Mr. 565, I'd rather get blown up than star in a jihadist propaganda video getting my head cut off by a maniac. [Of course, I'd prefer neither happening, but in a forced choice that'd be my answer].
Apparently they intend ending VAT rebates for foreign visitors. Given that these are generally via international reciprocal agreements to prevent double taxation it strikes me all this will do is result in more people paying more tax overall
Do you have any links to that change? EDIT - sorry - turns out its a UKIP proposal - I thought it was a government policy, not a perfect combination of class war with xenophobia...
I'm not sure about the 'reciprocal agreements' - for example its unusual to get tax refunds on leaving the US - I rather fear its up to individual countries/customs areas whether they refund tax.
I thought Ukip weren't part of The Establishment or the Political Class they keep banging on about but it seems they are.Nigel says is policy.So if Nigel says Douglas Carswell will not be his successor,that's policy in the world of this new kind of politics that's led by bankers and is very totalitarian and authoritarian.More perhaps a kind of monarchy with Nigel as king.Bow to the great King Nigel,peasants.Trust me,I'm a banker.
Apparently they intend ending VAT rebates for foreign visitors. Given that these are generally via international reciprocal agreements to prevent double taxation it strikes me all this will do is result in more people paying more tax overall
Do you have any links to that change?
I'm not sure about the 'reciprocal agreements' - for example its unusual to get tax refunds on leaving the US - I rather fear its up to individual countries/customs areas whether they refund tax.
Mr. 565, I'd rather get blown up than star in a jihadist propaganda video getting my head cut off by a maniac. [Of course, I'd prefer neither happening, but in a forced choice that'd be my answer].
Hmm, when you put it like that Mr Dancer, I think I'd agree with you.
Based on what we do know about IS, - there's no diplomatic solution with barbarous fanatics.
Mark Reckless MP @MarkReckless · 36m I voted against bombing ISIL in Iraq. A year ago we were asked to bomb other side in Syria +what good did 557 MPs voting to attack Libya do?
Afternoon all and fascinating speech from Nigel Farage. How do people like Mike K and Sean F feel about him taking UKIP to the left with overtly socialist policies like taxing success?
Apparently they intend ending VAT rebates for foreign visitors. Given that these are generally via international reciprocal agreements to prevent double taxation it strikes me all this will do is result in more people paying more tax overall
Do you have any links to that change?
I'm not sure about the 'reciprocal agreements' - for example its unusual to get tax refunds on leaving the US - I rather fear its up to individual countries/customs areas whether they refund tax.
He certainly is, Cap'n Doc. He has just got us involved in another war for which there is no plan, no victory conditions, no end point, no exit strategy.
Afternoon all and fascinating speech from Nigel Farage. How do people like Mike K and Sean F feel about him taking UKIP to the left with overtly socialist policies like taxing success?
Or is he aiming to pull of the traditional LibDem trick of having policy adjusted to suit the needs of individual constituencies? Left in Doncaster, Right in Clacton?
"The two topics Ed forgot in his speech, remain the public’s top two issues"
No they don't. The deficit =/= the economy.
Another touchy lefty comment about ed's speech? Accept it was crap and move on.
Oh, I absolutely think Ed's speech was crap, but for the exact opposite reason -- he was too scared to suggest anything vaguely left-wing precisely because he's been convinced by the deficit maniacs that suggesting government spending is somehow dangerous and Marxist, so all we got from his speech was a bunch of vacuous waffle and a feeble pledge to increase NHS spending by even less than the Tories have in recent years.
But my point still stands. If I was answering this poll, I would've answered "the economy" as one of my big issues, even though I couldn't care less about whether the deficit is £500 or £500bn. Does IPSOS-MORI prompt specificially for the deficit, like Ashcroft's polls do? (He usually finds that while economic growth is one of the top issues, the deficit figures much lower.)
"The two topics Ed forgot in his speech, remain the public’s top two issues"
No they don't. The deficit =/= the economy.
Another touchy lefty comment about ed's speech? Accept it was crap and move on.
Oh, I absolutely think Ed's speech was crap, but for the exact opposite reason -- he was too scared to suggest anything vaguely left-wing precisely because he's been convinced by the deficit maniacs that suggesting government spending is somehow dangerous and Marxist, so all we got from his speech was a bunch of vacuous waffle and a feeble pledge to increase NHS spending by even less than the Tories have in recent years.
But my point still stands. If I was answering this poll, I would've answered "the economy" as one of my big issues, even though I couldn't care less about whether the deficit is £500 or £500bn. Does IPSOS-MORI prompt specificially for the deficit, like Ashcroft's polls do? (He usually finds that while economic growth is one of the top issues, the deficit figures much lower.)
