
There is a not very publicised NHS policy (implemented by NICE) on what a life is worth to taxpayers paying for it - around £25,000 for a year of good health (or £12,500 for a life in only moderate health, etc.). One can argue about the figure, but I don't think a serious case can be made that it should be infinite. Clearly families should be able to spend more if they think it justified, even though it's hard for lay people to assess, as you say.
'State backstop' That's called the law isn't it? Anything else will just be enlarged and abused by lefty Statists to interfere in the lives of citizens. It was a black day when the NHS was conceived. This child is being brought back so he can die in 'managed decline', it's disgusting.
Just a note to correct my by-election timetable - I was assuming (incorrectly) that the same timetable is top be used for a by-election as for the General Election.
Looking at the Parliamentary briefing paper here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06609/byelection-timetables it says that Close of Nominations is 4pm on one of Days 6 to 8 (with moving the writ being Day 0) - as chosen by the Acting Returning Officer. This puts it at Tuesday to Thursday of next week, for a writ moved today.
"People in this thread really need to wake up and consider the utterly ridiculous orwellian un-logic their devotion to the 'mainstream' is making them espouse."
Even Orwell himself might have struggled to get his head round this!
Much as expected - reversion to the mean for the Lab/Con balance, and UKIP up a bit after a very successful week.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
"Clacton" is happening. But thats not good for Dave.
Cameron seems bizarrely paralysed. A list of what he wants to get back from Brussels and what he would do to meet his immigration target in the next five year period would win back lots of votes. Yet he's scared to do it.
Trying to be all things to all people on this issue has got Dave's fingers burnt - you either have free movement of people or an immigration target. To have both is a nonsense.
And whilst we're in the EU we have free movement of people.
The majority of immigration into this country is still non-EU, and the government has failed there also. To cut non-EU immigration at similar rates to the immigration target, they still need to reduce it by two thirds. What are they going to do to get there?
I don't believe that the hospital has done anything wrong. It's the police I'm criticising. It was right for the hospital to take their duty of care seriously and alert the police. The police should have then raised the alarm and tried to track down the parents (since they know the kid was in their custody). What is wrong is the issue of an arrest warrant and the subsequent arrest and extradition of his parents. A proper extradition system with adequate checks would have stopped this.
Did they 'know' the child was in the parents' custody, at least at first? Could they be sure? Did they know that the parents had the child's best interests at heart? Might there have been an accident?
It's a mess, and no-one would want to be in the current position. But breaking it all down step-by-step as it probably happened, then it seems clear that the authorities did the right thing at every stage.
For once.
They were publicly advertising on the news that the child was with his parents when they said they were applying for the arrest warrant, so yes.
And right now, we know what the parents were trying to do, and we're still extraditing them. It's incredible.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
Can you think of any potential downsides to this course of action?
If you didn't do anything that had potential downsides then you'd never take any political actions ever. There's a simple question here: do we want to stand up for the principle of territorial integrity against imperialist powers, or not?
The thing is, Blair explicitly threw out the principle of territorial integrity in his Chicago speech, when he said that humanitarian concerns were more important - and thus the Kosovo intervention within the borders of Serbia.
Further, Putin has already established that the West will not intervene when he invades certain former republics of the USSR, when we stood by and watched Russian tanks move around in Georgia.
So there is no absolute principle in play here. The absolute principle is long dead.
If we were to fight for the independence of Ukraine from Russia would we be able to limit it to a non-nuclear war?
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
"social democratic side" ! ROFL.
As Neil says, Ed Miliband needs to appeal to centrists.
Not to committed Rightwing anti-Labour types.What you gonna do, scratch your X next to the Tories in the ballot paper even more furiously?
In fact, it's probably good news for his chances of attracting centrists that someone like you is becoming even more anti-Labour.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
LOL, they are bad enough with crap Ed without Tories wishing they had the even crappier Murphy, who is currently hiding behind his sofa crying.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
"social democratic side" ! ROFL.
As Neil says, Ed Miliband needs to appeal to centrists.
Not to committed Rightwing anti-Labour types.What you gonna do, scratch your X next to the Tories in the ballot paper even more furiously?
In fact, it's probably good news for his chances of attracting centrists that someone like you is becoming even more anti-Labour.
He doesn't need centrists, there are all sorts of weirdos that will flock to the blind eye brigade. A coalition of the grotesque.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
"social democratic side" ! ROFL.
As Neil says, Ed Miliband needs to appeal to centrists.
