Like others, I really can't see that Andy Burnham is the answer to any question Labour should be asking itself. There is no doubting, though, that he is very popular in the party, and ultimately that is what will determine the outcome if there is any leadership contest in the near future.
The odd thing is that this comradely affection for Andy Burnham didn't seem to be very evident in the 2010 leadership contest, where he came an ignominious 4th out of 5 and only a touch ahead of Diane Abbott. I rather think the electoral college were right then.
On the question of whether there is any realistic chance of Ed being defenestrated before the GE, I think Henry G is greatly over-stating it with his estimate of 10%; Nick P is closer to the mark with 0%. One thing I'm quite sure about is that there is one person in the Labour Party who has absolutely confidence in the leader's ability - and he's not going voluntarily.
Remembering Hugh Gaitskell and John Smith reminds us that being a Labour opposition leader is unhealthy, so Dr Palmer's 0% prognosis is untenable.
There’s a rugby club-type song I recall from the 50’s, one verse of which ran
“My uncle’s a slum missionary He’s saving young maidens from sin He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!
I would have taken the opposite conclusion: that people can only joke about these things in a "wahey" sort of way, if they haven't seen the reality of what abuse is actually like.
See what you mean. But how about “She was poor but she was honest”? That seems to have some awareness of the reality. Besides which, that was the 50’s and earlier and maybe attitudes were different. We’ve discussed here before whether one can judge actions in the past by the standards of today. Thomas Jefferson is a case in point.
I'd add to the list: The inability of democracies to address fundamental challenges in a sensible / structured / logical / scientific way - because the 'right' answers may not be popular. The challenge of 'I know what to do but not how to get re-elected if I do it'. We may be doomed to a cycle of decadent decline and extinction because it is not politically or electorally possible to deal with gorillas in corners.
In a certain sense the undemocratic nations have an advantage here. China sucks in many ways, for example - but they can decide just to get on with new nuclear or fracking or set economic policy without worrying too much how popular it is. It enables a pragmatic cause and effect approach to policy.
The answer cannot, of course, be to undermine democracy. But it must involve having honest and practical political discourse. Ed's speech and its apparent popularity and Eck's referendum campaign are clear evidence of how very very far away from that we are. It bodes ill.
"One fancied leadership candidate has already taken to donating sizeable cheques to parliamentary candidates in winnable seats rather than donate directly to the party, which could be seen as an unspoken attempt to purchase future political loyalty and support with MPs."
Who do we think this is?
Ah the founders of the Labour Party would be so proud
There’s a rugby club-type song I recall from the 50’s, one verse of which ran
“My uncle’s a slum missionary He’s saving young maidens from sin He’ll save you a blonde for a shilling My God how the money rolls in!”
Which suggests, as Mr I A reports, that there was indeed widespread knowledge of abuse. Other scout troops scoutmasters were often matters of concern. Never, or at least in only one case of which I’m aware, one’s own, though!
I would have taken the opposite conclusion: that people can only joke about these things in a "wahey" sort of way, if they haven't seen the reality of what abuse is actually like.
See what you mean. But how about “She was poor but she was honest”? That seems to have some awareness of the reality. Besides which, that was the 50’s and earlier and maybe attitudes were different. We’ve discussed here before whether one can judge actions in the past by the standards of today. Thomas Jefferson is a case in point.
Thomas Jefferson's rape of his slaves was an evil thing. Just because it was widely accepted by the society that he was in doesn't make it any less evil. Right and wrong are not relative things. If something is cruel to others, it is cruel to others, regardless of what others think.
This week's GE 2015 projection from Stephen Fisher, based on UKPR's latest polling average, shows the Tories and Labour as being neck and neck. Last week's figures are shown in brackets:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 44s Burying bad news alert MT @davidbarrett Passport Office to be abolished, brought into direct ministerial control TMay announces
Yup, Ed Miliband isn't going anywhere. Labour are stuck with him. I'm more interested in the post-election positioning that's already going on, that tells you what the shadow cabinet et al really think about their chances.