Not myself, but you're right about it being a great idea.
I'm helping out at the Sally Army in a couple of weeks, and have done client survey work for the local housing team. The Big Society wasn't pitched correctly all that time ago, but it's alive and kicking.
I've met some really interesting people along the way so I wouldn't claim it was at all altruistic!
Given I have just looked at the latest threads and there seems to be some argument about women's shoes and cars that I cannot understand ,I thought I might post something trivial as well- Anyone doing a parkrun tomorrow ? Good example of the Big Society imo
Currently involved in a community broadband project, volunteers digging cables and installing fibre broadband to farms, barns and other rural homes and businesses... The cost of connection per home is a small fraction of what BT would charge and no home is left out... even a farm 10km from the nearest other connection that now has 1GBs broadband despite neither mains water nor electricity... Big Society in action...
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
Grim Reaper's alter-ego on Twitter is superb. My bandwidth is on a diet right now so don't go on Twitter much - but he's very funny. His trolling of Tesco over Halal meat was epic.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 6m Nope Saunders voted for military action, not against, despite speech expressing misgivings. So Huppert only LD to vote against
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
If they can do something, they will.
Actually I do. I think it is more likely that London will see a terrorist attack than if parliament had voted against the bombing. Not saying it is going to happen, just that it's more likely
Tory MPs who voted No: Richard Bacon John Baron Gordon Henderson Adam Holloway Nigel Mills Mark Reckless
The countdown starts, we have now a shortlist of possible UKIP defectors, lets see who and when from this list will defect. Is the "defect to UKIP" betting market still down?
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
If they can do something, they will.
Actually I do. I think it is more likely that London will see a terrorist attack than if parliament had voted against the bombing. Not saying it is going to happen, just that it's more likely
So do you think Britain should not become involved?
Surely no-one is pushing the line in the last tweet any more? 'Crime statistics bear little relation to actual crime rates' would be a more accurate statement.
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
I am not arguing that we can abolish war. Only that we don't get involved in wars without having a clear war aim and being prepared to commit the necessary resources to achieve said aim. In this latest war we seem to have neither.
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam) 26/09/2014 17:40 Senior kippers are briefing against one another on the Luxury Tax "policy". One tells me it's not going in manifesto. Other says it will.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
"UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with their needs.
"Opposing immigration is economically no different to 19th Century-style trade protectionism – the only difference is where the people we’re trading with are. Economists, left and right, agree that trade makes everyone richer, and immigration just allows us to trade with more people more often at home. One of the best things about the EU has been the guarantee of free movement between member states; to throw that away would be an economic catastrophe. If UKIP's priority is to leave the EU, it is vital that they maintain open borders with the EU..."
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
If they can do something, they will.
Actually I do. I think it is more likely that London will see a terrorist attack than if parliament had voted against the bombing. Not saying it is going to happen, just that it's more likely
So do you think Britain should not become involved?
I thought Tories were meant to be pragmatists. What is to be gained practically from throwing money away on a meaningless conflict against this Saudi-sponsored bogeyman?
Afternoon all and fascinating speech from Nigel Farage. How do people like Mike K and Sean F feel about him taking UKIP to the left with overtly socialist policies like taxing success?
What overt socialist policies? The new UKIP tax policy is less tax for lower paid and to abolish tax for the those on the minimum wage., but also to cut tax for the top echelon. All achieved by cutting overseas aid and leaving the EU where Britain pays in, net, £9 billion per year, for a start.
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
I am not arguing that we can abolish war. Only that we don't get involved in wars without having a clear war aim and being prepared to commit the necessary resources to achieve said aim. In this latest war we seem to have neither.
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
Personally, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of whatever 'gifts', 6 Tornados can deliver. Multiply those 6, by the other countries involved and that's a fair number of aircraft in theatre.
You strike me as a bit of a warmonger - would it make you happier if we were dropping 'canned sunshine' on them?
Think it was on PB I first heard the phrase "This time it will be different" mocked...
Oh well, the heir to Blair is true his word
What does every Muslim terrorist give as his reasons for killing innocent British people again?
I remember many people making the same arguments against the insane Bush-Blair wars that caused all this in the first place.
Usually to be shouted down as "excusing terrorism" by Tory shills and the Rightwing press, many of whom are no doubt on here now cheerleading the latest war.
Unfortunately, we were right and the warmongering cheerleaders catastrophically wrong.
However.... this does feel different. This mob are so insane, will anyone really convert to their cause out of sympathy if we bomb em? I doubt it.
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
If they can do something, they will.