Not to committed Rightwing anti-Labour types.What you gonna do, scratch your X next to the Tories in the ballot paper even more furiously?
In fact, it's probably good news for his chances of attracting centrists that someone like you is becoming even more anti-Labour.
He doesn't need centrists, there are all sorts of weirdos that will flock to the blind eye brigade. A coalition of the grotesque.
I would say 2010 Lib Dems can be described, broadly, as Centrist.
Fortunately for Labour, they also rate Ed Miliband pretty highly.
The Markit U.K. manufacturing purchasing managers’ index fell to 52.5 last month from a downwardly revised 54.8 in July. It was the lowest reading since June 2013. Analysts had expected the index to tick up to 55.0.
Oh dear, that's pretty bad news!
PMIs this morning are pretty weak (except in Ireland and Greece) across the board. There's no doubt that concerns about Ukraine (further sanctions, possibly worse) are weighing on activity everywhere in Europe.
I'd say the more concerning bit is if this is approaching the peak of the cycle ( we're now 6 years from the downturn ) and we're STILL borrowing £100bn ish, what happens when the next downturn comes ?
Maybe 2015 is another elction worth losing.
" what happens when the next downturn comes ?"
We are fecked, old son. But then when you have the likes of Mr. Charles arguing on here that we should continue to borrow money to fund the Arts Council there is little we can hope to do about it.
Because the £350m the Arts Council costs will make the squar root of bugger all different (and it's already been cut by c. 20%). To impact a £100bn deficit we need to some very big decisions about resource allocation.
Overseas aid is an example. There is a clear value in some aid, but increasing spending to his an arbitrary target at a time like this seems odd. I'm sure you could easily save £3bn+ without makng a real diffence in terms of impact.
However, to cut £100bn you need to look at health, welfare (including tax credits) and pensions.
[I don't see the point of pretending it's 'separatists' doing the fighting. It's clearly Russian soldiers and tanks making the difference. The EU continues to flop about impotently, and Obama's only brave decision in the last few years was to wear a rather questionable jacket].
The West seems to have adopted a new doctrine of allowing countries to invade their neighbours for territorial gain so long as they don't put their troops in marked uniforms. Churchill would be rolling over in his grave.
Churchill would have heartily approved - with the tactics at least. Towards the end of WW1 and in the interwar period he came up with the clever idea of painting over the roundels on British aircraft when using them to bomb native rebels so they would not know who was bombing them. Given that the British were the only people within 500 miles with aircraft I am not sure it was the brightest idea he ever had.
the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
Can you think of any potential downsides to this course of action?
If you didn't do anything that had potential downsides then you'd never take any political actions ever. There's a simple question here: do we want to stand up for the principle of territorial integrity against imperialist powers, or not?
The thing is, Blair explicitly threw out the principle of territorial integrity in his Chicago speech, when he said that humanitarian concerns were more important - and thus the Kosovo intervention within the borders of Serbia.
Further, Putin has already established that the West will not intervene when he invades certain former republics of the USSR, when we stood by and watched Russian tanks move around in Georgia.
So there is no absolute principle in play here. The absolute principle is long dead.
If we were to fight for the independence of Ukraine from Russia would we be able to limit it to a non-nuclear war?
It's not just that; it's also completely hyppocritical. What about the territorial integrity of Syria, of Iraq? The US endgame there is balkanisation, and the techniques used to acheive it are exactly the same.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
Exactly. Jim Murphy is a bit skeletal/lizard-like for my taste - but he's a million times better than EdM. I pay attention when he talks. I zone out for EdM.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
"social democratic side" ! ROFL.
As Neil says, Ed Miliband needs to appeal to centrists.
Not to committed Rightwing anti-Labour types.What you gonna do, scratch your X next to the Tories in the ballot paper even more furiously?
In fact, it's probably good news for his chances of attracting centrists that someone like you is becoming even more anti-Labour.
He doesn't need centrists, there are all sorts of weirdos that will flock to the blind eye brigade. A coalition of the grotesque.
I would say 2010 Lib Dems can be described, broadly, as Centrist.
Fortunately for Labour, they also rate Ed Miliband pretty highly.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
That's where they're failing on an epic scale. The wrong leader and nothing to say that even touches me.
You misunderstand - Labour need to appeal to floating voters, not anti-Labour types.
Labour doesnt have a Plato problem. There are millions of voters they need to win over before they start working on you. That you think you are a demographic that they should be worrying about says more about you.
