Ishmael. Your post is too asinine to grace with an answer. However I take from it that in your youth were part of it (from wikipedia)
In the 1980s the FCS was noted for being more radical than the main party, more Thatcherite than Thatcher – ministers invited to speak at conferences were routinely chastised for not going far enough.[3]
In addition to supporting no-holds-barred privatisation, controversial positions embraced included the support for American intervention in Grenada, RENAMO, the UNITA rebels in Angola, and the Contras in Nicaragua.[14] "Hang Nelson Mandela" slogans[17] were apparently worn by some leading members.[13] The Federation made badges with the words "Nicaragua Must be Free". Ironically, some Labour students began wearing them without realising their origin and intended meaning.[18]
Some delegates to the Loughborough conference wore T-shirts with the slogan "Morning Cloud, remember the Belgrano". In October 1985 they were accused of physically intimidating Edward Heath.[19]
The satirical magazine Private Eye alleged that members of the FCS at Aberystwyth wore springbok jerseys, racially abused ethnic minority bar staff at the student bar and organised a night out in Aberystwyth town centre to celebrate the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Following that incident, all members of the FCS were banned from giving speeches or organising meetings at the institute under the students' union's 'No Platform for Racists or Fascists' policy.[20]
I was part of no such thing. On the contrary, I was so insanely bleeding-heart liberal I thought that torturing poor black South Africans to death was a bad thing to do. And I still do. You and Nelson obviously take a more nuanced view.
Agreed. I've been saying that for years. The collapse of the Lib Dems makes a hung parliament extremely unlikely. NI is fixed at 18 seats. And unless SNP/PC and/or Greens or UKIP explode in numbers it is statistically highly unlikely that the next parliament will be hung.
The betting markets disagree. Lick licking time.
It happened in February 1974 of course and it wasn't that far way on a number of other occasions. The key is the Conservative-Labour seat numbers far more than vote shares. It's perfectly conceivable the two big parties could be very close next May at 280-290 each and even with the LDs it might be that neither could form a majority.
That would bring in the Ulster MPs (not all of whom attend of course) and the Nationalists and potentially UKIP/Green.
Some might see this as a crisis which it isn't. I do think a minority Government is much more likely than a Coalition/
No-one has answered the question I posed a few days back.
Assuming YES, if 2015 produces something like
Lab 300 Con 280 LD 35 Nats 15 UKIP 2 NI 18
we're all in a bind, since 40 of Labour's MPs will represent a de facto foreign country and be on constitutional Death Row...
The rUK result will be something like:-
Con 279 Lab 259 LD 30 Nats 3 UKIP 2 NI 18
Why should Labour be allowed to form a government?
Because they have most MPs according to the democratic rules under which the election was fought. Next.
Agreed. I've been saying that for years. The collapse of the Lib Dems makes a hung parliament extremely unlikely. NI is fixed at 18 seats. And unless SNP/PC and/or Greens or UKIP explode in numbers it is statistically highly unlikely that the next parliament will be hung.
The betting markets disagree. Lick licking time.
It happened in February 1974 of course and it wasn't that far way on a number of other occasions. The key is the Conservative-Labour seat numbers far more than vote shares. It's perfectly conceivable the two big parties could be very close next May at 280-290 each and even with the LDs it might be that neither could form a majority.
That would bring in the Ulster MPs (not all of whom attend of course) and the Nationalists and potentially UKIP/Green.
Some might see this as a crisis which it isn't. I do think a minority Government is much more likely than a Coalition/
No-one has answered the question I posed a few days back.
Assuming YES, if 2015 produces something like
Lab 300 Con 280 LD 35 Nats 15 UKIP 2 NI 18
we're all in a bind, since 40 of Labour's MPs will represent a de facto foreign country and be on constitutional Death Row...
The rUK result will be something like:-
Con 279 Lab 259 LD 30 Nats 3 UKIP 2 NI 18
Why should Labour be allowed to form a government?
No-one has answered the question I posed a few days back.
Assuming YES, if 2015 produces something like
Lab 300 Con 280 LD 35 Nats 15 UKIP 2 NI 18
we're all in a bind, since 40 of Labour's MPs will represent a de facto foreign country and be on constitutional Death Row...
The rUK result will be something like:-
Con 279 Lab 259 LD 30 Nats 3 UKIP 2 NI 18
Why should Labour be allowed to form a government?
'Allowed' is a funny word to use. In principle they could form a government, at least until Scotland actually becomes independent, if they can command a majority in the House on a vote of confidence, and that would depend on whether the other parties voted against them. The fact that such a government would be, as you say, on Death Row is neither here nor there in constitutional terms (although it might of course be a factor in the calculations of the other parties).
In practice we might well have a situation where no party can form a stable government; however, that would be true irrespective of whether the numbers were due to change in a couple of years time when the Scots leave Westminster for ever.
@euanmccolm: guy in the "undecided" camp on the #radio5 #indyref debate admits he's already voted yes by post. you had one job, you idiot plant.
They had to bus in NO supporters due to dearth of them. You would also notice that nearly all undecided moved to YES as well. Obviously drawn from different well than the one Davidl canvases.
Yes. The point about a free market is that it gives economies of scale. There is nothing to stop EU companies grown big taking over smaller British ones if we are out of the EU. Carswell has proposed opening up defence contracts to overseas - all overseas. He is not protectionist - hard to see where he opposes the EU really. His bugbear is in fact the way everyone else does politics. He espouses liberalism. If kippers were to ever get their way it would need to be totalitarian to achieve its aims (witness they do not want a referendum). Hardcore unthinking kippers just want isolationism. Despite what Carswell says they want the world to go away.
Like I said. You just make stuff up.
You live in dreamland but then you vote UKIP. Carswell wants to keep Pakistanis. He wants them to vote in the referendum which earlier in the year he was campaigning for. You want to throw them out. Either that are you extremely thick and have no idea what Carswell has said or believes in. They are British to him, as British as William the Conqueror. And since he regards William the Conqueror as British then he clearly regards it as a broad church. Its amazing he has joined a party where one of its leading MEPs racially abused her own Asian constituent (and then further sneered at her), but she was her own supporter/voter as well! http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ting-tong-row-rumbles-on-22346/ Good luck with that one Carswell. I suggest Mr Munday stands in the tory open primary.
Imo, one of the crucial findings in this poll is that 25% of UKIP voters say they'd rather have Miliband as PM than Cameron. And it would be much higher presumably if people were asked to choose between a Labour government or a Tory one (possibly even close to a 50/50 split).
Should give pause for thought both to Labour people complacently thinking UKIP aren't a threat, but also to Tories who think all Ukippers are "Tories in exile" who will flock back at the thought of putting Ed into Downing St.
If you give people a forced choice of two things they're lukewarm about you might learn something but a forced choice between two things they're strongly against tells you very little.
For example a) would you rather have strawberry icecream or a pint of beer?
versus
b) would you rather have a heart attack or cancer?
The Trotskyites of the right are wrecking the Conservative party Forget international crises and domestic suffering, Tory ideologues are in the grip of a corrosive Euromania
The longer the Tories ignore the grooming gangs the more the blame for it will shift from Labour to them so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story.
The focus on the cover ups of historical child abuse cases involving VIPs and MPs started soon after the Times reports also.
I'd be happy with them remaining quiet for a few weeks as long as what they do is both right, and effective. There's been too much sh*t caused by politicians of governing parties speaking out early and making hasty decisions.
If they're keeping silent because of any form of cover-up or lack of care, then they need damning.
But I wonder if the forthcoming conferences might be of relevance.
"... so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story." As a matter of interest, what would you want them to do at the moment aside from condemn it?