Actually I do. I think it is more likely that London will see a terrorist attack than if parliament had voted against the bombing. Not saying it is going to happen, just that it's more likely
So do you think Britain should not become involved?
What do I know really? Not a lot
I'm pretty much always anti war. I was against Iraq, Afghanistan and the principle of war really...just think there must be a way around it.
For all the difference we are going to make I think it would have been worth a try at not getting involved for once.
And despite what others say, I fear, to coin a phrase, it is like throwing a match onto gunpowder as far as pent up anxiety of some British Muslims is concerned.... Obviously the minority, but it only takes a minority
Pro bombers seem to think there will be no downside. I say pay the ransom, get our innocent people back, and accept the downside of that
Abbott, Ms Diane Ali, Rushanara Allen, Mr Graham Bacon, Mr Richard (Con) Baron, Mr John (Con) Begg, Dame Anne Campbell, Mr Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Davidson, Mr Ian Durkan, Mark (SDLP) Edwards, Jonathan (Plaid) Flynn, Paul Galloway, George (Respect) Henderson, Gordon (Con) Hepburn, Mr Stephen Hoey, Kate Holloway, Mr Adam (Con) Hopkins, Kelvin Hosie, Stewart (SNP) Huppert, Dr Julian (LD) James, Mrs Siân C. Lazarowicz, Mark Lucas, Caroline (Green) MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP) McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP) McDonnell, John McKenzie, Mr Iain Mills, Nigel (Con) Mitchell, Austin Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Mudie, Mr George Reckless, Mark (Con) Riordan, Mrs Linda Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP) Robertson, Angus (SNP) Sheerman, Mr Barry Skinner, Mr Dennis Stringer, Graham Weir, Mr Mike (SNP) Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP) Williams, Hywel (Plaid) Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes: Jeremy Corbyn Pete Wishart (SNP)
Afternoon all and fascinating speech from Nigel Farage. How do people like Mike K and Sean F feel about him taking UKIP to the left with overtly socialist policies like taxing success?
Oh do you mean the tax proposals that raise the income tax allowance to £13.5k, introduce a 35% rate for those earning between £44k and £55k down from 40% and scrapping the 45% rate altogether. Yeah don't you just hate those socialist tax policies.
At present the tax-free "personal allowance" applies for income up to £10,000, then a "basic rate" of 20% is paid on earnings up to £41,865.
The 40p rate is payable on income from £41,866 to £150,000, with the "additional rate" of 45% paid on anything over £150,000.
Under UKIP's plans, everyone earning between about £44,000 and £55,000 would pay income tax at 35p. Those earning more will pay 40p, with the additional rate scrapped.
They are also talking about scrapping inheritance tax as well. I don't seem to recall socialists proposing that.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
"UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with their needs.
"Opposing immigration is economically no different to 19th Century-style trade protectionism – the only difference is where the people we’re trading with are. Economists, left and right, agree that trade makes everyone richer, and immigration just allows us to trade with more people more often at home. One of the best things about the EU has been the guarantee of free movement between member states; to throw that away would be an economic catastrophe. If UKIP's priority is to leave the EU, it is vital that they maintain open borders with the EU..."
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
"UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with their needs.
"Opposing immigration is economically no different to 19th Century-style trade protectionism – the only difference is where the people we’re trading with are. Economists, left and right, agree that trade makes everyone richer, and immigration just allows us to trade with more people more often at home. One of the best things about the EU has been the guarantee of free movement between member states; to throw that away would be an economic catastrophe. If UKIP's priority is to leave the EU, it is vital that they maintain open borders with the EU..."
They seem to forget that UKIP are for controlling our own borders. If the economy needs immigration, that means we can have more immigration. If it needs less, we can have less. If we need unskilled, we can get unskilled. If we need specific skills, we can get specific skills. Whether immigration as a concept is beneficial or not beneficial is neither here nor there; this is about control. An example of how stupid this argument is, are the limits that the EU can set on immigration into the EU. If immigration is such a panacea, it is theoretically conceivable that the EU could therefore be limiting immigration into the UK and thus damaging its economy. ASI are just saying what their patrons want to hear.
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
I am not arguing that we can abolish war. Only that we don't get involved in wars without having a clear war aim and being prepared to commit the necessary resources to achieve said aim. In this latest war we seem to have neither.
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
Personally, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of whatever 'gifts', 6 Tornados can deliver.
You strike me as a bit of a warmonger - would it make you happier if we were dropping 'canned sunshine' on them?
Me, a warmonger? No, not at all. More a believer in the Powell Doctrine, if you are going to war then know why and what you want to achieve and then be prepared to commit the resources to achieve those goals. Otherwise don't do it.