Exactly. Jim Murphy is a bit skeletal/lizard-like for my taste - but he's a million times better than EdM. I pay attention when he talks. I zone out for EdM.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
Murphy would spend all his time as PM looking for Adam/He-Man
Well that's rather narcissistic of her. What a numpty. She's watched too many James Bond baddies. In her disciplinary hearing Weatherley explained that she had known the recipient of her text for 20 years and the message was office banter. But a month later, on 21 October 2012, a text message was sent from her phone number to a neighbour called Nick. It read: "Not today but I'm at the front gates tomorrow so I still have time to bring the government down thanks for no graffiti."
Exactly. Jim Murphy is a bit skeletal/lizard-like for my taste - but he's a million times better than EdM. I pay attention when he talks. I zone out for EdM.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
Ed Miliband is going after ex-Lib Dems, Tony Blair went after ex-Conservatives. Given the national mood for change 1993 -> 1997 and the collapse in Lib Dem support post 2010 both seem sound enough strategies.
If Labour wins it will be a fair bit more modest than 1997 but a win will be a win...
Unbelievable! Your dismissing a female voter, and one who voted three times for Labour in the recent past. Plato, and many other voters like her who switched from Labour at the last GE are exactly the demographic that the Labour party needs to win back if they are aiming to return to power any time soon.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
That's where they're failing on an epic scale. The wrong leader and nothing to say that even touches me.
You misunderstand - Labour need to appeal to floating voters, not anti-Labour types.
Labour doesnt have a Plato problem. There are millions of voters they need to win over before they start working on you. That you think you are a demographic that they should be worrying about says more about you.
Ed Miliband is going after ex-Lib Dems, Tony Blair went after ex-Conservatives. Given the national mood for change 1993 -> 1997 and the collapse in Lib Dem support post 2010 both seem sound enough strategies.
If Labour wins it will be a fair bit more modest than 1997 but a win will be a win...
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
Exactly. Jim Murphy is a bit skeletal/lizard-like for my taste - but he's a million times better than EdM. I pay attention when he talks. I zone out for EdM.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
Murphy would spend all his time as PM looking for Adam/He-Man
Of course we must wait to hear the background of the suspects....
" NEARLY 30 men have been arrested as police in Keighley investigate claims of child sexual exploitation by an alleged grooming gang. - It is one of three major investigations West Yorkshire Police is carrying out into alleged multiple offences of child sexual exploitation, the others being in Leeds and Calderdale."
So that's Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale and Rotherham on the police hit list so far - the mind boggles as to how widespread these 'grooming gangs' are - it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought..
Ed Miliband is going after ex-Lib Dems, Tony Blair went after ex-Conservatives. Given the national mood for change 1993 -> 1997 and the collapse in Lib Dem support post 2010 both seem sound enough strategies.
If Labour wins it will be a fair bit more modest than 1997 but a win will be a win...
Not if he loses the popular vote.
Disraeli, McDonald, Churchill and Wilson all had the largest party in terms of seats despite losing the popular vote.
I do wonder (If it happens) if the media will treat it as a 'new' phenomenon though.
Exactly. Jim Murphy is a bit skeletal/lizard-like for my taste - but he's a million times better than EdM. I pay attention when he talks. I zone out for EdM.
You only have to look at the passionate way that Jim Murphy took to the streets in Scotland to campaign for a No vote to see just how badly wrong the Labour party got it by picking Ed Miliband as their Leader.
But you were a self-described "anti-Labour" voter before Ed M became leader so you cant blame him or his policy platform for your not wanting to vote Labour.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
IIRC @Andy_JS posted a C4 tweet about the towns which showed a similar pattern of criminal behaviour to Rotherham. There were about a dozen named. Horrific.
I can't watch US news right now. What they think of this appalling scandal is just too much. And Lefties over here try to minimise it, whilst wailing over a single black kid shot by white deputies.
Of course we must wait to hear the background of the suspects....
" NEARLY 30 men have been arrested as police in Keighley investigate claims of child sexual exploitation by an alleged grooming gang. - It is one of three major investigations West Yorkshire Police is carrying out into alleged multiple offences of child sexual exploitation, the others being in Leeds and Calderdale."
So that's Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale and Rotherham on the police hit list so far - the mind boggles as to how widespread these 'grooming gangs' are - it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought..
Ed Miliband is going after ex-Lib Dems, Tony Blair went after ex-Conservatives. Given the national mood for change 1993 -> 1997 and the collapse in Lib Dem support post 2010 both seem sound enough strategies.
If Labour wins it will be a fair bit more modest than 1997 but a win will be a win...