Maybe a "government of national unity" [oh, the irony!] in 2015 until the Labour 40 are euthanised, followed by fresh elections?
Hmm, maybe not..
I wonder, though, about your premise. If IndyRef does produce a Yes, will Scottish Labour actually get 40 Westminster seats? As the great antifrank has pointed out, in a Yes scenario , the dynamics would be immediately changed; the issue for Scots would have moved on from 'how can we get a Westminster government which is closest to what we want' to 'we are leaving Westminster altogether, and we need to elect representatives to protect our interests during the exit negotiations'.
The longer the Tories ignore the grooming gangs the more the blame for it will shift from Labour to them so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story.
The focus on the cover ups of historical child abuse cases involving VIPs and MPs started soon after the Times reports also.
I'd be happy with them remaining quiet for a few weeks as long as what they do is both right, and effective. There's been too much sh*t caused by politicians of governing parties speaking out early and making hasty decisions.
If they're keeping silent because of any form of cover-up or lack of care, then they need damning.
But I wonder if the forthcoming conferences might be of relevance.
"... so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story." As a matter of interest, what would you want them to do at the moment aside from condemn it?
Ishmael. Your post is too asinine to grace with an answer. However I take from it that in your youth were part of it (from wikipedia)
In the 1980s the FCS was noted for being more radical than the main party, more Thatcherite than Thatcher – ministers invited to speak at conferences were routinely chastised for not going far enough.[3]
In addition to supporting no-holds-barred privatisation, controversial positions embraced included the support for American intervention in Grenada, RENAMO, the UNITA rebels in Angola, and the Contras in Nicaragua.[14] "Hang Nelson Mandela" slogans[17] were apparently worn by some leading members.[13] The Federation made badges with the words "Nicaragua Must be Free". Ironically, some Labour students began wearing them without realising their origin and intended meaning.[18]
Some delegates to the Loughborough conference wore T-shirts with the slogan "Morning Cloud, remember the Belgrano". In October 1985 they were accused of physically intimidating Edward Heath.[19]
The satirical magazine Private Eye alleged that members of the FCS at Aberystwyth wore springbok jerseys, racially abused ethnic minority bar staff at the student bar and organised a night out in Aberystwyth town centre to celebrate the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Following that incident, all members of the FCS were banned from giving speeches or organising meetings at the institute under the students' union's 'No Platform for Racists or Fascists' policy.[20]
I was part of no such thing. On the contrary, I was so insanely bleeding-heart liberal I thought that torturing poor black South Africans to death was a bad thing to do. And I still do. You and Nelson obviously take a more nuanced view.
Now please humour me and and answer the question.
Roger will be busy waiting for the hourly report from his man that all beds have been checked and no racists are under them.
Yes. The point about a free market is that it gives economies of scale. There is nothing to stop EU companies grown big taking over smaller British ones if we are out of the EU. Carswell has proposed opening up defence contracts to overseas - all overseas. He is not protectionist - hard to see where he opposes the EU really. His bugbear is in fact the way everyone else does politics. He espouses liberalism. If kippers were to ever get their way it would need to be totalitarian to achieve its aims (witness they do not want a referendum). Hardcore unthinking kippers just want isolationism. Despite what Carswell says they want the world to go away.
Like I said. You just make stuff up.
You live in dreamland but then you vote UKIP. Carswell wants to keep Pakistanis. He wants them to vote in the referendum which earlier in the year he was campaigning for. You want to throw them out. Either that are you extremely thick and have no idea what Carswell has said or believes in. They are British to him, as British as William the Conqueror. And since he regards William the Conqueror as British then he clearly regards it as a broad church. Its amazing he has joined a party where one of its leading MEPs racially abused her own Asian constituent (and then further sneered at her), but she was her own supporter/voter as well! http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ting-tong-row-rumbles-on-22346/ Good luck with that one Carswell. I suggest Mr Munday stands in the tory open primary.
LOL. Like I said you really do just make it all up. Delusional is perhaps too mild a word to describe you.
As I have said on here often I would welcome more educated and skilled immigrants from the rest of the world - and that includes Pakistan. The best way to do that would be to leave the EU and have proper control of our borders so we could decide for ourselves who benefits the UK rather than the current situation where we have no control over a large proportion of UK migration.
Of course since you are lost in your own bigoted fantasies (I suspect drugs are involved but you don't have to volunteer anything) then I don't expect any of this to get through.
But rest assured, your continual lunatic rantings are not going to win any converts. Indeed I suspect a lot of Tories might be quite shamed by your comments. I know I would be if I were in the same party as you.
@faisalislam: Ex EU euro commissioner Ollie Rehn in letter to alexander: "sterlingisation" incompatible with EU membership "would simply not be possible".
From the point of view of the PC wing of the Labour party Scottish independence is great as it gets rid of half the remaining internal opposition in one go.
The longer the Tories ignore the grooming gangs the more the blame for it will shift from Labour to them so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story.
The focus on the cover ups of historical child abuse cases involving VIPs and MPs started soon after the Times reports also.
I'd be happy with them remaining quiet for a few weeks as long as what they do is both right, and effective. There's been too much sh*t caused by politicians of governing parties speaking out early and making hasty decisions.
If they're keeping silent because of any form of cover-up or lack of care, then they need damning.
But I wonder if the forthcoming conferences might be of relevance.
"... so it's odd they've done absolutely nothing about it since the Times first broke the story." As a matter of interest, what would you want them to do at the moment aside from condemn it?
Labours cuts led Labour to cover up mass rape of children. Socialist Worker exposes the shocking truth. Who knew what and when? And what position do they now hold in the Labour Party?
"Carswell welcomes Indians Pakistanis and Chinese etc. Unlike most kippers who want them thrown out."
Where do you get that from? The kippers not Carswell
He made it up. I have come to the conclusion that Flightpath is quite delusional and is getting worse the more he realises just how unpopular his beloved EU really is.
In the end all he can do is make stuff up as he has no reasoned arguments against the Eurosceptics.
Made up? You clearly do not read Carswell's own blog. http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/after-out-what-do-we-want-britain-to-be-like/2779 ''First and second generation Britons must feel as comfortable voting to quit the EU as those whose ancestors came over before William the Conqueror.'' Nor do you read about what 'free trade' agreements mean, despite me putting it into print. It means free movement of labour - as i think Mr Navabi has pointed out. You are delusional and clearly ignorant about Carswell's beliefs. http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/08/douglas-carswell ''Unlike most of his new party, his instincts on immigration are liberal, he cares deeply about civil liberties and wants to disestablish the church. '' That's the civil liberties of Pakistanis
And when he was last in opposition he was quite happy to open up our borders for defence procurement (and throw many jobs on the dole and to hell with our security) http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2008/10/douglas-carswel-2.html Easy to see he is not MP for Preston or Barrow or Southampton or Portsmouth.
The claim was made by a Gordon Jelley, who "worked as a training officer for social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 2005 and 2009". He claims "the council was under the cosh from New Labour targets after it failed an inspection."
Things are bad op-north when even the Socialist Worker blames Labour ; )
I think there's a reasonable chance the areas at the centre of this will go into a sulk and vote Respect for a bit so they're positioning themselves for that i guess.
"life as difficult as possible for legitimate students who want to come here and pay our universities to teach them "
Has there actually been a drop in the number of overseas students at our universities? The last time I looked I seem to recall there had not been either a undergraduate or post graduate level.
There had certainly been a drop at language schools and schools of management but as an awful lot of that was bogus anyway so it should have (and Labour started the crack down)
" According to official Home Office figures, student visas from India were down 24% in the year to the end of September 2013, on top of a decline of over 50% during the preceding year. Yet the British government has made relations with India one of its top external priorities."