We seem to be getting involved in another war with no plan and no victory condition.
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam) 26/09/2014 17:40 Senior kippers are briefing against one another on the Luxury Tax "policy". One tells me it's not going in manifesto. Other says it will.
Think it was on PB I first heard the phrase "This time it will be different" mocked...
Oh well, the heir to Blair is true his word
What does every Muslim terrorist give as his reasons for killing innocent British people again?
I remember many people making the same arguments against the insane Bush-Blair wars that caused all this in the first place.
Usually to be shouted down as "excusing terrorism" by Tory shills and the Rightwing press, many of whom are no doubt on here now cheerleading the latest war.
Unfortunately, we were right and the warmongering cheerleaders catastrophically wrong.
However.... this does feel different. This mob are so insane, will anyone really convert to their cause out of sympathy if we bomb em? I doubt it.
Yeah I instinctively want harm to come to ISIL, but just don't see that we are going to make a massive difference anyway. In East London there are already people waving ISIL flags, and they don't need more encouragement.
Put it this way, if we didn't do anything, not if nobody did anything, just if the UK stayed out of it, what would be the downside?
Mr. Llama, penning in ISIS and enabling forces on the ground to enjoy the best chance of total victory is the aim. Otherwise, at what point would we get involved? When Lebanon and Jordan fell?
Better to slay a dragon when it's yet to become fully grown.
Miss Plato, got a character in my WIP who's a transvestite. I never would've had a transvestite knight (transvesknight?), but for reading a little of Ulrich von Liechtenstein in the excellent Knight Unofficial Manual, who was an expert jouster whose hobbies included writing poetry and dressing up as a woman.
I couldn't agree more. Knee-jerking from Whitehall, no thought through plans, trying to do it *risk free* blah blah just annoys the Hell out of me.
If we're going to do - do it properly. And take on the issues that are messy/awkward and need thinking time. I apply this to all my business dealings and can't abide the lily-livered who want the prizes without the cojones required to make it happen. Or worst of all - throwing money at it as a proxy for action.
I know politicians are in an invidious position when it comes to warring - but that's no excuse for going at the task half-cocked. If we don't have a proper plan - then we'll fail, it's not rocket science.
I always return to the initial conquest of Baghdad - the planning was excellent, we zoomed across the deserts in double quick time = but had no Day Two plan ready when all the Iraqis running Saddam's regime buggered off. WTF?
Isn't the FO supposedly full of Arabists? Well they clearly didn't bother to get engaged until it was all over.
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
I am not arguing that we can abolish war. Only that we don't get involved in wars without having a clear war aim and being prepared to commit the necessary resources to achieve said aim. In this latest war we seem to have neither.
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
Personally, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of whatever 'gifts', 6 Tornados can deliver.
You strike me as a bit of a warmonger - would it make you happier if we were dropping 'canned sunshine' on them?
Me, a warmonger? No, not at all. More a believer in the Powell Doctrine, if you are going to war then know why and what you want to achieve and then be prepared to commit the resources to achieve those goals. Otherwise don't do it.
We seem to be getting involved in another war with no plan and no victory condition.
There are hundreds of British Muslims fighting for Isil in Syria and Iraq... How many are there here that are in touch with them and ready to cause havoc now?
Do you seriously think this vote will make any difference as to whether these lunatics wreak havoc?
If they can do something, they will.
Actually I do. I think it is more likely that London will see a terrorist attack than if parliament had voted against the bombing. Not saying it is going to happen, just that it's more likely
So do you think Britain should not become involved?
What do I know really? Not a lot
I'm pretty much always anti war. I was against Iraq, Afghanistan and the principle of war really...just think there must be a way around it.
For all the difference we are going to make I think it would have been worth a try at not getting involved for once.
And despite what others say, I fear, to coin a phrase, it is like throwing a match onto gunpowder as far as pent up anxiety of some British Muslims is concerned.... Obviously the minority, but it only takes a minority
Pro bombers seem to think there will be no downside. I say pay the ransom, get our innocent people back, and accept the downside of that
Agree. I think. Certainly I don't know why we didn't pay the ransom before moving to the air strikes. The hostages are surely doomed now. They may already be dead, but they may not be.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
Just an aside: why was the Iraqi army so bloody awful? When they fought they lost, and when they ran they left behind a shitload of top-line military equipment. It's not like the Americans gave them handguns, they had tons of gear.