Not if he loses the popular vote.
Disraeli, McDonald, Churchill and Wilson all had the largest party in terms of seats despite losing the popular vote.
I do wonder (If it happens) if the media will treat it as a 'new' phenomenon though.
@SimonStClare " it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought.. " It could be every city south of the M4 as well, in fact, it could even be a worldwide problem. Best to turn a blind eye to that though.
Many thanks for putting that up - most interesting. And pretty sensible.
Would be interested to see what amtifrank has to say about the No contingency. [edited] Okay, he's only mentioning it briefly, but he isn't necessarily wrong on being unsure what happens after a No. There is a case for suggesting that he underrates the SNP's chances after a No, simply because Labour and the LDs' fronting for the Tories in indyref (and, for LDs, in the coalition) is upsetting a lot of their voters.
It's also possible that Labour splits even after a No because of the stresses of indyref, and/or the Scottish Socialists challenge for the left vote, especially after what the Radical Independence folk have been doing to encourage voter registration. This would seem to damage Labour a lot more than the SNP n the Labour heartlands, though the effects could be subtler in other constituencies.
The Markit U.K. manufacturing purchasing managers’ index fell to 52.5 last month from a downwardly revised 54.8 in July. It was the lowest reading since June 2013. Analysts had expected the index to tick up to 55.0.
Oh dear, that's pretty bad news!
PMIs this morning are pretty weak (except in Ireland and Greece) across the board. There's no doubt that concerns about Ukraine (further sanctions, possibly worse) are weighing on activity everywhere in Europe.
I'd say the more concerning bit is if this is approaching the peak of the cycle ( we're now 6 years from the downturn ) and we're STILL borrowing £100bn ish, what happens when the next downturn comes ?
Maybe 2015 is another elction worth losing.
" what happens when the next downturn comes ?"
We are fecked, old son. But then when you have the likes of Mr. Charles arguing on here that we should continue to borrow money to fund the Arts Council there is little we can hope to do about it.
Because the £350m the Arts Council costs will make the squar root of bugger all different (and it's already been cut by c. 20%). To impact a £100bn deficit we need to some very big decisions about resource allocation.
Overseas aid is an example. There is a clear value in some aid, but increasing spending to his an arbitrary target at a time like this seems odd. I'm sure you could easily save £3bn+ without makng a real diffence in terms of impact.
However, to cut £100bn you need to look at health, welfare (including tax credits) and pensions.
Yup, but when you need to cut expenditure first you cut the "nice to haves", the optional extras. Chopping arts funding would clearly save a tiny fraction of what is needed, but unless you do that then you can't reasonably go after the big sums (health, welfare and pensions). Increasing spend on overseas aid to meet an arbitrary target is clearly a total nonsense but it does show where Cameron's heart is.
Cameron, like Blair in 1997, has missed a massive opportunity and for the same reasons (cowardice combined with personal ambition). I suspect he will be out on his ear in 8 months time and deservedly so. Of course, the down-side to that is we are going to get Miliband who will be even worse.
@SimonStClare " it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought.. " It could be every city south of the M4 as well, in fact, it could even be a worldwide problem. Best to turn a blind eye to that though.
You accuse others of turning ‘a blind eye’ when all you have done on PB is equate the abuse of 1400 girls with Victorian Britain and spread the blame far and wide as you possibly can.
So much for German efficiency. At Frankfurt airport you have to queue outside to get a bus to the train station. Like Luton.
The train station is in Terminal 1. Presumably you flew with BA and landed in Terminal 2? As well as the bus there is a monorail connection between the two terminals. I hate Frankfurt Airport with a passion but it's still better than the city of Frankfurt which is probably the most boring place in Europe.
Comments
Our cartoon at noon #cartoonatnoon http://specc.ie/1CiE8D6 pic.twitter.com/TB3jvjP85Y
That's where the rational and the irrational split apart.
I look forward to encountering an intelligent unionist who knows the difference.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Earliest date possible (for a vote) is 2017. If UKIP do well in 2015 then the earliest date then becomes 2022 (give or take) and quite possibly later.
Carswell's main concern is the political career of Carswell. Farage, I have no doubt, wants to leave the EU, but I think his own career also means more to him than that.
Better a long shot soon, than a possible referendum at an unspecified date far off in the future in unknown circumstances ahead of which hundreds of billions will have been flung into the scrofulous pit of Brussels.
Peter from Putney - I know you got really depressed by a largish Labour lead before, and really excited by a Tory lead on Friday, but honestly: Nothing. Is. Happening.