Thanks for that. Having just had a quick dig around I have found all sorts of figures none of which correspond with any other set. Your Guardian's fifty percent drop in the previous year is reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
'He made it up. I have come to the conclusion that Flightpath is quite delusional and is getting worse the more he realises just how unpopular his beloved EU really is."
The Trotskyites of the right are wrecking the Conservative party Forget international crises and domestic suffering, Tory ideologues are in the grip of a corrosive Euromania
The difference is that the Trotskyites and the other communists were shown to be economically wrong, while us eurosceptics have been shown to be economically right.
The Trotskyites of the right are wrecking the Conservative party Forget international crises and domestic suffering, Tory ideologues are in the grip of a corrosive Euromania
Yes. The point about a free market is that it gives economies of scale. There is nothing to stop EU companies grown big taking over smaller British ones if we are out of the EU. Carswell has proposed opening up defence contracts to overseas - all overseas. He is not protectionist - hard to see where he opposes the EU really. His bugbear is in fact the way everyone else does politics. He espouses liberalism. If kippers were to ever get their way it would need to be totalitarian to achieve its aims (witness they do not want a referendum). Hardcore unthinking kippers just want isolationism. Despite what Carswell says they want the world to go away.
Like I said. You just make stuff up.
You're wasting your breath, Richard. The Tories have settled into this line that UKIP oppose a referendum because they don't have anything else to say to deal with the EU issue.
"life as difficult as possible for legitimate students who want to come here and pay our universities to teach them "
Has there actually been a drop in the number of overseas students at our universities? The last time I looked I seem to recall there had not been either a undergraduate or post graduate level.
There had certainly been a drop at language schools and schools of management but as an awful lot of that was bogus anyway so it should have (and Labour started the crack down)
" According to official Home Office figures, student visas from India were down 24% in the year to the end of September 2013, on top of a decline of over 50% during the preceding year. Yet the British government has made relations with India one of its top external priorities."
Thanks for that. Having just had a quick dig around I have found all sorts of figures none of which correspond with any other set. Your Guardian's fifty percent drop in the previous year is reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
IIRC the position is that, in view of the referendum result, the Government attempted to negotiate an exemption from free movement with the EU while keeping the various trade concessions that they'd won earlier. The EU refused, so the Swiss Government are now going back to the people to ask them "Do you want to reverse the free movement deal AND abrogate the previous deal?" As the majority for the restrictions was narrow and sold on the basis that the EU would probably agree, it's thought that the answer will probably be "no, in that case let's forget the restrictions". But the Swiss electorate can never be taken for granted and they might say "yes, let's scrap both deals".
Yes, that is right.
The key point from the UK's point of view, of course, is the confirmation that any trade deal with the EU will almost certainly include some form of free movement of workers, most particularly if we want a free (or free-ish) market in services*, which we do. That's the bit which UKIP forget to tell their supporters.
* In fact I can't really see how you can have full cross-border trade in services without free movement of workers. If a company bids for a contract in another EU country, it needs to be able to move whichever workers it likes in to fulfil it, without delays and bureaucratic hoops. Otherwise it's not a free market in services.
Korea has a free-ish market in services with the EU and doesn't have free movement of workers.
"Carswell welcomes Indians Pakistanis and Chinese etc. Unlike most kippers who want them thrown out."
Where do you get that from? The kippers not Carswell
He made it up. I have come to the conclusion that Flightpath is quite delusional and is getting worse the more he realises just how unpopular his beloved EU really is.
In the end all he can do is make stuff up as he has no reasoned arguments against the Eurosceptics.
Made up? You clearly do not read Carswell's own blog. http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/after-out-what-do-we-want-britain-to-be-like/2779 ''First and second generation Britons must feel as comfortable voting to quit the EU as those whose ancestors came over before William the Conqueror.'' Nor do you read about what 'free trade' agreements mean, despite me putting it into print. It means free movement of labour - as i think Mr Navabi has pointed out. You are delusional and clearly ignorant about Carswell's beliefs. http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/08/douglas-carswell ''Unlike most of his new party, his instincts on immigration are liberal, he cares deeply about civil liberties and wants to disestablish the church. '' That's the civil liberties of Pakistanis
And when he was last in opposition he was quite happy to open up our borders for defence procurement (and throw many jobs on the dole and to hell with our security) http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2008/10/douglas-carswel-2.html Easy to see he is not MP for Preston or Barrow or Southampton or Portsmouth.
Give up Flightpath. You can't beat us. When we take power we'll be setting up camps where people like you will be sent for re-education.
Made up? You clearly do not read Carswell's own blog. http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/after-out-what-do-we-want-britain-to-be-like/2779 ''First and second generation Britons must feel as comfortable voting to quit the EU as those whose ancestors came over before William the Conqueror.'' Nor do you read about what 'free trade' agreements mean, despite me putting it into print. It means free movement of labour - as i think Mr Navabi has pointed out. You are delusional and clearly ignorant about Carswell's beliefs. http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/08/douglas-carswell ''Unlike most of his new party, his instincts on immigration are liberal, he cares deeply about civil liberties and wants to disestablish the church. '' That's the civil liberties of Pakistanis
And when he was last in opposition he was quite happy to open up our borders for defence procurement (and throw many jobs on the dole and to hell with our security) http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2008/10/douglas-carswel-2.html Easy to see he is not MP for Preston or Barrow or Southampton or Portsmouth.
I have been reading Carswell's blog since before you even heard of him. I also read all his other published material including his excellent book with Dan Hannan. And guess what - I agree with it all.
Of course a lunatic Europhile like yourself has a complete logic fail when it comes to the basic idea that large scale uncontrolled migration from the EU actually hinders migration from places like India and Pakistan since it warps the whole immigration debate.
But because you are clearly having difficulty with basic concepts I will spell it out again.
End uncontrolled migration from the EU. (To do this of course you have to leave the EU)
Introduce a proper points system that decides who should be allowed to enter and settle in the UK based on their value to the country.(with a reasonable number of genuine asylum seekers allowed in addition)
Introduce a fair (and I would suggest liberal) system of student visas to allow our Universities to benefit from their reputations and enroll fee paying students from around the world.
Adjust the immigration points system on an ongoing basis based on the year to year needs of the country.
It is really not that difficult - but of course is all predicated on having to leave your beloved EU. So instead you would rather stick with the current racist system that says that an unemployed German should have more right to settle in the UK than a highly skilled Pakistani engineer.
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
"life as difficult as possible for legitimate students who want to come here and pay our universities to teach them "
Has there actually been a drop in the number of overseas students at our universities? The last time I looked I seem to recall there had not been either a undergraduate or post graduate level.
There had certainly been a drop at language schools and schools of management but as an awful lot of that was bogus anyway so it should have (and Labour started the crack down)
" According to official Home Office figures, student visas from India were down 24% in the year to the end of September 2013, on top of a decline of over 50% during the preceding year. Yet the British government has made relations with India one of its top external priorities."
Thanks for that. Having just had a quick dig around I have found all sorts of figures none of which correspond with any other set. Your Guardian's fifty percent drop in the previous year is reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
Yep, the blind eyes of Labour certainly helped the industry explode before it got revealed. That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
'Bigoted fantasies'? Mr Tyndall? Hilarious. Take a look at immigration with countries with 'controls' - countries you like to talk about. (Talk about no more I suspect) Proportionatly much higher than ours and pretty much just as high in real terms. In fact we are controlling non EU immigration ( we cannot control emigration - or former ex pats returning) and EU immigration is mostly transitory. You are between a rock anjd a hard place when it comes to facing the truth and facing up to what really floats Carswells boat.
The new deal with Canada involves free movement of Labour and that will get wider over time. This is the modern world, what trade deals are all about. It does not matter if we have one within the EU or 28 if out of it - it will not make much real difference. The only difference is UKIP putting all that power in the hands of Labour.
BTW - Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker program in 2012 allowed a record 491,547 non-Canadians to work in Canada. (thats not counting the immigrants)
Maybe a "government of national unity" [oh, the irony!] in 2015 until the Labour 40 are euthanised, followed by fresh elections?
Hmm, maybe not..
I wonder, though, about your premise. If IndyRef does produce a Yes, will Scottish Labour actually get 40 Westminster seats? As the great antifrank has pointed out, in a Yes scenario , the dynamics would be immediately changed; the issue for Scots would have moved on from 'how can we get a Westminster government which is closest to what we want' to 'we are leaving Westminster altogether, and we need to elect representatives to protect our interests during the exit negotiations'.
If Yes wins, then I think the SNP would sweep the board in Scotland. Labour, Lib Dems, and Conservatives would be as relevant Portugese MPs representing Goa after 1963.
"life as difficult as possible for legitimate students who want to come here and pay our universities to teach them "
Has there actually been a drop in the number of overseas students at our universities? The last time I looked I seem to recall there had not been either a undergraduate or post graduate level.
There had certainly been a drop at language schools and schools of management but as an awful lot of that was bogus anyway so it should have (and Labour started the crack down)
" According to official Home Office figures, student visas from India were down 24% in the year to the end of September 2013, on top of a decline of over 50% during the preceding year. Yet the British government has made relations with India one of its top external priorities."
Thanks for that. Having just had a quick dig around I have found all sorts of figures none of which correspond with any other set. Your Guardian's fifty percent drop in the previous year is reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
Yep, the blind eyes of Labour certainly helped the industry explode before it got revealed. That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
They certainly deserve to get the blame. If they do or not is a different question.
Maybe a "government of national unity" [oh, the irony!] in 2015 until the Labour 40 are euthanised, followed by fresh elections?
Hmm, maybe not..
I wonder, though, about your premise. If IndyRef does produce a Yes, will Scottish Labour actually get 40 Westminster seats? As the great antifrank has pointed out, in a Yes scenario , the dynamics would be immediately changed; the issue for Scots would have moved on from 'how can we get a Westminster government which is closest to what we want' to 'we are leaving Westminster altogether, and we need to elect representatives to protect our interests during the exit negotiations'.
If Yes wins, then I think the SNP would sweep the board in Scotland. Labour, Lib Dems, and Conservatives would be as relevant Portugese MPs representing Goa after 1963.
I'd agree there. You might find the Tories hanging on in the borders and the Lib Dems in Shetland etc and Labour in some of their brain dead rotten boroughs, but pretty much universal SNP other than that
Maybe a "government of national unity" [oh, the irony!] in 2015 until the Labour 40 are euthanised, followed by fresh elections?
Hmm, maybe not..
I wonder, though, about your premise. If IndyRef does produce a Yes, will Scottish Labour actually get 40 Westminster seats? As the great antifrank has pointed out, in a Yes scenario , the dynamics would be immediately changed; the issue for Scots would have moved on from 'how can we get a Westminster government which is closest to what we want' to 'we are leaving Westminster altogether, and we need to elect representatives to protect our interests during the exit negotiations'.
Of course, there's a whole range of possibilities, but Labour will almost certainly finish x seats ahead of the Tories in Scotland.
If they also happen to finish less than x seats ahead UK-wide in 2015 then... we are in the constitutional wilderness.
If no all-party coalition, maybe Labour would have to take office on an explicitly caretaker basis?
Will be interesting to see if the penny drops in the wider commentariat. Some very hard questions for Miliband, in the run-up to 2015, for sure...
"Which bits of your manifesto are you prepared to push through on the back of Scots MPs, before they are culled?"
"What happens if/when you lose your majority/plurality?"
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
NO will be a disaster for Scotland , the only country in the world to vote for someone else to run their affairs and Westminster will take revenge for us being so uppity and we will get no extra powers , only responsibilities and budget cuts.. Only a YES will do. Plus we may actually get some defence capability. Your pathetic use of "sawn" shows you are a no hoper with no vision.
'Bigoted fantasies'? Mr Tyndall? Hilarious. Take a look at immigration with countries with 'controls' - countries you like to talk about. (Talk about no more I suspect) Proportionatly much higher than ours and pretty much just as high in real terms. In fact we are controlling non EU immigration ( we cannot control emigration - or former ex pats returning) and EU immigration is mostly transitory. You are between a rock anjd a hard place when it comes to facing the truth and facing up to what really floats Carswells boat.
The new deal with Canada involves free movement of Labour and that will get wider over time. This is the modern world, what trade deals are all about. It does not matter if we have one within the EU or 28 if out of it - it will not make much real difference. The only difference is UKIP putting all that power in the hands of Labour.
BTW - Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker program in 2012 allowed a record 491,547 non-Canadians to work in Canada. (thats not counting the immigrants)
Anyone who demands free migration as a condition for trading with the UK, outside of the EU, won't get a deal. It's as simple as that.
"life as difficult as possible for legitimate students who want to come here and pay our universities to teach them "
Has there actually been a drop in the number of overseas students at our universities? The last time I looked I seem to recall there had not been either a undergraduate or post graduate level.
There had certainly been a drop at language schools and schools of management but as an awful lot of that was bogus anyway so it should have (and Labour started the crack down)
" According to official Home Office figures, student visas from India were down 24% in the year to the end of September 2013, on top of a decline of over 50% during the preceding year. Yet the British government has made relations with India one of its top external priorities."
Thanks for that. Having just had a quick dig around I have found all sorts of figures none of which correspond with any other set. Your Guardian's fifty percent drop in the previous year is reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
Yep, the blind eyes of Labour certainly helped the industry explode before it got revealed. That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
They certainly deserve to get the blame. If they do or not is a different question.
Not with the Quisling wing of the Tory party at the helm. It will take someone with metaphorical testicles and no debt to the Establishment to ensure they carry the can and pay the price (which will not be nearly enough to undo the damage they have wrought)
Scrapping Trident would be a good move for our fiscal position? Well yes, if we disarmed completely we would be about £38bn a year better off, not awfully sure it would be a good idea though. Trident is in fact incredibly cheap compared to other weapons systems and capabilities. If we were to scrap it the net annual saving wouldn't even show up as a rounding error in the treasury papers.
It is hilarious to watch those criticising UKIP and peddling the infamous so called 'free movement of Labour' mantra peddled by Brussels when UKIP's policies are no different from the EU's except in scale.
The EU limits immigration from all nations outside the EU whilst allowing free movement within. UKIP wishes to limit immigration from all nations outside the UK whilst allowing free movement within. One is national the other is quasi continental. The underlying concept is identical.
Neither support open immigration or true free movement of labour across their borders. There again what nations actually do? Australia don't, The USA do not.. Switzerland does not. In fact is there a country on the planet that does not set criteria for acquiring a work visa?
If UKIP are racist so are all supporters of the EU including the leaderships of all three establishment parties because the only difference is that the 'Little Europeans' work on a larger scale that attracts diseconomies of scale. In fact if such an immigration policy is racist then every government in the world is racist.
'Bigoted fantasies'? Mr Tyndall? Hilarious. Take a look at immigration with countries with 'controls' - countries you like to talk about. (Talk about no more I suspect) Proportionatly much higher than ours and pretty much just as high in real terms. In fact we are controlling non EU immigration ( we cannot control emigration - or former ex pats returning) and EU immigration is mostly transitory. You are between a rock anjd a hard place when it comes to facing the truth and facing up to what really floats Carswells boat.
The new deal with Canada involves free movement of Labour and that will get wider over time. This is the modern world, what trade deals are all about. It does not matter if we have one within the EU or 28 if out of it - it will not make much real difference. The only difference is UKIP putting all that power in the hands of Labour.
BTW - Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker program in 2012 allowed a record 491,547 non-Canadians to work in Canada. (thats not counting the immigrants)
Still in your own little world Flightpath. Simply ignore all the stuff you don't like and can't answer and make up more stuff that you can pretend people said.
As I said, those countries do have controls in place. They get to choose who enters - something we cannot do as far as EU migration is concerned. We on the other hand have to limit non EU migration in a way that actually harms our economy because we have so much uncontrolled migration from the EU. That is what your beloved PM has been doing the last 4 years and it is why he is in such an awful mess over migration.
I agree with Carswell. You simply don't understand him because you lack the capacity for logical thought.
I think it is time for you to take the Dried Frog pills.
Scrapping Trident would be a good move for our fiscal position? Well yes, if we disarmed completely we would be about £38bn a year better off, not awfully sure it would be a good idea though. Trident is in fact incredibly cheap compared to other weapons systems and capabilities. If we were to scrap it the net annual saving wouldn't even show up as a rounding error in the treasury papers.
100 Billion plus for the replacement sounds like a fair amount of money to me. Must be nice to be loaded.
Your pathetic use of "sawn" shows you are a no hoper with no vision.
Do you think the independence campaign has badly damaged Labour in Scotland, whether the answer is yes or no???
For sure, why they ever imagined being a front for the Tories would work is just incredible. Hard to see why they did not campaign on their own. They have stirred up a hornets nest.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
Yep, the blind eyes of Labour certainly helped the industry explode before it got revealed. That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
They certainly deserve to get the blame. If they do or not is a different question.
Not with the Quisling wing of the Tory party at the helm. It will take someone with metaphorical testicles and no debt to the Establishment to ensure they carry the can and pay the price (which will not be nearly enough to undo the damage they have wrought)
If Tory MPs who want something done about the grooming gangs switch to Ukip and make a fuss then any dirt about child molesting MPs from the 1980s that comes out as a result will only apply to the current Tory party rather than the new one - like shedding a skin.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
If YES wins the a lot of Unionists may vote Ukip to stick 2 fingers up to Eck.
That will be their choice but would be a bit strange , though the ones you are talking about will be real miffed and will be lost as to what to do. We had one of them on here today showing how stupid they are, claiming you could not be a Rangers supporter and vote YES. Their days are numbered , like the dodos they will be gone soon. Plus Alex Salmond will not be there for long , he will be retired soon.
A lot of the illegal workers the groomed children were groomed to service came via student visas.
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
Yep, the blind eyes of Labour certainly helped the industry explode before it got revealed. That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
They certainly deserve to get the blame. If they do or not is a different question.
Not with the Quisling wing of the Tory party at the helm. It will take someone with metaphorical testicles and no debt to the Establishment to ensure they carry the can and pay the price (which will not be nearly enough to undo the damage they have wrought)
If Tory MPs who want something done about the grooming gangs switch to Ukip and make a fuss then any dirt about child molesting MPs from the 1980s that comes out as a result will only apply to the current Tory party rather than the new one - like shedding a skin.
Seems an increasingly likely option. The crap the runs the party now is barely better than the Labour lot. Labours betrayal of the workers in the 80s is being rerun by the Tories and their core in the teenies
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
MD, they could indeed if a real Scottish Conservative and Unionist party was formed it would indeed suit them well.
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
Plus we may actually get some defence capability.
Fishery protection vessels, and a few helicopters.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
Perhaps but will the Conservatives retain their discipline? There will unquestionably be many calls both within and without the party for Cameron to go if there is a yes vote. There will be severe pressure on the party. Could it be a further driver for defections? Its possible the Tories could go into complete meltdown as a result. Losing the Union is no small matter and Cameron will be lucky to survive given how little his party clearly care for him.
If he were forced out could a new leader (and pre election not Boris) rally the party in time?
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
NO will be a disaster for Scotland , the only country in the world to vote for someone else to run their affairs and Westminster will take revenge for us being so uppity and we will get no extra powers , only responsibilities and budget cuts.. Only a YES will do. Plus we may actually get some defence capability. Your pathetic use of "sawn" shows you are a no hoper with no vision.
The UK has always had a Scottish minister in cabinet. Less than 5 years ago the UK also had a Scottish PM and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also had a Scottish Secretary of State for Health, Home, Defence within the last 8 years. In today's government, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a Scottish MP - controlling the purse strings. Several Scots sit for English seats as MPs - including Liam Fox and Michael Gove - who were also Secretaries of State for defence and education, respectively, in the current government.
That's not bad for a UK home nation with <10% of the population. It also give Scots and Scotland a very strong voice on the world stage - and a lot broader influence. I accept that the party politics of Scotland has moved out of kilter with the remainder of the UK over the last 20 years (which I suspect much of this referendum is about) but it's a bit of a stretch (particularly when you consider the Scottish government already has powers over health, education, housing and law & order amongst others) to say that Scotland's affairs are "run by someone else".
Nor is it true that the Scottish government will get no extra powers in the case of a NO vote - all of the mainstream parties are committing to granting further powers, including granting additional tax & spend powers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28897427
The Tories are obviously scared of bringing up the Rotherham-Labour card in case the usual suspects scream "racism". Plus, of course, some (most?) are signed up to the PC-agenda.
That is their excuse. But, where is UKIP? Are they terrified of being labelled as such by the MSM? I guess the BNP, etc are bringing these issues up but I guess this is not being covered by the BBC et al. Well, they ignored Nick Griffin when he first brought this up.
Labour can't believe their lucky stars. The LDs? Not sure anyone cares or it is assumed they're on the side of criminals, would fit the pattern.
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
NO will be a disaster for Scotland , the only country in the world to vote for someone else to run their affairs and Westminster will take revenge for us being so uppity and we will get no extra powers , only responsibilities and budget cuts.. Only a YES will do. Plus we may actually get some defence capability. Your pathetic use of "sawn" shows you are a no hoper with no vision.
The UK has always had a Scottish minister in cabinet. Less than 5 years ago the UK also had a Scottish PM and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also had a Scottish Secretary of State for Health, Home, Defence within the last 8 years. In today's government, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a Scottish MP - controlling the purse strings. Several Scots sit for English seats as MPs - including Liam Fox and Michael Gove - who were also Secretaries of State for defence and education, respectively, in the current government.
That's not bad for a UK home nation with <10% of the population. It also give Scots and Scotland a very strong voice on the world stage - and a lot broader influence. I accept that the party politics of Scotland has moved out of kilter with the remainder of the UK over the last 20 years (which I suspect much of this referendum is about) but it's a bit of a stretch (particularly when you consider the Scottish government already has powers over health, education, housing and law & order amongst others) to say that Scotland's affairs are "run by someone else".
Nor is it true that the Scottish government will get no extra powers in the case of a NO vote - all of the mainstream parties are committing to granting further powers, including granting additional tax & spend powers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28897427</p>
We do not want a few cabinet posts. We want 100% of our cabinet posts to be filled by our elected representatives. We want to govern ourselves.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
Perhaps but will the Conservatives retain their discipline? There will unquestionably be many calls both within and without the party for Cameron to go if there is a yes vote. There will be severe pressure on the party. Could it be a further driver for defections? Its possible the Tories could go into complete meltdown as a result. Losing the Union is no small matter and Cameron will be lucky to survive given how little his party clearly care for him.
If he were forced out could a new leader (and pre election not Boris) rally the party in time?
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
Plus we may actually get some defence capability.
Fishery protection vessels, and a few helicopters.
Bon Chance!
Can you tell me how many ships and helicopters we currently have providing defence in Scotland. I will give you a clue , ships = ZERO, might be lucky if we have a few sea king helicopters. So anything would be an improvement , and given we send 3.5 Billion south for nothing , it will be a lot cheaper.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
Perhaps but will the Conservatives retain their discipline? There will unquestionably be many calls both within and without the party for Cameron to go if there is a yes vote. There will be severe pressure on the party. Could it be a further driver for defections? Its possible the Tories could go into complete meltdown as a result. Losing the Union is no small matter and Cameron will be lucky to survive given how little his party clearly care for him.
If he were forced out could a new leader (and pre election not Boris) rally the party in time?
Would a Yes vote cause that sort of reaction? I am not sure. I suspect most English people (and with full respect to our Welsh and NI friends, they are too small in number to matter on this one) will shrug and say, "Yeah, whatever" and carry on. Once the politicians see that the panic will subside. I doubt that the majority of the English electorate are even aware of the referendum happening and the minority that do couldn't give a big rat's bottom.
We could be facing the nightmare scenario - an emasculated government, the prisoner of parliament, led by a hopeless berk...
'Constitutional expert Prof Robert Hazell ... pointed out that - in such circumstances - the UK government would not automatically fall.
"First of all, there would have to be a vote of no confidence in the existing government," he explained.
Under the the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, MPs would then have 14 days to form a new government that could command their confidence.
Only if that fails would new elections be held.
Prof Hazell speculated: "One outcome would be that Labour would continue in a minority government, because the other parties in the Parliament might decide that they didn't want to bring the government down.
Scrapping Trident would be a good move for our fiscal position? Well yes, if we disarmed completely we would be about £38bn a year better off, not awfully sure it would be a good idea though. Trident is in fact incredibly cheap compared to other weapons systems and capabilities. If we were to scrap it the net annual saving wouldn't even show up as a rounding error in the treasury papers.
But think Llama man if stop defence spending we could have £38 billion more to spend on overseas aid and all that "influence".
PS bought a Chapel Down fizz will let you know the score.
The Tories are obviously scared of bringing up the Rotherham-Labour card in case the usual suspects scream "racism". Plus, of course, some (most?) are signed up to the PC-agenda.
That is their excuse. But, where is UKIP? Are they terrified of being labelled as such by the MSM? I guess the BNP, etc are bringing these issues up but I guess this is not being covered by the BBC et al. Well, they ignored Nick Griffin when he first brought this up.
Labour can't believe their lucky stars. The LDs? Not sure anyone cares or it is assumed they're on the side of criminals, would fit the pattern.
Because we've not heard nearly enough about the indy ref, my view as an englishman living in Scotland is that perhaps a narrow no is better than a decisive no (a yes obviously being a disaster, for Scotland more than anyone else). I actually think it might cause less division if the inevitable new powers were seen as 'won' rather than just granted. I would be personally be particularly delighted if we were to scrap Trident - a symbolic move for Scotland as well as a victory for fiscal sanity and our rel deffence capability. It would be a victory of sort for yes, but without the nemesis of despair, poverty and recrimination that would be a sawn off Scotland. They deserve to face the music, but we don't always get what we deserve.
Plus we may actually get some defence capability.
Fishery protection vessels, and a few helicopters.
Bon Chance!
Can you tell me how many ships and helicopters we currently have providing defence in Scotland. I will give you a clue , ships = ZERO, might be lucky if we have a few sea king helicopters. So anything would be an improvement , and given we send 3.5 Billion south for nothing , it will be a lot cheaper.
You don't need them because it's the threat of 50 more coming after you that counts. Same with the rozzers, a handful of them keep order in big cities because attack one and the rest turn up.
I wonder how many Labour councillors own taxi firms that have the council contract for transporting kids to and from the children's homes in the council's area.
If YES wins the a lot of Unionists may vote Ukip to stick 2 fingers up to Eck.
Yes, probably the most convincing argument vote kipper I've heard. Count me in.
I knew we would get you over to the dark side eventually, just a matter of finding the right lever.
P.S. Do, please, let me know the result of the taste test on the Chapel Down. I shan't hold my breath, firstly because they are a Kent company (and therefore their people are by definition an bit odd and smelly) and secondly because unlike Nyetimber, Ridgeview and Bolney they don't grow all their own grapes. Stil,l I am willing be shown as wrong.
Incidentally I am due to deliver to JohnO a bottle of Ridgeview. Do you have a losing bet with him coming up? If so you could send him a bottle of Nyetimber and, if we coordinated the type, he could act as a referee in our long running dispute.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), perhaps but I suspect they might coalesce around the Conservatives. UKIP will not be a majority party, even in England. If someone really wants a tough London government to negotiate with Scotland then the Conservatives are the obvious choice.
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
Perhaps but will the Conservatives retain their discipline? There will unquestionably be many calls both within and without the party for Cameron to go if there is a yes vote. There will be severe pressure on the party. Could it be a further driver for defections? Its possible the Tories could go into complete meltdown as a result. Losing the Union is no small matter and Cameron will be lucky to survive given how little his party clearly care for him.
If he were forced out could a new leader (and pre election not Boris) rally the party in time?
Would a Yes vote cause that sort of reaction? I am not sure. I suspect most English people (and with full respect to our Welsh and NI friends, they are too small in number to matter on this one) will shrug and say, "Yeah, whatever" and carry on. Once the politicians see that the panic will subside. I doubt that the majority of the English electorate are even aware of the referendum happening and the minority that do couldn't give a big rat's bottom.
I don't know if what the voter thinks matters that much. I think there would be a severe reaction in the MSM and within the Westminster Bubble. There may also be some instability in the financial markets. It may well be that a momentum is built up in the bubble whatever the voters think. As such how the electorate feel may well be neither here nor there (for example did the electorate have much to do with forcing Blair out in favour of Brown?).
If YES wins the a lot of Unionists may vote Ukip to stick 2 fingers up to Eck.
Yes, probably the most convincing argument vote kipper I've heard. Count me in.
I knew we would get you over to the dark side eventually, just a matter of finding the right lever.
P.S. Do, please, let me know the result of the taste test on the Chapel Down. I shan't hold my breath, firstly because they are a Kent company (and therefore their people are by definition an bit odd and smelly) and secondly because unlike Nyetimber, Ridgeview and Bolney they don't grow all their own grapes. Stil,l I am willing be shown as wrong.
Incidentally I am due to deliver to JohnO a bottle of Ridgeview. Do you have a losing bet with him coming up? If so you could send him a bottle of Nyetimber and, if we coordinated the type, he could act as a referee in our long running dispute.
Fortunately I don't have a bet with John O, as he has me in the raving liberal fascist camp, but if he can concede that Osborne is a waste of space I'll stump up for the Nyetimber :-)
My view is that if Scotland voted Yes, UKIP would surge South of the Border.
What would be paramount for rUK would be to elect a government with the strongest mandate possible (i.e. a landslide) to be as tough as possible with Scotland in the post referendum negotiations.
Who would rUK most trust to stand up for our interests against Salmond in the negotiating room? That would be the question.
If is should be the Tories (or the Tories are part of it) can we put this request in now please:
I'm sure this argument has been made here before: what price a full international land border in this island?
If Scotland votes YES; If Scotland then joins/remains in the EU; If rUK then votes to leave the EU, and; If rUK and Scotland then adopt different immigration policies
Then the English/Scottish border needs to have the 21st version of Hadrian's Wall to make those separate immigration policies credible. A land border is typically more porous than a sea/air one, so to control that immigration properly - and stop EU citizens flying to Scotland to migrate into England - you'd have to have full border controls from Carlisle to Berwick. Not good for the operation of a single market/currency union within these islands, nor for Britons living within one country trying to regularly commute to another.
The alternative is for one nation to adopt the immigration policies of the other. One of the earliest choices an independent Scotland might need to make (provided its EU membership is automatic) is whether to join Schengen or not - and that decision may be led by the more dominant economy, which will be rUK. Just as Ireland has felt obliged to opt out in order to maintain the Common Travel Area with the UK.
However, if Scotland stays in the EU - and rUK leaves to repatriate control over 'freedom of movement' - then this is unavoidable because Scotland can't match the rUK immigration policy *and* remain within the EU. Or (to be fair) the rUK government accepts a gaping hole in its border net and grants Scotland Common Travel Area privileges nonetheless.
So a full international border could well be reality within 10-15 years, with all the obvious ramifications for trade and the economy, unless Scotland and rUK policy with respect to EU membership (and immigration) moves in synch.
Either an independent Scotland has to follow the decisions of rUK on the EU/immigration to maintain the trade and economic benefits (in which it will have no say, rather that at present some say) or rUK will have to acquiesce and accept a "hole" in its border controls, or Scotland can decide to maintain its sovereignty on both, but accept the internal border economic and family penalties of that across the British Isles.
Comments
Now please humour me and and answer the question.
Lab + LD = 289
Con + UKIP =281
leaving 3 PC and 18 NI
In practice we might well have a situation where no party can form a stable government; however, that would be true irrespective of whether the numbers were due to change in a couple of years time when the Scots leave Westminster for ever.
then some might think those "democratic rules" should be changed between September 19th and May 7th, I guess.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ting-tong-row-rumbles-on-22346/
Good luck with that one Carswell. I suggest Mr Munday stands in the tory open primary.
For example
a) would you rather have strawberry icecream or a pint of beer?
versus
b) would you rather have a heart attack or cancer?
Maybe a "government of national unity" [oh, the irony!] in 2015 until the Labour 40 are euthanised, followed by fresh rUK elections?
The Trotskyites of the right are wrecking the Conservative party
Forget international crises and domestic suffering, Tory ideologues are in the grip of a corrosive Euromania
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/trotskyites-right-wrecking-tory-party?CMP=twt_gu
I wonder, though, about your premise. If IndyRef does produce a Yes, will Scottish Labour actually get 40 Westminster seats? As the great antifrank has pointed out, in a Yes scenario , the dynamics would be immediately changed; the issue for Scots would have moved on from 'how can we get a Westminster government which is closest to what we want' to 'we are leaving Westminster altogether, and we need to elect representatives to protect our interests during the exit negotiations'.
As I have said on here often I would welcome more educated and skilled immigrants from the rest of the world - and that includes Pakistan. The best way to do that would be to leave the EU and have proper control of our borders so we could decide for ourselves who benefits the UK rather than the current situation where we have no control over a large proportion of UK migration.
Of course since you are lost in your own bigoted fantasies (I suspect drugs are involved but you don't have to volunteer anything) then I don't expect any of this to get through.
But rest assured, your continual lunatic rantings are not going to win any converts. Indeed I suspect a lot of Tories might be quite shamed by your comments. I know I would be if I were in the same party as you.
*via Reuters
Who knew what and when? And what position do they now hold in the Labour Party?
http://www.talkcarswell.com/home/after-out-what-do-we-want-britain-to-be-like/2779
''First and second generation Britons must feel as comfortable voting to quit the EU as those whose ancestors came over before William the Conqueror.''
Nor do you read about what 'free trade' agreements mean, despite me putting it into print. It means free movement of labour - as i think Mr Navabi has pointed out. You are delusional and clearly ignorant about Carswell's beliefs.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/08/douglas-carswell
''Unlike most of his new party, his instincts on immigration are liberal, he cares deeply about civil liberties and wants to disestablish the church. ''
That's the civil liberties of Pakistanis
And when he was last in opposition he was quite happy to open up our borders for defence procurement (and throw many jobs on the dole and to hell with our security)
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2008/10/douglas-carswel-2.html
Easy to see he is not MP for Preston or Barrow or Southampton or Portsmouth.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/comrades-war-decline-and-fall-socialist-workers-party
The claim was made by a Gordon Jelley, who "worked as a training officer for social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 2005 and 2009". He claims "the council was under the cosh from New Labour targets after it failed an inspection."
Things are bad op-north when even the Socialist Worker blames Labour ; )
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/38884/Rotherham+child+abuse+-+blame+cops+and+the+cuts,+not+political+correctness
"You and Nelson obviously take a more nuanced view"
Holding political press conferences and instigating divorce proceedings while serving a life sentence was tricky?
reported as a 25% drop by the BBC.
The answer to my question would seem to be yes there has been a drop but the numbers remain high and the reason for the drop is unclear (might be the visa requirements, might be the fees, might be anything).
Incidentally the son of an old colleague, destined for Oxbridge, was head-hunted by a new university in the UAE, no fees, free board and lodging and a full cast of top-quality international students (Americans, Chinese, Indians, Brits, Germans, you name it) all lessons taught in English by tutors who have worked in top unis all over the world. Someone is putting out some serious competition for the really bright students. Of course, entry to the top US unis is needs- blind.
If it was that close , there could be many appeals and recounts ?
The one for the Welsh Assembly was close if I remember correctly.
Tyndall's exposes another liar!!
Well done Richard!
edit: It started as clan-based cottage industry child abuse then turned into an industry to service the millions of illegal workers. It's all connected to the same thing.
I'd expected you to have known more about his history.
"Apparently IS have beheaded Steven Soltoff.*"
True apparently. Puts other stuff into perspective.
Of course a lunatic Europhile like yourself has a complete logic fail when it comes to the basic idea that large scale uncontrolled migration from the EU actually hinders migration from places like India and Pakistan since it warps the whole immigration debate.
But because you are clearly having difficulty with basic concepts I will spell it out again.
End uncontrolled migration from the EU. (To do this of course you have to leave the EU)
Introduce a proper points system that decides who should be allowed to enter and settle in the UK based on their value to the country.(with a reasonable number of genuine asylum seekers allowed in addition)
Introduce a fair (and I would suggest liberal) system of student visas to allow our Universities to benefit from their reputations and enroll fee paying students from around the world.
Adjust the immigration points system on an ongoing basis based on the year to year needs of the country.
It is really not that difficult - but of course is all predicated on having to leave your beloved EU. So instead you would rather stick with the current racist system that says that an unemployed German should have more right to settle in the UK than a highly skilled Pakistani engineer.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/questions-of-independence-why-has-the-yes-campaign-had-a-boost-in-the-polls
That party needs to become synonymous with this sickening episode.
Take a look at immigration with countries with 'controls' - countries you like to talk about. (Talk about no more I suspect) Proportionatly much higher than ours and pretty much just as high in real terms.
In fact we are controlling non EU immigration ( we cannot control emigration - or former ex pats returning) and EU immigration is mostly transitory.
You are between a rock anjd a hard place when it comes to facing the truth and facing up to what really floats Carswells boat.
The new deal with Canada involves free movement of Labour and that will get wider over time. This is the modern world, what trade deals are all about. It does not matter if we have one within the EU or 28 if out of it - it will not make much real difference.
The only difference is UKIP putting all that power in the hands of Labour.
BTW - Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker program in 2012 allowed a record 491,547 non-Canadians to work in Canada. (thats not counting the immigrants)
If they also happen to finish less than x seats ahead UK-wide in 2015 then... we are in the constitutional wilderness.
If no all-party coalition, maybe Labour would have to take office on an explicitly caretaker basis?
Will be interesting to see if the penny drops in the wider commentariat. Some very hard questions for Miliband, in the run-up to 2015, for sure...
"Which bits of your manifesto are you prepared to push through on the back of Scots MPs, before they are culled?"
"What happens if/when you lose your majority/plurality?"
Only a YES will do. Plus we may actually get some defence capability. Your pathetic use of "sawn" shows you are a no hoper with no vision.
Anyone who demands free migration as a condition for trading with the UK, outside of the EU, won't get a deal. It's as simple as that.
Scrapping Trident would be a good move for our fiscal position? Well yes, if we disarmed completely we would be about £38bn a year better off, not awfully sure it would be a good idea though. Trident is in fact incredibly cheap compared to other weapons systems and capabilities. If we were to scrap it the net annual saving wouldn't even show up as a rounding error in the treasury papers.
The EU limits immigration from all nations outside the EU whilst allowing free movement within. UKIP wishes to limit immigration from all nations outside the UK whilst allowing free movement within. One is national the other is quasi continental. The underlying concept is identical.
Neither support open immigration or true free movement of labour across their borders. There again what nations actually do? Australia don't, The USA do not.. Switzerland does not. In fact is there a country on the planet that does not set criteria for acquiring a work visa?
If UKIP are racist so are all supporters of the EU including the leaderships of all three establishment parties because the only difference is that the 'Little Europeans' work on a larger scale that attracts diseconomies of scale. In fact if such an immigration policy is racist then every government in the world is racist.
As I said, those countries do have controls in place. They get to choose who enters - something we cannot do as far as EU migration is concerned. We on the other hand have to limit non EU migration in a way that actually harms our economy because we have so much uncontrolled migration from the EU. That is what your beloved PM has been doing the last 4 years and it is why he is in such an awful mess over migration.
I agree with Carswell. You simply don't understand him because you lack the capacity for logical thought.
I think it is time for you to take the Dried Frog pills.
Do you think the independence campaign has badly damaged Labour in Scotland, whether the answer is yes or no???
Hard to see why they did not campaign on their own. They have stirred up a hornets nest.
http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/9/2/steven_sutloff_.html
Voting UKIP would just let Labour in, and Labour are far more associated with Scotland than the Conservatives.
Thanks. It looks like it....
Plus Alex Salmond will not be there for long , he will be retired soon.
Give up Flightpath. You can't beat us. When we take power we'll be setting up camps where people like you will be sent for re-education.
As I believe the Labourite politburo in Rotherham did to dissenting voices.
Labours betrayal of the workers in the 80s is being rerun by the Tories and their core in the teenies
Bon Chance!
If he were forced out could a new leader (and pre election not Boris) rally the party in time?
That's not bad for a UK home nation with <10% of the population. It also give Scots and Scotland a very strong voice on the world stage - and a lot broader influence. I accept that the party politics of Scotland has moved out of kilter with the remainder of the UK over the last 20 years (which I suspect much of this referendum is about) but it's a bit of a stretch (particularly when you consider the Scottish government already has powers over health, education, housing and law & order amongst others) to say that Scotland's affairs are "run by someone else".
Nor is it true that the Scottish government will get no extra powers in the case of a NO vote - all of the mainstream parties are committing to granting further powers, including granting additional tax & spend powers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28897427
Well, "expecting" is putting it a bit strongly. But they are due.
That is their excuse. But, where is UKIP? Are they terrified of being labelled as such by the MSM? I guess the BNP, etc are bringing these issues up but I guess this is not being covered by the BBC et al. Well, they ignored Nick Griffin when he first brought this up.
Labour can't believe their lucky stars. The LDs? Not sure anyone cares or it is assumed they're on the side of criminals, would fit the pattern.
Yes.
No.
'Constitutional expert Prof Robert Hazell ... pointed out that - in such circumstances - the UK government would not automatically fall.
"First of all, there would have to be a vote of no confidence in the existing government," he explained.
Under the the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, MPs would then have 14 days to form a new government that could command their confidence.
Only if that fails would new elections be held.
Prof Hazell speculated: "One outcome would be that Labour would continue in a minority government, because the other parties in the Parliament might decide that they didn't want to bring the government down.
"They might decide they would exert greater leverage over the government by keeping it as a minority."'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26052514
Time to dust off my emigration plans once more...
PS bought a Chapel Down fizz will let you know the score.
http://www.yesscotland.net/sites/default/files/styles/blog_individual/public/article/image/port_glasgow005_copy.png?itok=rc4MQZjk
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/ukip-councillors-demand-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims-in-rotherham-1-6817740
UKIP nationally:
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_s_jane_collins_mep_comments_on_rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_report
Do not conflate a lack of publicity with a lack of attention.
Apart from in Rotherham obviously.
On a 33% turnout.
Not so much 2 fingers as half a wee willie.
P.S. Do, please, let me know the result of the taste test on the Chapel Down. I shan't hold my breath, firstly because they are a Kent company (and therefore their people are by definition an bit odd and smelly) and secondly because unlike Nyetimber, Ridgeview and Bolney they don't grow all their own grapes. Stil,l I am willing be shown as wrong.
Incidentally I am due to deliver to JohnO a bottle of Ridgeview. Do you have a losing bet with him coming up? If so you could send him a bottle of Nyetimber and, if we coordinated the type, he could act as a referee in our long running dispute.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29038804
Just as well the state doesn't do brewing.
Who would rUK most trust to stand up for our interests against Salmond in the negotiating room? That would be the question.
If is should be the Tories (or the Tories are part of it) can we put this request in now please:
Keep Oliver bloody Letwin out of it! :O
If Scotland votes YES;
If Scotland then joins/remains in the EU;
If rUK then votes to leave the EU, and;
If rUK and Scotland then adopt different immigration policies
Then the English/Scottish border needs to have the 21st version of Hadrian's Wall to make those separate immigration policies credible. A land border is typically more porous than a sea/air one, so to control that immigration properly - and stop EU citizens flying to Scotland to migrate into England - you'd have to have full border controls from Carlisle to Berwick. Not good for the operation of a single market/currency union within these islands, nor for Britons living within one country trying to regularly commute to another.
The alternative is for one nation to adopt the immigration policies of the other. One of the earliest choices an independent Scotland might need to make (provided its EU membership is automatic) is whether to join Schengen or not - and that decision may be led by the more dominant economy, which will be rUK. Just as Ireland has felt obliged to opt out in order to maintain the Common Travel Area with the UK.
However, if Scotland stays in the EU - and rUK leaves to repatriate control over 'freedom of movement' - then this is unavoidable because Scotland can't match the rUK immigration policy *and* remain within the EU. Or (to be fair) the rUK government accepts a gaping hole in its border net and grants Scotland Common Travel Area privileges nonetheless.
So a full international border could well be reality within 10-15 years, with all the obvious ramifications for trade and the economy, unless Scotland and rUK policy with respect to EU membership (and immigration) moves in synch.
Either an independent Scotland has to follow the decisions of rUK on the EU/immigration to maintain the trade and economic benefits (in which it will have no say, rather that at present some say) or rUK will have to acquiesce and accept a "hole" in its border controls, or Scotland can decide to maintain its sovereignty on both, but accept the internal border economic and family penalties of that across the British Isles.
Interesting conundrum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-29029364