DrSpyn beat me with the list of the names of those who voted No :-) So I try to give the names of the constituencies they represent
Labour MPs voting No
Hackney North Nottingham North Aberdeen South Blyth Valley Gower Ayrshire North Glasgow South West Newport West Jarrow Vauxhall Luton North Swansea East Edinburgh North Hayes and Harlington Inverclyde Great Grisby Easington Leeds East Halifax Huddersfield Bolsover Blackley & Broughton Batley and Spen Islington North
This may be TMI, but I've had a few trannie boyfriends - if you'd like some inside knowledge on this genre, happy to assist.
I've no problem with it at all, if I want to get dolled up - why not a guy? The main issues with trannies seems to be that they often go through the Teenage Girl phase in their 30/40s and everyone notices. Too much make-up/tarty dress sense.
Frank Malone looked great as a girl. He got it right, that he's swapped teams is a side issue for me.
Mr. Llama, penning in ISIS and enabling forces on the ground to enjoy the best chance of total victory is the aim. Otherwise, at what point would we get involved? When Lebanon and Jordan fell?
Better to slay a dragon when it's yet to become fully grown.
Miss Plato, got a character in my WIP who's a transvestite. I never would've had a transvestite knight (transvesknight?), but for reading a little of Ulrich von Liechtenstein in the excellent Knight Unofficial Manual, who was an expert jouster whose hobbies included writing poetry and dressing up as a woman.
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
I am not arguing that we can abolish war. Only that we don't get involved in wars without having a clear war aim and being prepared to commit the necessary resources to achieve said aim. In this latest war we seem to have neither.
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
Personally, I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of whatever 'gifts', 6 Tornados can deliver.
You strike me as a bit of a warmonger - would it make you happier if we were dropping 'canned sunshine' on them?
Me, a warmonger? No, not at all. More a believer in the Powell Doctrine, if you are going to war then know why and what you want to achieve and then be prepared to commit the resources to achieve those goals. Otherwise don't do it.
We seem to be getting involved in another war with no plan and no victory condition.
Interesting perspective from the Adam Smith Institute re UKIP policy. They aren't happy bunnies. Given they're free-wheeling marketeers - this is quite strong stuff.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents.
Here's what the ASI has to say about Ukip policy, and immigration in general:
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
That's how I see it, I'm glad you said that.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
With regard to proposals for 'luxury' taxes etc. -ie 'how to squeeze more money out of rich Russians', surely what to do is try and get them to pay more tax by doing more taxable activity, rather than increasing the taxes on the activity they already do.
Mr. Llama, didn't watch much of the debate, only snippet I caught was Hain being a cock by seeming surprised the PM reserved the right to commit to military action if the situation was urgent without convening Parliament for a debate and vote first.
Troops on the ground (in Iraq, as that's what the vote was on) will likely be Peshmerga. I remain puzzled, as per below, as how/why the Iraqi army wasn't any use.
The more I read about the whole culture of Iraq - the massive control economy that makes Soviet Russia look capitalist/no one making a decision at all without a memo/everyone employed by the State/the cronyism... no wonder it degenerated into a mess.
And that's before the religious zealots made a power grab. Fear may be a good way to retain discipline - but when no one was in charge, they all ran for the hills as they feared reprisals et al.
TBH, I'm just glad that the Iraqis aren't like the Mujahedin - Charlie Wilson gave them millions of dollars of anti-Soviet helicopter ordnance, and they they used it on the US.
If you haven't read the excellent book Charlie Wilson's War - I can't recommend it too highly. The film is pants. The book is a revelation - and a serious read.
Just an aside: why was the Iraqi army so bloody awful? When they fought they lost, and when they ran they left behind a shitload of top-line military equipment. It's not like the Americans gave them handguns, they had tons of gear.
Just an aside: why was the Iraqi army so bloody awful? When they fought they lost, and when they ran they left behind a shitload of top-line military equipment. It's not like the Americans gave them handguns, they had tons of gear.
Because it was disbanded after the Irag invasion and had never fully recovered? Because a number of Sunnis in it were a 5th column (who abandoned the army and joined with ISIS)? Because they're actually not that catastrophic (the tide has seemed to be turning for some time), but we're encouraged to believe they are to soften us to military action? Take your pick.
If you've a humorous element to his character - I can give you a few suggestions.
I love interesting characters with unexpected views. They really help to provide a totally different perspective on a plot. And get to ask all sorts of outrageous questions that the more Typical Hero/Anti-Hero just can't.
Rob Ford (Britain) (@robfordmancs) 26/09/2014 19:03 Random thought: are Labour inflating threat from UKIP in Heywood so they can spin a mediocre by-elec performance as a successful fightback?