What should be worrying Mr Cameron is that the weeks are rolling by and something actually needs to happen if he wants to be PM more than another 8 months.
Even if Farage were to disband UKIP (and he'd face immense resistance if he tried) he can't deliver 15% of the electorate to the Conservative Party.
Typically, about 40-45% of current UKIP voters are ex-Conservatives (the current Populus poll has 50%, probably due to Carswell). Many of them would probably vote Conservative in the absence of UKIP, but some wouldn't. The other 55-60% most likely wouldn't vote Conservative.
So, in the absence of UKIP, the Conservatives get a boost of maybe 3-4%.
Should we abandon a European nation to the predations of an imperialist Russia? Because that's what we're doing.
He'd lose that salary, the generous pension, and even more generous allowances.
If Carswell was driven by self-interest, he would not have resigned his seat. If Farage was driven by self-interest, he wouldn't have thrown in a career as a well-paid financier to be a minor party politician. I know this is the line conservatives are trying to throw together, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You move to the centre to attract support, then, as you watch the polling and the vox pop increasingly swing right, you drag the centre voters with you back to the right.
The opposite of what Miliband is trying to do with what remains of the New Lab centrists.
Given everything that has happened lately, given the undercurrent of resentment, the right is exactly where a populist Government will emerge from.
If Farage were driven by really wanting us out pronto he would have spent years building up support to try and take out pro-EU MPs of all parties. Instead he's mostly targeting (9/12, I think) MPs from the most sceptical major party.
Local authority with the highest 'yes' vote:
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1898230
I know AndyJS said he expected Dundee to have the 2nd highest 'yes' vote on the mainland, I'd be interested in seeing his spreadsheet. Should the Western Isles really be 25/1? I havent done enough (any!) research to spot obvious value but it's the kind of market Paddy can (and does) get very wrong.
The only reasonable money is someone trying to back UKIP at 1/5
Since when did the NHS get to decide that was against the law?
That's where they're failing on an epic scale. The wrong leader and nothing to say that even touches me.
All the tories do is concede the argument but warn on Miliband.... Kippers don't care
Plebgate officer sent text saying she could 'topple Tory government'
Text is published in report on Met's investigation into Downing Street incident that ended Andrew Mitchell's cabinet caree
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/01/plebgate-officer-text-topple-tory-government-met-report
1) Are the territory takers good guys (Protecting their people) or bad guys (Imperialist aggressors)
2) Are the territory takees good guys (Freedom fighters) or bad guys (Terrorists)
3) Does either side have nukes
4) How much will it cost, can we afford it, can we afford not to do it.
5) Do we need a vital resource from either side (Oil, gas)
6) Does either side have a large ex-pat voting bloc, or influence in the affairs of the 3rd party country.
Many factors to consider...
There is a not very publicised NHS policy (implemented by NICE) on what a life is worth to taxpayers paying for it - around £25,000 for a year of good health (or £12,500 for a life in only moderate health, etc.). One can argue about the figure, but I don't think a serious case can be made that it should be infinite. Clearly families should be able to spend more if they think it justified, even though it's hard for lay people to assess, as you say.
And whilst we're in the EU we have free movement of people.
Tee-hee!
Remember what we believe happened here: a seriously ill child left hospital for a few hours with his parents. When he did not return and the hospital could not contact the parents, they were faced with two actions:
1) Launch a search for him; initially on the hospital grounds, then later involving the police.
2) Ignore the fact a child is missing, and assume everything is fine.
Are people really saying option 2) is the right one?
That's called the law isn't it?
Anything else will just be enlarged and abused by lefty Statists to interfere in the lives of citizens. It was a black day when the NHS was conceived.
This child is being brought back so he can die in 'managed decline', it's disgusting.
Looking at the Parliamentary briefing paper here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06609/byelection-timetables it says that Close of Nominations is 4pm on one of Days 6 to 8 (with moving the writ being Day 0) - as chosen by the Acting Returning Officer. This puts it at Tuesday to Thursday of next week, for a writ moved today.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=kerala+gods+own+country
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?
list=PL5gcFbG9ghq5bTYLSEj2SVNQRAyrQc3uX
"People in this thread really need to wake up and consider the utterly ridiculous orwellian un-logic their devotion to the 'mainstream' is making them espouse."
Even Orwell himself might have struggled to get his head round this!