The idea that defecting 2010 Lib Dems will carry them over the line is a myth. Labour will lose.
Dan Jukes @DanJukes17 2m UKIP Defence Spokesman @Mike_Hookem: The people who deserve a round of applause are the people who serve this country pic.twitter.com/kSjFLhQpUV Embedded image permalink
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Exactly, it implies all land is the property of the state rather than the citizenry who have title to it. A radical change in England's long history that undermines property rights that is the foundation of so much.
I am not a fan of the mansion tax but not understand this argument. Conceptually how does it differfrom CCouncil Tax?
Never been a militant atheist - more a pretty quiet one until I was about 17yrs old. I hugely resented being told to pray at school and all the stuff that went with it. I developed quite a taste for religious mockery in all its forms and still enjoy it hugely.
TBH, maybe things have changed a lot, but saying you're an atheist these days is hardly even noticed. Back when I was a youngster in the 70s/early 80s it was really frowned on. Like saying you didn't want kids.
I've several very religious/evangelical/baptist friends and wouldn't dream of maligning their beliefs. I make a lot of jokes about how they'll have the last laugh when I'm dragged down to Hell ;^ )
I think Dave Allen is by far one of the cleverest mickey takers in this respect. I loved his stuff. Very fond of Colin Bateman too re Irish sectarianism.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
I agree with what you said about religion on the last thread, ie the ugly child.
I was a militant atheist for a while and was definitely of the mindset that childish name calling of something dear to other peoples hearts ( "spaghetti monster" or "sky fairy" ) was oh so clever. Richard Dawkins was a bit of a hero, along with the likes of Dan Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.
Now their hectoring tone reminds me of the people who resort to smearing and false accusations on here. Some atheists act as if they deserve a medal for figuring out that the re is no way of proving Gods existence, as if believers didn't know that already.
The same kind of mindset employs the double standard of saying so much of life is not black and white but subtle shades of grey yet being absolutely rigidly black and white on things they have strong opinions about, especially when it allows them to mock those on the other side of the argument (gay marriage is another subject on which I find free thinking liberals are extremely illiberal, opposition to mass immigration is another where refusal to agree with them is license to be called whatever extreme names they choose)
Andy Burnham originally a Blairite has apparently tacked left to boost his support within the party. Ditching your beliefs in order to curry favour is not a trait I admire. For me Mr and Mrs Balls are the obvious choices for Lab as leader and shadow chancellor if they not only want to win GE2015 but also face up to the serious problems on the deficit that they will be their lot afterwards. But a husband and wife team at No 10 and 11 seems unlikely. Now would not be the time for relative novices like Umunna and Reeves. So EdM will remain.
Whilst I think Mr Galloway is a dangerous fellow, he's great box office.
His spleen at a panel of US senator types was hilarious viewing. I used to listen to his radio show on TalkSport occasionally and I really can't see why anyone would phone up. He just bludgeons them with soaring rhetoric.
On topic, Burnham is as much of a dud as either Miliband to me. I can't think of any impressive Labour MP, let alone potential leader.
Ed Balls at least has a bit of spunk about him I suppose. Frank Field, Alan Johnson, and Danczuk too.