Rob Ford (Britain) (@robfordmancs) 26/09/2014 19:03 Hard otherwise to explain surreal situation in which Labour are playing up UKIP prospects in an election while UKIP play them down
I do love Michael Deacon. He's just so pithy and funny
Bold, righteous and ablaze with ideals, young men and women go into politics determined to do the right thing. Then they get there, and realise that the right thing doesn’t exist. All they can do is assess the various dispiriting options, and pick the least wrong. Or at any rate, what looks like the least wrong. It may, for all they know, prove in time to have been the most wrong. In which case, history will judge them as if they knew from the beginning it was the most wrong – and damn them accordingly.
That, at heart, was what today’s debate in a hastily recalled Commons was about. Of all the things we can do, or imagine we can do, about Islamic State, which is likely to be the least wrong? Which do we expect to be the least disastrous? Which do we guess will cost the fewest lives, and have the least appalling repercussions?
With regard to proposals for 'luxury' taxes etc. -ie 'how to squeeze more money out of rich Russians', surely what to do is try and get them to pay more tax by doing more taxable activity, rather than increasing the taxes on the activity they already do.
'Damn the rich they are not buying enough shoes and handbags'
With regard to proposals for 'luxury' taxes etc. -ie 'how to squeeze more money out of rich Russians', surely what to do is try and get them to pay more tax by doing more taxable activity, rather than increasing the taxes on the activity they already do.
'Damn the rich they are not buying enough shoes and handbags'
Comments
Mr. 565, I'd rather get blown up than star in a jihadist propaganda video getting my head cut off by a maniac. [Of course, I'd prefer neither happening, but in a forced choice that'd be my answer].
Putting my PB one upmanship wally hat on, that wouldn't make any difference to what I said, but that would be a prickish thing to say....
His wife received audio of him begging for his life to be spared, earlier this week, but I suppose that could have been old as well though
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alan-henning-kidnapping-family-receives-audio-file-of-hostage-pleading-for-his-life-9751914.html
If he isn't dead already, his chances of survival just took a massive hit anyway. Same for Cantlie
I'm not sure about the 'reciprocal agreements' - for example its unusual to get tax refunds on leaving the US - I rather fear its up to individual countries/customs areas whether they refund tax.
But please don't let simple things like facts get in the way of your little rant.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-will-cut-inheritance-tax-and-raise-luxury-vat-9757897.html
Based on what we do know about IS, - there's no diplomatic solution with barbarous fanatics.
Mark Reckless MP @MarkReckless · 36m
I voted against bombing ISIL in Iraq. A year ago we were asked to bomb other side in Syria +what good did 557 MPs voting to attack Libya do?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770939/UKIP-unveils-new-Wag-Tax-luxury-shoes-handbags-cars-soak-substantial-funds-wealthiest.html
Actually turns out Americans spend more than Arabs.....not sure an anti-US tax was quite what UKIP had in mind.....
Oh well, the heir to Blair is true his word
What does every Muslim terrorist give as his reasons for killing innocent British people again?
Labour Mp Iain Mckenzie has been sacked as aide to Vernon Coaker for voting against UK military action in Iraq
Boo hoo hoo!
John Baron
Gordon Henderson
Adam Holloway
Nigel Mills
Mark Reckless
'Another touchy lefty comment about ed's speech? Accept it was crap and move on.'
Did you see Andrew Rawnsley taking the piss last night on This Week?
But my point still stands. If I was answering this poll, I would've answered "the economy" as one of my big issues, even though I couldn't care less about whether the deficit is £500 or £500bn. Does IPSOS-MORI prompt specificially for the deficit, like Ashcroft's polls do? (He usually finds that while economic growth is one of the top issues, the deficit figures much lower.)
Diane Abbott Graham Allen Anne Begg Ronnie Campbell Martin Caton Katy Clark Ian Davidson Paul Flynn Stephen Hepburn..plus.
Via Tweets from Paul Waugh.
A pattern that will repeat at the ballot box?
http://images.amcnetworks.com/ifc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dr-strangelove-stanley-kubrick-2.jpg
Hats off from me to you.
Bad Al and the strange tale of sports blog "The Pressing Game"
http://www.channel4.com/news/fa-chief-condemns-online-dirty-tricks-by-qatar-s-pr-firm?78
PC (2): Jonathan Edwards Hywel Williams
Respect (1): George Gallway
SNP (5 and teller): Stewart Hosie Angus Roberton Mike Weir Eilidh Whiteford Angus Brendan McNeill Mike Wishart (Teller)
Green:Caroline Lucas
listed on Guido. http://order-order.com/2014/09/26/the-noes-to-the-left/
We have decided to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the war to end all wars with a war. Excellent.
If they can do something, they will.