3/1 still a bet IMO.. Labour have to be the worst 1/5 shot in living memory
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rotherham/winning-party
Further, Putin has already established that the West will not intervene when he invades certain former republics of the USSR, when we stood by and watched Russian tanks move around in Georgia.
So there is no absolute principle in play here. The absolute principle is long dead.
If we were to fight for the independence of Ukraine from Russia would we be able to limit it to a non-nuclear war?
As Neil says, Ed Miliband needs to appeal to centrists.
Not to committed Rightwing anti-Labour types.What you gonna do, scratch your X next to the Tories in the ballot paper even more furiously?
In fact, it's probably good news for his chances of attracting centrists that someone like you is becoming even more anti-Labour.
A coalition of the grotesque.
My entire point is that Labour are saying nothing that appeals to my social democratic side. I voted for Labour 3x. Whilst I won't for them again for many decades, my point is that they're not even touching my floating voter tendency.
One can fancy a man, but don't want to marry him. I don't fancy Labour one iota. That's their problem.
Fortunately for Labour, they also rate Ed Miliband pretty highly.
His nativity set with him as all the characters
Overseas aid is an example. There is a clear value in some aid, but increasing spending to his an arbitrary target at a time like this seems odd. I'm sure you could easily save £3bn+ without makng a real diffence in terms of impact.
However, to cut £100bn you need to look at health, welfare (including tax credits) and pensions.
They neither want nor need the votes of people out there on the Right like yourself.
I've got bored of attacking his arguments, and plus no-one rebuts them.
In her disciplinary hearing Weatherley explained that she had known the recipient of her text for 20 years and the message was office banter. But a month later, on 21 October 2012, a text message was sent from her phone number to a neighbour called Nick. It read: "Not today but I'm at the front gates tomorrow so I still have time to bring the government down thanks for no graffiti."
What do you think of his strategy?
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/scotland-pre-referendum-special.html
Can't work out if Man Utd's summer catchphrase is "all fur coat and no knickers" or "business at the front, party at the back."
If Labour wins it will be a fair bit more modest than 1997 but a win will be a win...
I assume you are a sock-puppet for another poster. And still as tedious.
I don't read yours - save yourself the pixels. These are the only ones I'm spending on you.
So that's Bradford, Leeds, Calderdale and Rotherham on the police hit list so far - the mind boggles as to how widespread these 'grooming gangs' are - it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought..
I do wonder (If it happens) if the media will treat it as a 'new' phenomenon though.
I love you too!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/cameron-does-not-have-as-much-time-as-hed-like-on-european-reform/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cameron-does-not-have-as-much-time-as-hed-like-on-european-reform&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_med
http://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/interviews/ed-miliband-pictures
It is linked on his twitter feed.
When I was single, I didn't really look for possible partners who would take decades to woo. Life, sadly, is too short.
Very smart, as one would expect from antifrank.
I can't watch US news right now. What they think of this appalling scandal is just too much. And Lefties over here try to minimise it, whilst wailing over a single black kid shot by white deputies.
1) How the big the Tory lead is
and more crucially
2) If UKIP get a lot of votes and very few seats
" it could be every city north of the M4. A frighten thought.. "
It could be every city south of the M4 as well, in fact, it could even be a worldwide problem.
Best to turn a blind eye to that though.
Would be interested to see what amtifrank has to say about the No contingency. [edited] Okay, he's only mentioning it briefly, but he isn't necessarily wrong on being unsure what happens after a No. There is a case for suggesting that he underrates the SNP's chances after a No, simply because Labour and the LDs' fronting for the Tories in indyref (and, for LDs, in the coalition) is upsetting a lot of their voters.
It's also possible that Labour splits even after a No because of the stresses of indyref, and/or the Scottish Socialists challenge for the left vote, especially after what the Radical Independence folk have been doing to encourage voter registration. This would seem to damage Labour a lot more than the SNP n the Labour heartlands, though the effects could be subtler in other constituencies.
Chopping arts funding would clearly save a tiny fraction of what is needed, but unless you do that then you can't reasonably go after the big sums (health, welfare and pensions). Increasing spend on overseas aid to meet an arbitrary target is clearly a total nonsense but it does show where Cameron's heart is.
Cameron, like Blair in 1997, has missed a massive opportunity and for the same reasons (cowardice combined with personal ambition). I suspect he will be out on his ear in 8 months time and deservedly so. Of course, the down-side to that is we are going to get Miliband who will be even worse.
Arf, you really are the most appalling hypocrite.
http://news.sky.com/story/1327001/muslim-youth-we-want-justice-for-the-1400