It doesn't bother me who wins the next election, part of me is still willing Ed to succeed out of a combo of sense of loyalty and feeling sorry for him... But last nights This Week was a long piss take out of him, Andrew Rawnsleys clip about his speech was pretty devastating, he made Ed look an absolute chump of the highest order. I can't imagine him being PM
Galloway destroyed Jacqui Smith on there by the way... I thought she was going to start crying at one point. He has convinced me that we shouldn't go ahead with air strikes on ISIS
Actually come to think of it UKIP have missed a trick. I see they've got several sessions titled 'Leaving Labour'. They should have got Winston McKenzie to do a wrap-up session titled 'Leaving Labour, the LibDems, Veritas, the Conservatives, Unity and the independents'
Actually come to think of it UKIP have missed a trick. I see they've got several sessions titled 'Leaving Labour'. They should have got Winston McKenzie to do a wrap-up session titled 'Leaving Labour, the LibDems, Veritas, the Conservatives, Unity and the independents'
Actually come to think of it UKIP have missed a trick. I see they've got several sessions titled 'Leaving Labour'. They should have got Winston McKenzie to do a wrap-up session titled 'Leaving Labour, the LibDems, Veritas, the Conservatives, Unity and the independents'
Re bombing ISIS, last night you said that Farage was putting himself on the side of the beheaders by opposing air strikes... I think that's a bit strong, but anyway...
If we bomb them, aren't we going to kill our hostages anyway?
Collateral damage not much better than beheading in my book
Why not pay the ransom, get all our own that are taken hostage back, and leave it at that?
This week's GE 2015 projection from Stephen Fisher, based on UKPR's latest polling average, shows the Tories and Labour as being neck and neck. Last week's figures are shown in brackets:
That would be a complete mess. With Sinn Fein not taking their seats Con+LD could just about scrape together a majority of 1. Or Lab+LD+SNP could scrape together a tiny majority. Nothing sustainable though. Would have to be Con minority for a few months then a fresh election.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
So what?
If a family member of yours was in that predicament, and less than 0.01% of your wealth would save their head being chopped off would you refuse on point of principle?
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
And ultimately would increase the number of kidnappings.
Re bombing ISIS, last night you said that Farage was putting himself on the side of the beheaders by opposing air strikes... I think that's a bit strong, but anyway...
If we bomb them, aren't we going to kill our hostages anyway?
Collateral damage not much better than beheading in my book
Why not pay the ransom, get all our own that are taken hostage back, and leave it at that?
No, I didn't quite say that. I said there's a risk it will look like that, especially since Nigel Farage sounded rather flippant about it (to be fair, he's corrected that in his more recent remarks).
Paying ransoms has historically been ruled out by successive UK governments on the grounds that it encourages more hostage-taking. I think that is, sadly for the hostages and their families, the right policy.
Actually come to think of it UKIP have missed a trick. I see they've got several sessions titled 'Leaving Labour'. They should have got Winston McKenzie to do a wrap-up session titled 'Leaving Labour, the LibDems, Veritas, the Conservatives, Unity and the independents'
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Mr. Isam, I'm surprised to hear such an ardent UKIPper advocating appeasement.
The British state should not fund terrorism. I feel sympathy for the families of the kidnapped, and the victims themselves, but Cameron has made absolutely the right call on this.
Mr. Eagles, quite so. If we (using behaviourism as a template) reward bad behaviour, we encourage it, and there will be more.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Exactly, it implies all land is the property of the state rather than the citizenry who have title to it. A radical change in England's long history that undermines property rights that is the foundation of so much.
Quite agree, good to see the insidious effect of the Mansion Tax proposal is sinking in at last.
Re bombing ISIS, last night you said that Farage was putting himself on the side of the beheaders by opposing air strikes... I think that's a bit strong, but anyway...
If we bomb them, aren't we going to kill our hostages anyway?
Collateral damage not much better than beheading in my book
Why not pay the ransom, get all our own that are taken hostage back, and leave it at that?
No, I didn't quite say that. I said there's a risk it will look like that, especially since Nigel Farage sounded rather flippant about it (to be fair, he's corrected that in his more recent remarks).
Paying ransoms has historically been ruled out by successive UK governments on the grounds that it encourages more hostage-taking. I think that is, sadly for the hostages and their families, the right policy.
Well we haven't paid them in the past.. and hostages are still being taken... and killed
So that hasn't worked
Our proposal seems to be to let them be kidnapped, refuse to pay the ransom, then kill them ourselves by bombing ISIL
Mr. Isam, I'm surprised to hear such an ardent UKIPper advocating appeasement.
The British state should not fund terrorism. I feel sympathy for the families of the kidnapped, and the victims themselves, but Cameron has made absolutely the right call on this.
Mr. Eagles, quite so. If we (using behaviourism as a template) reward bad behaviour, we encourage it, and there will be more.
Well what do you expect from the party led by Farage, supporter of Putin.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Exactly, it implies all land is the property of the state rather than the citizenry who have title to it. A radical change in England's long history that undermines property rights that is the foundation of so much.
Quite agree, good to see the insidious effect of the Mansion Tax proposal is sinking in at last.
Doesn’t much of the "property right” descend from the expropriation of the common land in the 18th C?
typo in the UKIP conference schedule. Those scallywags at the BBC.
After Douglas Carswell's name they have put "prospective parliamentary candidate" instead of "prospective party leader".
Almost the only certainty following the election is that UKIP isn't big enough for both Farage and Carswell.
I'm not sure that I agree actually - My impression of Carswell is that he isn't leadership potential, and unusually for a politician is actually aware of that and is happy being a leading light advocating causes he's passionate about, without actually having to be leader. As I say, just an impression that I get so could easily be wrong...
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
typo in the UKIP conference schedule. Those scallywags at the BBC.
After Douglas Carswell's name they have put "prospective parliamentary candidate" instead of "prospective party leader".
Almost the only certainty following the election is that UKIP isn't big enough for both Farage and Carswell.
I'm not sure that I agree actually - My impression of Carswell is that he isn't leadership potential, and unusually for a politician is actually aware of that and is happy being a leading light advocating causes he's passionate about, without actually having to be leader. As I say, just an impression that I get so could easily be wrong...
He is certainly ambitious though - hence his ship jumping when the local polls turned nasty.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
Yup, Ed Miliband isn't going anywhere. Labour are stuck with him. I'm more interested in the post-election positioning that's already going on, that tells you what the shadow cabinet et al really think about their chances.
The idea that defecting 2010 Lib Dems will carry them over the line is a myth. Labour will lose.
The question is how many "defectors" will really vote Labour when the time comes. Some undoubtedly are basically Labour left wingers temporarily disillusioned by Iraq and its aftermath and voting LD in 2005 and 2010 in protest. They will continue to support Ed. Others might have been caught up in Cleggasm in which case I don't think Lab can rely on them in 2015. Perhaps a few are more motivated by anti Toryism than anything else and have always wanted their preferred party to pull out of coalition hence they're responding to pollsters as Lab voters. Will some of that protest vote fall away as the GE becomes imminent?
This week's GE 2015 projection from Stephen Fisher, based on UKPR's latest polling average, shows the Tories and Labour as being neck and neck. Last week's figures are shown in brackets:
That would be a complete mess. With Sinn Fein not taking their seats Con+LD could just about scrape together a majority of 1. Or Lab+LD+SNP could scrape together a tiny majority. Nothing sustainable though. Would have to be Con minority for a few months then a fresh election.
One problem with that is that the small majority would have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which prevents a General Election before May 2020, unless the Government loses a vote of confidence (which it can reverse within 14 days) or if the House resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election”, which must have a two-thrids vote in favour.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
I wasn't being dismissive of you. I just know you're a bright guy that usually makes well-reasoned thoughtful arguments, so the argument that "well arms we're providing to other groups are getting into ISIS hands so there'd be no additional harm in giving them millions directly" seemed out of character.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
It used to be only "small change" for Somali pirates which the ship owners paid. Now it's a multi-million "industry".
Turn your arguments around: surely it is mad to create many more hostages because you hand over money for 1 or 2 now.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
I wasn't being dismissive of you. I just know you're a bright guy that usually makes well-reasoned thoughtful arguments, so the argument that "well arms we're providing to other groups are getting into ISIS hands so there'd be no additional harm in giving them millions directly" seemed out of character.
Maybe I should butt out of this one.. .instinctively I want harm to come to ISIL, and dontcare if they all die, but every time we go into these wars, we get more terrorism and extremism.. and is it really any of or business?
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
There does seem to be a vacancy for a low tax party.
I was disappointed UKIP didn't score higher in the 'cost of living' question in the recent Comres poll. They are the only party advocating lower energy costs, all the other parties want to increase the price of energy.
Blackberry's handset sales are down even further, Jason Orange leaves Take That, Apple's latest iPhone update goes pear shaped, and a giant plum forgets part of his speech at the Labour Party Conference.
We had a bit of discussion here yesterday re the £8 Min Wage pledge from EdM during his speech.
This caught my eye in the DT
Ed Miliband's planned minimum wage rise to £8 by 2020 would actually be 6p lower than the one that is on course to be delivered by the Low Pay Commission Steve Hawkes writes in the Sun, while, Sam Dunn reports in the Mail, his mooted mansion tax would raise less than planned according to the estate agent Savills. They estimate that the mansion tax would hit revenues on stamp duty and inheritance tax as the cost of housing fell, wiping out any revenue increases made by the tax.
Blackberry's handset sales are down even further, Jason Orange leaves Take That, Apple's latest iPhone update goes pear shaped, and a giant plum forgets part of his speech at the Labour Party Conference.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
I wasn't being dismissive of you. I just know you're a bright guy that usually makes well-reasoned thoughtful arguments, so the argument that "well arms we're providing to other groups are getting into ISIS hands so there'd be no additional harm in giving them millions directly" seemed out of character.
Maybe I should butt out of this one.. .instinctively I want harm to come to ISIL, and dontcare if they all die, but every time we go into these wars, we get more terrorism and extremism.. and is it really any of or business?
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
I think that paying a ransom would only encourage more hostage-taking.
Our intervention abroad has both been successful on occasions (eg Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) disastrous (Iraq) or somewhere in between (Afghanistan). IMO ISIL are like the Khmer Rouge of our time, and we should assist the Iraqi government to repel them.
Saw a tiny bit of the Commons debate just now. That arse Hain was seemingly upset that Cameron said (quite rightly) that if urgent action were necessary he [Cameron] would authorise it without addressing the House, but then explain his reasoning to the Commons at the first opportunity.
Hain seemed put out by this, which is really quite odd.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
I wasn't being dismissive of you. I just know you're a bright guy that usually makes well-reasoned thoughtful arguments, so the argument that "well arms we're providing to other groups are getting into ISIS hands so there'd be no additional harm in giving them millions directly" seemed out of character.
Maybe I should butt out of this one.. .instinctively I want harm to come to ISIL, and dontcare if they all die, but every time we go into these wars, we get more terrorism and extremism.. and is it really any of or business?
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
ISIL are clearly a group that has a deliberate strategy of inflaming anger in the West. They've done it to this point via beheadings and outrageous commandments to the population under their control. Do you really not think they would be willing to commit Lee Rigby style murders in Western cities? Giving them money to secure their power base to enable them to train people with Western passports before sending them back to London, Paris and Washington to do this would be a huge mistake.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
It used to be only "small change" for Somali pirates which the ship owners paid. Now it's a multi-million "industry".
Turn your arguments around: surely it is mad to create many more hostages because you hand over money for 1 or 2 now.
I am not saying its perfect or there are no downsides
To my minf people who go do gooding in the middle East kind of know what the risks are.. but maybe we should do it once, tell British people not to go there anymore, and draw the line
All I can say is what we have done before didn't work, and it seems to me that is what we are doing again.
3rd time lucky maybe
I am no expert, it seems everyone else on here is, so lets bomb away, and so long Messrs Henning and Cantlie RIP
We had a bit of discussion here yesterday re the £8 Min Wage pledge from EdM during his speech.
It was always a soundbite.
- It's six years away - It's little more than 3% a year and that will be touch and go in terms of matching inflation - There is no mention of the tax free element.
It's often claimed that businesses use tax credits to subsidise wages, but what effect does 20% taxation plus 12% NI have on the wage?
Someone doing 40 hours of work on minimum wage (from 1 OCT) has the value of their wages reduced by nearly £1400 a year by state taxation.
Money in pocket would go up £26.38 a week (£104.31 a month) if the government stood aside.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
Theyre using weapons and machinery paid for by us anyway, why not cut out the middle man?
I'm assuming you're making this as a snappy comeback rather than something you've thought through.
We cant all be deep thinking know it alls on every subject, apologies.
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
I wasn't being dismissive of you. I just know you're a bright guy that usually makes well-reasoned thoughtful arguments, so the argument that "well arms we're providing to other groups are getting into ISIS hands so there'd be no additional harm in giving them millions directly" seemed out of character.
Maybe I should butt out of this one.. .instinctively I want harm to come to ISIL, and dontcare if they all die, but every time we go into these wars, we get more terrorism and extremism.. and is it really any of or business?
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
I think that paying a ransom would only encourage more hostage-taking.
Our intervention abroad has both been successful on occasions (eg Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) disastrous (Iraq) or somewhere in between (Afghanistan). IMO ISIL are like the Khmer Rouge of our time, and we should assist the Iraqi government to repel them.
They are taking hostages because they don't want us to take action.
The ransom is neither here nor there - it's not like they are all subsistence farmers in Quetta.
Wonder if Sunil is off riding the Epping-Ongar railway today - they posted pics of diesel hauled train of Craven's tube stock on facebook. Apparently running all weekend to celebrate the original closure 20 years ago!
Why introduce another tax band? Why not simply put the 'threshold' for 40% up by £10k? It would have exactly the same effect, but would cost much less to implement.
Remember: as regards tax, simplification is *always* better.
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
""Modest” price drops in the London market are to be expected to follow this month's 0.1pc decline, according to the latest Hometrack report, as buyers reject inflated prices and force vendors to slash their expectations."
""Modest” price drops in the London market are to be expected to follow this month's 0.1pc decline, according to the latest Hometrack report, as buyers reject inflated prices and force vendors to slash their expectations."
Can't be right.
For the last few years we were spammed here on a daily basis that Osborne was stoking a housing boom
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
That was my assumption until today but he just supported re-invading the middle-east. I know it's easier in opposition but can he hold the coalition together while doing that? Clearly the LibDems won't be doing any opposing either but maybe the combination of Green+UKIP+DNV could take a chunk?
Why introduce another tax band? Why not simply put the 'threshold' for 40% up by £10k? It would have exactly the same effect, but would cost much less to implement.
Remember: as regards tax, simplification is *always* better.
No extra band, is there?
20 = 20 (starts at £13500 instead of 10000 now) 40 = 35 (starts at £44000) 45 = 40 (starts at £55000)
Lowest rate kicks in later than now Middle rate is cut Top rate is cut.
Saw a tiny bit of the Commons debate just now. That arse Hain was seemingly upset that Cameron said (quite rightly) that if urgent action were necessary he [Cameron] would authorise it without addressing the House, but then explain his reasoning to the Commons at the first opportunity.
Hain seemed put out by this, which is really quite odd.
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
Rubbish idea, has no merit at all.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
That was my assumption until today but he just supported re-invading the middle-east. I know it's easier in opposition but can he hold the coalition together while doing that? Clearly the LibDems won't be doing any opposing either but maybe the combination of Green+UKIP+DNV could take a chunk?
Bombing some terrorists from the air isn't an invasion.
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
Why introduce another tax band? Why not simply put the 'threshold' for 40% up by £10k? It would have exactly the same effect, but would cost much less to implement.
Remember: as regards tax, simplification is *always* better.
Because it would affect a different bunch of people?
""Modest” price drops in the London market are to be expected to follow this month's 0.1pc decline, according to the latest Hometrack report, as buyers reject inflated prices and force vendors to slash their expectations."
Can't be right.
For the last few years we were spammed here on a daily basis that Osborne was stoking a housing boom
A slight readjustment matters little compared to the rises in London in the last 18 months. Stoking a housing boom nationwide is probably virtually impossible but government support for the market might be preventing the proper readjustment that should have taken place post 2008.
Comments
Christ. I was only pulling your leg man.
I'd add to the list:
The inability of democracies to address fundamental challenges in a sensible / structured / logical / scientific way - because the 'right' answers may not be popular. The challenge of 'I know what to do but not how to get re-elected if I do it'. We may be doomed to a cycle of decadent decline and extinction because it is not politically or electorally possible to deal with gorillas in corners.
In a certain sense the undemocratic nations have an advantage here. China sucks in many ways, for example - but they can decide just to get on with new nuclear or fracking or set economic policy without worrying too much how popular it is. It enables a pragmatic cause and effect approach to policy.
The answer cannot, of course, be to undermine democracy. But it must involve having honest and practical political discourse. Ed's speech and its apparent popularity and Eck's referendum campaign are clear evidence of how very very far away from that we are. It bodes ill.
Strange state of affairs when Labour's best hope is England.
Con ............. 299 (-4 seats)
Lab .............. 297(+5 seats)
Lib Dems ....... 26 (unchanged)
Others ........... 28 (-1 seat)
Total ............ 650
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29366275
I raised an eyebrow at today's 17.15 session.
Burying bad news alert MT @davidbarrett Passport Office to be abolished, brought into direct ministerial control TMay announces
Yup, Ed Miliband isn't going anywhere. Labour are stuck with him. I'm more interested in the post-election positioning that's already going on, that tells you what the shadow cabinet et al really think about their chances.
The idea that defecting 2010 Lib Dems will carry them over the line is a myth. Labour will lose.
UKIP Defence Spokesman @Mike_Hookem: The people who deserve a round of applause are the people who serve this country pic.twitter.com/kSjFLhQpUV
Embedded image permalink
TBH, maybe things have changed a lot, but saying you're an atheist these days is hardly even noticed. Back when I was a youngster in the 70s/early 80s it was really frowned on. Like saying you didn't want kids.
I've several very religious/evangelical/baptist friends and wouldn't dream of maligning their beliefs. I make a lot of jokes about how they'll have the last laugh when I'm dragged down to Hell ;^ )
I think Dave Allen is by far one of the cleverest mickey takers in this respect. I loved his stuff. Very fond of Colin Bateman too re Irish sectarianism.
Those final words from HenryG must have come as something of a shock to OGH.
His spleen at a panel of US senator types was hilarious viewing. I used to listen to his radio show on TalkSport occasionally and I really can't see why anyone would phone up. He just bludgeons them with soaring rhetoric.
Hear it was a classic, but never saw it!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29368838
After Douglas Carswell's name they have put "prospective parliamentary candidate" instead of "prospective party leader".
If we bomb them, aren't we going to kill our hostages anyway?
Collateral damage not much better than beheading in my book
Why not pay the ransom, get all our own that are taken hostage back, and leave it at that?
"By pushing for this hard, I would not be surprised if one or more of these parties adopted this line and we helped to shift the agenda."
If a family member of yours was in that predicament, and less than 0.01% of your wealth would save their head being chopped off would you refuse on point of principle?
Paying ransoms has historically been ruled out by successive UK governments on the grounds that it encourages more hostage-taking. I think that is, sadly for the hostages and their families, the right policy.
The British state should not fund terrorism. I feel sympathy for the families of the kidnapped, and the victims themselves, but Cameron has made absolutely the right call on this.
Mr. Eagles, quite so. If we (using behaviourism as a template) reward bad behaviour, we encourage it, and there will be more.
So that hasn't worked
Our proposal seems to be to let them be kidnapped, refuse to pay the ransom, then kill them ourselves by bombing ISIL
Appeasement is a generous term.
Cons more likely to cut the 20p rate - triangulation and all that.
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (=), Con 33 (=), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (+1), Oth 8 (=). Tables here: http://t.co/7h74tBrXPO
I am just trying to articulate what I think.. seems mad to me to kill our own hostages, which is what is likely to happen, for the sake of small change
Turn your arguments around: surely it is mad to create many more hostages because you hand over money for 1 or 2 now.
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
Some mixed news for Labour in the YOUGOV internals:
Wants the kind of society I want:
Con: 27 (-)
Łab: 31 (+4)
Led by people of real ability:
Con: 22 (-1)
Łab: 15 (+3)
Leaders prepared to take tough decisions:
Con: 45 (+1)
Łab: 12 (+3)
Seems to chop & change all the time:
Con: 16 (-)
Łab: 29 (+5)
I was disappointed UKIP didn't score higher in the 'cost of living' question in the recent Comres poll. They are the only party advocating lower energy costs, all the other parties want to increase the price of energy.
(p.13 of PDF)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/ITV_News_Index_24th_September_2014.pdf
It's certainly been a bad week for fruit.
Blackberry's handset sales are down even further, Jason Orange leaves Take That, Apple's latest iPhone update goes pear shaped, and a giant plum forgets part of his speech at the Labour Party Conference.
This caught my eye in the DT blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephenkb/100287806/morning-briefing-its-not-eu-its-me/
Ominous, Carruthers, ominous.
LAB 36 CON 32 LD 8 UKIP 14 GRN 5
Our intervention abroad has both been successful on occasions (eg Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) disastrous (Iraq) or somewhere in between (Afghanistan). IMO ISIL are like the Khmer Rouge of our time, and we should assist the Iraqi government to repel them.
No one wants to be labelled a traitorous pig dog in a PB thread header.
Hain seemed put out by this, which is really quite odd.
To my minf people who go do gooding in the middle East kind of know what the risks are.. but maybe we should do it once, tell British people not to go there anymore, and draw the line
All I can say is what we have done before didn't work, and it seems to me that is what we are doing again.
3rd time lucky maybe
I am no expert, it seems everyone else on here is, so lets bomb away, and so long Messrs Henning and Cantlie RIP
- It's six years away
- It's little more than 3% a year and that will be touch and go in terms of matching inflation
- There is no mention of the tax free element.
It's often claimed that businesses use tax credits to subsidise wages, but what effect does 20% taxation plus 12% NI have on the wage?
Someone doing 40 hours of work on minimum wage (from 1 OCT) has the value of their wages reduced by nearly £1400 a year by state taxation.
Money in pocket would go up £26.38 a week (£104.31 a month) if the government stood aside.
The ransom is neither here nor there - it's not like they are all subsistence farmers in Quetta.
They want to terrorise us into not retaliating.
The ransoms are a red herring.
Next Labour leader.. look for someone who votes against this motion today
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative, says this is another case, like the deficit, of the coalition clearing up the mess left by Labour.
Miliband says that intevention does him no credit.
Hard to disagree with Ed M on that one.
This is not the time to be partisan, very silly comment for Bridgen to make.
Remember: as regards tax, simplification is *always* better.
Rule out those that do vote for it is what I should have said
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/11122090/Rent-to-Buy-to-help-people-to-build-up-a-deposit.html
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend.
Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11121726/House-prices-have-finally-started-to-fall-after-two-years.html
""Modest” price drops in the London market are to be expected to follow this month's 0.1pc decline, according to the latest Hometrack report, as buyers reject inflated prices and force vendors to slash their expectations."
For the last few years we were spammed here on a daily basis that Osborne was stoking a housing boom
20 = 20 (starts at £13500 instead of 10000 now)
40 = 35 (starts at £44000)
45 = 40 (starts at £55000)
Lowest rate kicks in later than now
Middle rate is cut
Top rate is cut.
It's a big tax cutting budget.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
26/09/2014 11:45
Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14