Nope Saunders voted for military action, not against, despite speech expressing misgivings. So Huppert only LD to vote against
Mr. Llama, I'd suggest anyone who thinks we can end war is unfamiliar with humans.
Is the "defect to UKIP" betting market still down?
'even though I couldn't care less about whether the deficit is £500 or £500bn.'
You don't care if your mortgage interest rate shoots up or you don't have a mortgage?
Half a dozen Tornadoes and a tanker to get them to the Iraq from Cyprus seems to be the limit of our commitment. What is that going to achieve?
I don't think our enemies should dictate our policy.
Raheem Kassam (@RaheemJKassam)
26/09/2014 17:40
Senior kippers are briefing against one another on the Luxury Tax "policy". One tells me it's not going in manifesto. Other says it will.
IMO, the issue of a lack of integration/foreign cultures imported wholesale is the real problem. Just as an aside, I shop online at Tesco. There are oodles of Polish groceries available. Only described in Polish. When I worked in Reading, there were oodles of shops that talked an entirely different language - it made Leicester seem fairly British in comparison.
I'm all for enjoying other culture stuff [and shopped a lot at a huge Chinese supermarket back in the early 80s outside Newcastle] - but not when it dominates any significant part of a postcode, or changes our fundamental way of life for the local British residents. >> blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100287887/ukip-vs-the-free-market-britains-immigration-debate-gets-interesting/
You strike me as a bit of a warmonger - would it make you happier if we were dropping 'canned sunshine' on them?
Usually to be shouted down as "excusing terrorism" by Tory shills and the Rightwing press, many of whom are no doubt on here now cheerleading the latest war.
Unfortunately, we were right and the warmongering cheerleaders catastrophically wrong.
However.... this does feel different. This mob are so insane, will anyone really convert to their cause out of sympathy if we bomb em? I doubt it.
We crave the excitement of battle when things get all a bit too safe and comfy. It pops out everywhere.
I'm pretty much always anti war. I was against Iraq, Afghanistan and the principle of war really...just think there must be a way around it.
For all the difference we are going to make I think it would have been worth a try at not getting involved for once.
And despite what others say, I fear, to coin a phrase, it is like throwing a match onto gunpowder as far as pent up anxiety of some British Muslims is concerned.... Obviously the minority, but it only takes a minority
Pro bombers seem to think there will be no downside. I say pay the ransom, get our innocent people back, and accept the downside of that
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Bacon, Mr Richard (Con)
Baron, Mr John (Con)
Begg, Dame Anne
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Clark, Katy
Davidson, Mr Ian
Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
Edwards, Jonathan (Plaid)
Flynn, Paul
Galloway, George (Respect)
Henderson, Gordon (Con)
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hoey, Kate
Holloway, Mr Adam (Con)
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart (SNP)
Huppert, Dr Julian (LD)
James, Mrs Siân C.
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lucas, Caroline (Green)
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
McDonnell, John
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Mills, Nigel (Con)
Mitchell, Austin
Morris, Grahame M. (Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Reckless, Mark (Con)
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)
Robertson, Angus (SNP)
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Stringer, Graham
Weir, Mr Mike (SNP)
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP)
Williams, Hywel (Plaid)
Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:
Jeremy Corbyn
Pete Wishart (SNP)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29368838
At present the tax-free "personal allowance" applies for income up to £10,000, then a "basic rate" of 20% is paid on earnings up to £41,865.
The 40p rate is payable on income from £41,866 to £150,000, with the "additional rate" of 45% paid on anything over £150,000.
Under UKIP's plans, everyone earning between about £44,000 and £55,000 would pay income tax at 35p. Those earning more will pay 40p, with the additional rate scrapped.
They are also talking about scrapping inheritance tax as well. I don't seem to recall socialists proposing that.
Unfortunately the Adam Smith Institute are arguing for uncontrolled immigration, something that is as daft as an idea as no immigration at all. It undermines any serious points they might have to make.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
IIRC he's an ex-soldier and trannie. He love trolling [but is pretty nice with it] and is very quick.
They seem to forget that UKIP are for controlling our own borders. If the economy needs immigration, that means we can have more immigration. If it needs less, we can have less. If we need unskilled, we can get unskilled. If we need specific skills, we can get specific skills. Whether immigration as a concept is beneficial or not beneficial is neither here nor there; this is about control. An example of how stupid this argument is, are the limits that the EU can set on immigration into the EU. If immigration is such a panacea, it is theoretically conceivable that the EU could therefore be limiting immigration into the UK and thus damaging its economy. ASI are just saying what their patrons want to hear.
We seem to be getting involved in another war with no plan and no victory condition.
Leaving jokes apart, she resigns from the frontbench because of this vote.
Put it this way, if we didn't do anything, not if nobody did anything, just if the UK stayed out of it, what would be the downside?
Better to slay a dragon when it's yet to become fully grown.
Miss Plato, got a character in my WIP who's a transvestite. I never would've had a transvestite knight (transvesknight?), but for reading a little of Ulrich von Liechtenstein in the excellent Knight Unofficial Manual, who was an expert jouster whose hobbies included writing poetry and dressing up as a woman.
Your argument against involvement could be applied to the Americans and French and so on.
If we're going to do - do it properly. And take on the issues that are messy/awkward and need thinking time. I apply this to all my business dealings and can't abide the lily-livered who want the prizes without the cojones required to make it happen. Or worst of all - throwing money at it as a proxy for action.
I know politicians are in an invidious position when it comes to warring - but that's no excuse for going at the task half-cocked. If we don't have a proper plan - then we'll fail, it's not rocket science.
I always return to the initial conquest of Baghdad - the planning was excellent, we zoomed across the deserts in double quick time = but had no Day Two plan ready when all the Iraqis running Saddam's regime buggered off. WTF?
Isn't the FO supposedly full of Arabists? Well they clearly didn't bother to get engaged until it was all over.
Controlled immigration designed to benefit the UK is a necessity. Uncontrolled immigration is just plain daft.
I suppose the ASI would also be supporting the consequences of such uncontrolled immigration such as we have seen today with other EU countries claiming millions in benefit payments for their own unemployed.
Indeed the only difference between UKIP and the EU's approach to immigration is scale. The EU want to limit immigration into the EU based on need whilst allowing free movement within the EU. UKIP want to limit immigration into the UK based on need whilst allowing free movement of labour within the UK.. The principle is identical and those who criticise UKIP should equally be critical of the EU and basically virtually every other major economic power around the globe because they all place similar restrictions on immigration
Labour MPs voting No
Hackney North
Nottingham North
Aberdeen South
Blyth Valley
Gower
Ayrshire North
Glasgow South West
Newport West
Jarrow
Vauxhall
Luton North
Swansea East
Edinburgh North
Hayes and Harlington
Inverclyde
Great Grisby
Easington
Leeds East
Halifax
Huddersfield
Bolsover
Blackley & Broughton
Batley and Spen
Islington North
I've no problem with it at all, if I want to get dolled up - why not a guy? The main issues with trannies seems to be that they often go through the Teenage Girl phase in their 30/40s and everyone notices. Too much make-up/tarty dress sense.
Frank Malone looked great as a girl. He got it right, that he's swapped teams is a side issue for me.
Edited extra bit: I agree more of a plan is needed and we should've had it by now.
But doing nothing will only allow ISIS to regroup and enjoy more success. We cannot allow that to happen.
"Mr. Llama, penning in ISIS and enabling forces on the ground to enjoy the best chance of total victory is the aim."
Is it? Was that what was said in the Commons today? Did they also mention what ground troops were going to be doing the heavy lifting?
That's how I see it, I'm glad you said that.
The uk is like a mini EU, except we all speak the same language, are small enough to make a single currency work without resentment and steeped In enough history for it to feel natural rather than forced
I can never understand how pro EU people are so hostile to the idea of controlled immigration but are ok with the EU limits on non EU members! it's the same thing!
Really it's big state vs small state that is the argument
Troops on the ground (in Iraq, as that's what the vote was on) will likely be Peshmerga. I remain puzzled, as per below, as how/why the Iraqi army wasn't any use.
And that's before the religious zealots made a power grab. Fear may be a good way to retain discipline - but when no one was in charge, they all ran for the hills as they feared reprisals et al.
TBH, I'm just glad that the Iraqis aren't like the Mujahedin - Charlie Wilson gave them millions of dollars of anti-Soviet helicopter ordnance, and they they used it on the US.
If you haven't read the excellent book Charlie Wilson's War - I can't recommend it too highly. The film is pants. The book is a revelation - and a serious read.
I love interesting characters with unexpected views. They really help to provide a totally different perspective on a plot. And get to ask all sorts of outrageous questions that the more Typical Hero/Anti-Hero just can't.
Rob Ford (Britain) (@robfordmancs)
26/09/2014 19:03
Random thought: are Labour inflating threat from UKIP in Heywood so they can spin a mediocre by-elec performance as a successful fightback?
Rob Ford (Britain) (@robfordmancs)
26/09/2014 19:03
Hard otherwise to explain surreal situation in which Labour are playing up UKIP prospects in an election while UKIP play them down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyuoUwxCLMs