Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s speech: the reaction

24

Comments

  • Neil said:

    Oh dear, Danny's not amused at having his rabbit nicked:

    The Tories shameless attempt to copy Liberal Democrat tax policy will be utterly incredible to the millions of working people who they have made clear will be their main target for cuts in the next parliament.

    He's not my favourite politician but he's dead right.

    It will be very interesting to see what approach the LibDems take. Labour have left the 'responsible but fairer than the Tories' ground available for them. In that sense it may be a repeat of the arguments of 2010, with Labour stuck saying nothing coherent.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    FalseFlag said:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-10-01/ukraine-rebels-close-in-on-donetsk-airport

    Novorossiyan Armed Forces closing in on Donetsk Airport in order to end the continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk which has been occurring throughout the ceasefire.

    And that ends today's Pravda bulletin. [I hope]
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Clipp, a reasonable comment, although it's worth mentioning coalition means compromise.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    Oh dear, Danny's not amused at having his rabbit nicked:

    The Tories shameless attempt to copy Liberal Democrat tax policy will be utterly incredible to the millions of working people who they have made clear will be their main target for cuts in the next parliament.

    He's not my favourite politician but he's dead right.

    It will be very interesting to see what approach the LibDems take. Labour have left the 'responsible but fairer than the Tories' ground available for them. In that sense it may be a repeat of the arguments of 2010, with Labour stuck saying nothing coherent.
    Tbf to the Lib Dems (not something I'm often accused of) they have spent the last 4 years blocking exactly the kind of proposals the Tories have come out with this week because they have thought they were unfair. And it's hard to disagree with them.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    chestnut said:

    The fact that the Tories can make this pledge and people will accept that it will happen without any detailed explanation of how, tells you how wide the gulf in economic credibility is between Tory and Labour.

    A fool such as yourself may accept that this Tory "pledge" will happen without detailed explanation as to how but the public as a whole will be much more sceptical and contrast it with Osborne's message on Monday .
    You can't see that there is any link between "here is what we will cut" with "here is what we will give away" ?

    Will the LD approach be to say nothing about either ?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Breaking news:
    BenM defects to the Conservatives.
  • Neil said:

    Tbf to the Lib Dems (not something I'm often accused of) they have spent the last 4 years blocking exactly the kind of proposals the Tories have come out with this week because they have thought they were unfair. And it's hard to disagree with them.

    Well, it's easy to disagree with them, but, yes, I take the point.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Anorak said:

    FalseFlag said:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-10-01/ukraine-rebels-close-in-on-donetsk-airport

    Novorossiyan Armed Forces closing in on Donetsk Airport in order to end the continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk which has been occurring throughout the ceasefire.

    And that ends today's Pravda bulletin. [I hope]
    Unfortunately our foreign policy has very real consequences for people and our media resolutely resists showing us those consequences. Bit like how Cameron addressed Libya today and the enormous success of our intervention there.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    BenM said:

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    What's your logic on that?
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    As ever with a Cameron set-piece, this is cracking stuff.

    Very much like the higher rate at £50k and PA increase to £12.5k. About time. But I don't want to wait until a month before GE2020 for it to boost my pay packet, the Tories should announce it in the autumn statement and bring it in from April 2015. Whether it "costs" £10bn, £17bn or whatever, just do it. I bet it would pay for itself with the increased spending power as the economy continues to grow.

    People need to see some delivery from the Tories if they are to have any chance of voting them back in (slim, I know), not promises of things happening in 2020.

    He needs to bring in an EVEL bill before dissolution, and have another go at bringing in a Euro Ref bill too, setting out what he will deliver in his renegotiations with the EU.

    Action, not promises.

    He should also throw down the gauntlet now on the GE debates - any time, any place, anywhere. His Dave vs Ed in No 10 theme is a winner, he must ram that home at every opportunity and going face to face with Ed, and Nigel, is the way to do it.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    "When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? "

    Socrates, it is about time someone told you the truth about immigration.

    It is unstoppable.

    The same forces that drove the Anglo-Saxons to cross the North Sea many hundreds of years ago, the same forces that drove the huddled poor across the Atlantic to America are the forces that drive the East European or the Middle Easterner or the African today.

    The forces are completely irresistible, and immigration is unstoppable.

    What drives immigration? Britain is wealthy, Britain is safe, Britain is open.

    If you make Britain desperately poor, if you make it violently dangerous, if you make it closed with barbed wire and jackboots patrolling every airway and port, then you might halt immigration.

    Otherwise, no way. It is happened forever, and it will happen forever. There is nothing you can do about it.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    FalseFlag said:

    Anorak said:

    FalseFlag said:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-10-01/ukraine-rebels-close-in-on-donetsk-airport

    Novorossiyan Armed Forces closing in on Donetsk Airport in order to end the continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk which has been occurring throughout the ceasefire.

    And that ends today's Pravda bulletin. [I hope]
    Unfortunately our foreign policy has very real consequences for people and our media resolutely resists showing us those consequences. Bit like how Cameron addressed Libya today and the enormous success of our intervention there.
    When you say "our" foreign policy, do you mean the UK's or Russia's?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? Leading conservative posters have said they expect it to be in the manifesto...

    You on about 'dem foreigners' now?

    I swear your rantings are driving me leftwards. Can't be the only one.
    It's the biggest political issue of importance to UK voters. Of course it's relevant to question what the main government party's policy is on the matter when they are setting out their platform for the next election.

    And what do you mean by "dem" exactly? Are you suggesting that people concerned about immigration can't speak English? Are you mocking regional accents? Please tell.
    Implying racism and feeling clever about it
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    "When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? "

    Socrates, it is about time someone told you the truth about immigration.

    It is unstoppable.

    The same forces that drove the Anglo-Saxons to cross the North Sea many hundreds of years ago, the same forces that drove the huddled poor across the Atlantic to America are the forces that drive the East European or the Middle Easterner or the African today.

    The forces are completely irresistible, and immigration is unstoppable.

    What drives immigration? Britain is wealthy, Britain is safe, Britain is open.

    If you make Britain desperately poor, if you make it violently dangerous, if you make it closed with barbed wire and jackboots patrolling every airway and port, then you might halt immigration.

    Otherwise, no way. It is happened forever, and it will happen forever. There is nothing you can do about it.

    East Asian nations are richer than the West and they experience no immigration.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    Oh dear, Danny's not amused at having his rabbit nicked:

    The Tories shameless attempt to copy Liberal Democrat tax policy will be utterly incredible to the millions of working people who they have made clear will be their main target for cuts in the next parliament.

    He's not my favourite politician but he's dead right.

    It will be very interesting to see what approach the LibDems take. Labour have left the 'responsible but fairer than the Tories' ground available for them. In that sense it may be a repeat of the arguments of 2010, with Labour stuck saying nothing coherent.
    Tbf to the Lib Dems (not something I'm often accused of) they have spent the last 4 years blocking exactly the kind of proposals the Tories have come out with this week because they have thought they were unfair. And it's hard to disagree with them.

    That will depend if it is unfair to the most dependant on State Aid.

    If it contributes to changing the status they have from non working to working, then they may well be net beneficiaries of the policy.

    If the policies contribute to the low paid migrating towards better paid positions, then they may find themselves in a better position.

    If the policies reduce unemployment, reduce in work benefits by shifting some up the financial scale, then we all benefit as the state has a reduced bill, and just maybe those with least hope will be able to get enough from the state to continue without further suffering.

    There is not a universal link between reducing benefits and worse outcomes for the unemployed or low paid.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? Leading conservative posters have said they expect it to be in the manifesto...

    You on about 'dem foreigners' now?

    I swear your rantings are driving me leftwards. Can't be the only one.
    It's the biggest political issue of importance to UK voters. Of course it's relevant to question what the main government party's policy is on the matter when they are setting out their platform for the next election.

    And what do you mean by "dem" exactly? Are you suggesting that people concerned about immigration can't speak English? Are you mocking regional accents? Please tell.
    MY concern about immigration is that politicians will take steps to clamp down which would not be in the nation's financial interests.

    You do seem to want to come back to this subject whenever you can.

    Oh my heart bleeds for the CEO's of the corporates that might miss out if GDP goes down 0.05% while the working class get a sense of pride about their lives by being able to provide for their families without state handouts

    Why not just say you want the rich, richer and the poor poorer, and if the unemployed feel like strangers in their own town while you're at it, all the better?
  • Bob Sykes

    Quite right. If he was going to do this, it should have been effective from the new tax year.

    2020 might as well be 2200 - just too far in the future to be meaningful for anyone at all.

    A baffling and critical flaw in an eyecatching policy.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    "When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? "

    Socrates, it is about time someone told you the truth about immigration.

    It is unstoppable.

    The same forces that drove the Anglo-Saxons to cross the North Sea many hundreds of years ago, the same forces that drove the huddled poor across the Atlantic to America are the forces that drive the East European or the Middle Easterner or the African today.

    The forces are completely irresistible, and immigration is unstoppable.

    What drives immigration? Britain is wealthy, Britain is safe, Britain is open.

    If you make Britain desperately poor, if you make it violently dangerous, if you make it closed with barbed wire and jackboots patrolling every airway and port, then you might halt immigration.

    Otherwise, no way. It is happened forever, and it will happen forever. There is nothing you can do about it.

    Ah reasoned argument without resorting to the most extreme of examples, don't you just love it?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Whether it "costs" £10bn, £17bn or whatever, just do it.

    Ah so THAT'S what Tories mean when they talk about "tough economic choices"
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Anorak said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Anorak said:

    FalseFlag said:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-10-01/ukraine-rebels-close-in-on-donetsk-airport

    Novorossiyan Armed Forces closing in on Donetsk Airport in order to end the continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk which has been occurring throughout the ceasefire.

    And that ends today's Pravda bulletin. [I hope]
    Unfortunately our foreign policy has very real consequences for people and our media resolutely resists showing us those consequences. Bit like how Cameron addressed Libya today and the enormous success of our intervention there.
    When you say "our" foreign policy, do you mean the UK's or Russia's?
    America and Israels' of course.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    "When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? "

    Socrates, it is about time someone told you the truth about immigration.

    It is unstoppable.

    The same forces that drove the Anglo-Saxons to cross the North Sea many hundreds of years ago, the same forces that drove the huddled poor across the Atlantic to America are the forces that drive the East European or the Middle Easterner or the African today.

    The forces are completely irresistible, and immigration is unstoppable.

    What drives immigration? Britain is wealthy, Britain is safe, Britain is open.

    If you make Britain desperately poor, if you make it violently dangerous, if you make it closed with barbed wire and jackboots patrolling every airway and port, then you might halt immigration.

    Otherwise, no way. It is happened forever, and it will happen forever. There is nothing you can do about it.

    Except we managed perfectly well in 1990s with a booming economy with immigration in the tens of thousands.

    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    edited October 2014

    BenM said:

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    What's your logic on that?
    I think Ben means back to the Lib Dems, since Labour are so clueless.

    And Mr Cameron has reminded them of what the Lib Dems have achieved in government.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I'm impressed with how bullish some posters are about the Tories' chances in Rochester. Good odds available for them there still.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    I recall Mr. Llama raising the excellent Tom and Jerry as an example of a top cartoon. Apparently, it's racist:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843

    Reminds me of plans years ago to make 101 Dalmations an 18 certificate. No, not because of murdering puppies, but because Cruella de Vil[sp] smokes.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    philiph said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
    Yes, and quite sleazy some are. Especially the one in Jaywick. The one in Frinton’s better.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited October 2014

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    When will we hear more on what the Tories are going to do to cut immigration? Leading conservative posters have said they expect it to be in the manifesto...

    You on about 'dem foreigners' now?

    I swear your rantings are driving me leftwards. Can't be the only one.
    It's the biggest political issue of importance to UK voters. Of course it's relevant to question what the main government party's policy is on the matter when they are setting out their platform for the next election.

    And what do you mean by "dem" exactly? Are you suggesting that people concerned about immigration can't speak English? Are you mocking regional accents? Please tell.
    MY concern about immigration is that politicians will take steps to clamp down which would not be in the nation's financial interests.

    You do seem to want to come back to this subject whenever you can.

    Others do the same on the economy or the deficit or the NHS. I've been accused of being obsessed on issues from the BBC to civil liberties to the European Union. How single-minded can I be on a dozen different issues?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    I recall Mr. Llama raising the excellent Tom and Jerry as an example of a top cartoon. Apparently, it's racist:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843

    Reminds me of plans years ago to make 101 Dalmations an 18 certificate. No, not because of murdering puppies, but because Cruella de Vil[sp] smokes.

    Uh well there's a reason certain scenes are almost always cut out of Tom & Jerry cartoons when they're shown on TV.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    philiph said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
    Yes, and quite sleazy some are. Especially the one in Jaywick. The one in Frinton’s better.
    How ungallant!

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    So the tax cuts are for 2020 and the 7 day a week GP access is for 2020. Are they planning anything for the next parliament?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2014
    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    People who defend mass immigration see immigrants all as one class. For them, there's no difference between a Chinese student, an Indian doctor and a Romanian people trafficker.

    They really have trouble grasping the concept of differentiation and selection.
  • numbercrunchernumbercruncher Posts: 136
    edited October 2014
    Does Robin Brant know something about the UKIP event?

    twitter.com/robindbrant/status/517306852334632962

    I know absolutely nothing...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    Neil said:

    I'm impressed with how bullish some posters are about the Tories' chances in Rochester. Good odds available for them there still.

    If you use Betfair as a guide, the value with the bookies is the 4/5 UKIP, as people want to take 1.8 which after BF commission is worse than the Bookie 4/5... although the market is not really very liquid at all

    I will put my neck on the line and say it has the potential to be as much of a walkover as Clacton, and 4/5 could be very big

    I don't see how it is that different from Clacton... Easy Euros win for UKIP, big majority for defecting MP, councillors following defecting MP, Tories angry... its the same data wise

    People who voted for Reckless in 2010 voted UKIP ib 2014 already

    Carswell seems more likeable than Reckless, a bit cooler maybe, but a landslide in Clacton surely evens that up?

  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Neil said:

    I'm impressed with how bullish some posters are about the Tories' chances in Rochester. Good odds available for them there still.

    Got a feeling the odds will be very different when the first constituency poll gets released. Hopefully this weekend.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    taffys said:

    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    People who defend mass immigration see immigrants all as one class. For them, there's no difference between a Chinese student, an Indian doctor and a Romanian people trafficker.

    They really have trouble grasping the concept of differentiation and selection.

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779

    I recall Mr. Llama raising the excellent Tom and Jerry as an example of a top cartoon. Apparently, it's racist:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843

    Reminds me of plans years ago to make 101 Dalmations an 18 certificate. No, not because of murdering puppies, but because Cruella de Vil[sp] smokes.

    Tom and Jerry is a top cartoon. It is also racist, but from a different time. I see no problem in admiring it, and loving them as excellent cartoons, but recognising the elements which are unacceptable now.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    So, that's what Tories think about ? Other people think about how the money will last the week / month.

    Ask Nadine. In fact, where is she ?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2014

    A fool such as yourself may accept that this Tory "pledge" will happen without detailed explanation as to how but the public as a whole will be much more sceptical and contrast it with Osborne's message on Monday .

    No they won't.

    The polls tell you week after week, year after year.

    People from all sides believe - and accept - that the Tories are in it to cut, both public spending and taxes.

    It's the narrative the whole political class has been fed the electorate for decades.

    And you think that people will genuinely doubt it now? Novel.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    chestnut said:

    The fact that the Tories can make this pledge and people will accept that it will happen without any detailed explanation of how, tells you how wide the gulf in economic credibility is between Tory and Labour.

    I think that's what they've gambled upon.

    It's not like many are going to listen to Labour protestations that "they're rubbish with money".....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Taffys, I wonder if those most fervently pro-high levels of immigration were also very keen on the single currency.

    Mr. Stereotomy, not seen one for years, so couldn't comment on that.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited October 2014

    Does Robin Brant know something about the UKIP event?

    twitter.com/robindbrant/status/517306852334632962

    I know absolutely nothing...

    I said to TSE last night I didn't think there would be another MP defection until at least after the Clacton By-election. I would probably extend that even further to after whenever the Rochester election is held.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    taffys said:

    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    People who defend mass immigration see immigrants all as one class. For them, there's no difference between a Chinese student, an Indian doctor and a Romanian people trafficker.

    They really have trouble grasping the concept of differentiation and selection.

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    You need to ask?

    So many pro immigration people seem to think anyone who wants a control on it is a Neo Nazi, yet think of themselves as reasonable fair, non judgemental types, if only they could see it




  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    surbiton said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    So, that's what Tories think about ? Other people think about how the money will last the week / month.

    Ask Nadine. In fact, where is she ?
    From the poster who last week claimed to own 2 houses in London worth £900k each, and wouldn't be touched by Ed's Mansion Tax.
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    Poor Old Dave. He really needs to makes his jokes airtight

    http://postimg.org/image/4u7sqxtpj/
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Slackbladder, hmm. I honestly can't recall (and I saw a fair number of them as a child) anything that would seem racist to me. On the other hand, if Mr. Stereotomy's right then the relevant bits may have been cut. Perhaps I was wrong about this.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Neil said:

    philiph said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
    Yes, and quite sleazy some are. Especially the one in Jaywick. The one in Frinton’s better.
    How ungallant!

    Have you ever been to Jaywick?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Mr. Slackbladder, hmm. I honestly can't recall (and I saw a fair number of them as a child) anything that would seem racist to me. On the other hand, if Mr. Stereotomy's right then the relevant bits may have been cut. Perhaps I was wrong about this.

    Some scenes are relatively infamous. I think unless you have a very strong anti-censorship stance on this kind of thing, it's well outside the realms of "political correctness gone mad". If you're interested, I'm sure you can find them on youtube.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
    er he didnt
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Stereotomy, given two pbers have raised that, I think that I just didn't see them (or the relevant bits were omitted). No need for citation/links on your part.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    surbiton said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    So, that's what Tories think about ? Other people think about how the money will last the week / month.

    Ask Nadine. In fact, where is she ?

    That’s desperate stuff, even for you – get a sense of humour and stop with the sanctimonious old fart routine.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    philiph said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
    Yes, and quite sleazy some are. Especially the one in Jaywick. The one in Frinton’s better.
    How ungallant!

    Have you ever been to Jaywick?
    Have you ever met Mrs Reckless?

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    Off topic, but this is an absolutely fascinating analysis of the increasingly polarised politics in the US. Not only are peoples views coalescing around either liberal or conservative viewpoints, but the animosity toward the 'other' is rising. In my mind it's the result of the internet's partisan echo-chambers whereby more extreme views are seen as normal. Fox news and the network's "liberal" reaction also play a part, I'm sure.

    Linky here
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?

    I wasn't mentioning their races, but their nationalities. But hey, try to smear me as a racist rather than answer the point.

    It is, after all, what the left have been doing for 20 years.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    Socrates, suppose you lived in a country with 170 million others, that was built on a dirty swamp of land that is a fraction of the size of the UK (let alone Canada or Australia).

    Suppose you lived in a country in which the average income was 20 dollars a week, and the literacy rate was 40 per cent, and the agricultural system was breaking down, and the politics was corrupt.

    Wouldn't you want to leave? Especially if you were bright and hard-working and could see that there was no hope in your native land. Too many people cramped in a poor swamp of a country.

    Socrates, if you had been born in Bangladesh, wouldn't you want to leave ?

  • Does Robin Brant know something about the UKIP event?

    twitter.com/robindbrant/status/517306852334632962

    I know absolutely nothing...

    I said to TSE last night I didn't think there would be another MP defection until at least after the Clacton By-election. I would probably extend that even further to after whenever the Rochester election is held.

    I saw something similar to that in the Telegraph, attributed to "senior UKIP figures" (or something along those lines)
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    The best technique is when they work out the average contribution from all immigrants, knowing full well most of the revenue is coming from a bunch of American, French and German bankers to show that immigrants are "better" than Brits, and then use that as an argument that we should keep on letting in huge amounts of the unskilled.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    isam said:

    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
    er he didnt
    You see my point, don't you? UKIP supporters always seem so astonished that anyone might think they're racist, but then when they want to say "people traffickers" they say "Romanian people traffickers".

    If I was talking about the strictness of driving tests and said "A driving test should let a competent male driver pass, but fail a dangerous female driver"... well, we can all technically agree with that, but wouldn't it stand out to you as a bit weird that I'd mentioned genders so pointedly? Would you maybe draw some conclusions about my views of different genders?
  • I hear there was a speech today by our Snake-oil Salesman-in-Chief? Was it any good?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    taffys said:

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?

    I wasn't mentioning their races, but their nationalities. But hey, try to smear me as a racist rather than answer the point.

    It is, after all, what the left have been doing for 20 years.

    Well okay, same question, but replace "races" with "nationalities"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Dr. Prasannan, it was rubbish. He didn't meet one person called Gareth.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    I hear there was a speech today by our Snake-oil Salesman-in-Chief? Was it any good?

    It completely failed to match Eds effort from last week.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited October 2014

    taffys said:

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?

    I wasn't mentioning their races, but their nationalities. But hey, try to smear me as a racist rather than answer the point.

    It is, after all, what the left have been doing for 20 years.

    Well okay, same question, but replace "races" with "nationalities"
    Presumably because the first two nationalities he used were examples of where we require skill levels for work immigration, while the last nationality he used was an example of where convicted criminals are allowed in. It's your side of the argument that insists on different standards for different nationalities, no?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    isam said:

    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
    er he didnt
    You see my point, don't you? UKIP supporters always seem so astonished that anyone might think they're racist, but then when they want to say "people traffickers" they say "Romanian people traffickers".

    If I was talking about the strictness of driving tests and said "A driving test should let a competent male driver pass, but fail a dangerous female driver"... well, we can all technically agree with that, but wouldn't it stand out to you as a bit weird that I'd mentioned genders so pointedly? Would you maybe draw some conclusions about my views of different genders?
    I think you should be careful not to confuse race with nationality, as it makes an absolute nonsense of your argument

    Personally I try to let other peoples prejudices or lack of them go over my head... as long as the argument makes sense in reverse it's not worth pulling them up on it, as all you are doing is showing your preconceptions of them and they can be easily rebuffed

    What we end up with is what we have now... you were already convinced the person was a racist, as shown by your mentioning race when he hadn't, and it doesn't matter what he says, you remain convinced

    I reckon if he had swapped the nationalities about you would have thought "ah he has only done that so as not to look racist"

  • Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    Socrates, suppose you lived in a country with 170 million others, that was built on a dirty swamp of land that is a fraction of the size of the UK (let alone Canada or Australia).

    Suppose you lived in a country in which the average income was 20 dollars a week, and the literacy rate was 40 per cent, and the agricultural system was breaking down, and the politics was corrupt.

    Wouldn't you want to leave? Especially if you were bright and hard-working and could see that there was no hope in your native land. Too many people cramped in a poor swamp of a country.

    Socrates, if you had been born in Bangladesh, wouldn't you want to leave ?

    Of course. Does that mean we should let every single person in who wants to come here irrespective of the benefit or otherwise to the country and it's existing population? Your argument lacks basic logic.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    and then use that as an argument that we should keep on letting in huge amounts of the unskilled.

    To be fair, I personally don;t really know if mass immigration to Britain has been on balance a good thing or a bad thing because it is such a complex issue.

    I fail to see how a points system which let in doctors and engineers of all races, and kept out criminals and obvious burdens on the state of all races could do anything other than make things better.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704

    I hear there was a speech today by our Snake-oil Salesman-in-Chief? Was it any good?

    Had a pop at Geoff Boycott.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    isam said:

    isam said:

    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
    er he didnt
    You see my point, don't you? UKIP supporters always seem so astonished that anyone might think they're racist, but then when they want to say "people traffickers" they say "Romanian people traffickers".

    If I was talking about the strictness of driving tests and said "A driving test should let a competent male driver pass, but fail a dangerous female driver"... well, we can all technically agree with that, but wouldn't it stand out to you as a bit weird that I'd mentioned genders so pointedly? Would you maybe draw some conclusions about my views of different genders?
    I think you should be careful not to confuse race with nationality, as it makes an absolute nonsense your argument

    Personally I let other peoples prejudices or lack of them go... as long as the argument makes sense in reverse it's not worth pulling them up on it

    The examples he mentioned were all different races so I really had nothing but guesswork whether he was pointlessly mentioning race or pointlessly mentioning nationality, but okay, you're right, it probably was nationality that he meant.

    And sure, you may be fine with prejudice in others, what I'm talking about is why there's an idea among many (not just establishment Tories) that UKIP is prejudiced.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited October 2014
    Mothereffing Tories.

    Chris Deerin ‏@chrisdeerin 24 mins24 minutes ago
    genius http://tinyurl.com/pcmgx69
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    Socrates, suppose you lived in a country with 170 million others, that was built on a dirty swamp of land that is a fraction of the size of the UK (let alone Canada or Australia).

    Suppose you lived in a country in which the average income was 20 dollars a week, and the literacy rate was 40 per cent, and the agricultural system was breaking down, and the politics was corrupt.

    Wouldn't you want to leave? Especially if you were bright and hard-working and could see that there was no hope in your native land. Too many people cramped in a poor swamp of a country.

    Socrates, if you had been born in Bangladesh, wouldn't you want to leave ?

    Well that would depend on a whole bunch of different things in the example in question. But I can completely understand that people have rational reasons for economic migration, and bear them no ill will for it. But there are something like 130 million people in the world who would like to move to the UK. We can't let them all in. It's just a question of at what level we set the filter. For me, that's around 1990s levels, which I believe was a period of economic growth with few negative impacts of immigration. For the Labour party, it's "whatever we can get away with politically". And then there's the question of whether we treat all nationalities equally. Some believe we should prioritise those from white European nations, while I believe we should hold all nationalities to the same standard. (With the possible exception of nations which have a history of extremism, where some extra checks may be warranted.)

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Well okay, same question, but replace "races" with "nationalities"

    To be honest the choices were totally random and completely interchangeable as far as I'm concerned.

    I suppose I chose different nationalities to reflect the fact we get immigration from everywhere - a sort of rhetorical twist.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Last three notable defectors are Reckless, Cash and Banks”

    Is there anyone called "bailed out by the taxpayer" if so watch out for 5pm
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    isam said:

    isam said:

    taffys said:

    So is your point with that we shouldn't let in people traffickers or that we shouldn't let in Romanians?

    Amazed you actually asked that question. We want good people from all over. We want to keep out bad people or people who are burdens from the state from all over

    Okay. So, er, why were you mentioning their races then, if they were irrelevant?
    er he didnt
    You see my point, don't you? UKIP supporters always seem so astonished that anyone might think they're racist, but then when they want to say "people traffickers" they say "Romanian people traffickers".

    If I was talking about the strictness of driving tests and said "A driving test should let a competent male driver pass, but fail a dangerous female driver"... well, we can all technically agree with that, but wouldn't it stand out to you as a bit weird that I'd mentioned genders so pointedly? Would you maybe draw some conclusions about my views of different genders?
    I think you should be careful not to confuse race with nationality, as it makes an absolute nonsense your argument

    Personally I let other peoples prejudices or lack of them go... as long as the argument makes sense in reverse it's not worth pulling them up on it

    The examples he mentioned were all different races so I really had nothing but guesswork whether he was pointlessly mentioning race or pointlessly mentioning nationality, but okay, you're right, it probably was nationality that he meant.

    And sure, you may be fine with prejudice in others, what I'm talking about is why there's an idea among many (not just establishment Tories) that UKIP is prejudiced.
    There you go you've done it again. You are itching for a passive aggressive poke at people but you keep mucking it up by jumping the gun

    I didn't say I was fine with anything, I said I let them go if the argument makes sense in reverse. In other words I don't accuse people of things based on my own negative presumptions that can be easily disproved

    You are wrong in your first paragraph. Not all Romanians are the same race, neither are all Indians or Chinese
  • This all looks very good news for the better paid. For those lower down it will be more marginal given the freezing of in work benefits and a greater dependence on public services. There are going to have to be some eye-watering cuts. Where will they fall? Schools, perhaps?
  • I have been quite busy today - but free again now.

    Has Dave conquered the universe while I was working? Even BenM seems smitten! blimey
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Richard Tyndall,

    "Does that mean we should let every single person in who wants to come here irrespective of the benefit or otherwise to the country and it's existing population? Your argument lacks basic logic."

    Immigration can't be stopped. Desperate people will get in to the country whether you "let" them in or not.

    Desperate means that you have nothing left to lose.

    Look at the people in the sh1tty camps outside Calais, they are willing to give up the only think they have left, their lives, to come here.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Last three notable defectors are Reckless, Cash and Banks”

    Describes Paul Flowers at The Co-op.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Patrick, there was a distressing lack of kangaroo-related policies in the speech.

    On the other hand, the personal allowance will rise to £12,500, and the 40% rate will kick in at £50,000, up from about £41,900.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mark Senior

    Indeed. As forecast. The deficit now a distant memory as Cam goes for a good old-fashioned giveaway

    The only thing more amusing is the spectacle of Antifrank denying he was wrong!

    There's none so blind as will not see:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/david-camerons-speech-to-the-conservative-conference-full-text/

    "I am here today to set out our Conservative commitment for the next five years.

    If you want to provide for yourself and your family, you’ll have the security of a job…but only if we stick to our long-term economic plan. If you work hard, we will cut your taxes…but only if we keep on cutting the deficit, so we can afford to do that..."

    "And our commitment to you for the next five years: we want to cut more of your taxes. But we can only do that if we keep on cutting the deficit. It’s common sense – tax cuts need to be paid for."

    "And while I’m on the subject of the big economic questions our country faces – on spending, on tax – did you hear Ed Miliband last week? He spoke for over an hour, but didn’t mention the deficit once. Not once. He said he ‘forgot’ to mention it. Ed – people forget their car keys, school kids sometimes forget their homework…but if you want to be Prime Minister of this country, you cannot forget the biggest challenge we face.

    A few weeks ago, Ed Balls said that in thirteen years of Government, Labour had made ‘some mistakes’. ‘Some mistakes’. Excuse me? You were the people who left Britain with the biggest peacetime deficit in history…who gave us the deepest recession since the war…who destroyed our pensions system, bust our banking system…who left a million young people out of work, five million on out-of-work benefits – and hundreds of billions of debt. Some mistakes? Labour were just one big mistake.

    And five years on, they still want to spend more, borrow more, tax more. It’s the same old Labour, and you know what? They say that madness is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. Well I say: madness is voting for this high spending, high taxing, deficit ballooning shower and expecting anything other than economic disaster."

    The bucket of shit that Ed Miliband had poured over his head for forgetting to mention the deficit last week obviously passed you by - and I expect we'll hear about that mistake all the way from now to election day. But this is a central theme of the Conservative proposition, no matter how much you and those you shill for hate it.
  • Richard Tyndall,

    "Does that mean we should let every single person in who wants to come here irrespective of the benefit or otherwise to the country and it's existing population? Your argument lacks basic logic."

    Immigration can't be stopped. Desperate people will get in to the country whether you "let" them in or not.

    Desperate means that you have nothing left to lose.

    Look at the people in the sh1tty camps outside Calais, they are willing to give up the only think they have left, their lives, to come here.

    Clearly this is untrue. The examples you gave earlier were of armed invasion. Given that we are an island we can, if need be, enforce strict borders. It only takes political will. The 'it can't be stopped' argument is simply another excuse when what you actually mean is you don't want it stopped.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Although it's interesting that the pro-immigration people have moved from "it's a good thing" to "there's nothing we can do about it".

    Socrates, suppose you lived in a country with 170 million others, that was built on a dirty swamp of land that is a fraction of the size of the UK (let alone Canada or Australia).

    Suppose you lived in a country in which the average income was 20 dollars a week, and the literacy rate was 40 per cent, and the agricultural system was breaking down, and the politics was corrupt.

    Wouldn't you want to leave? Especially if you were bright and hard-working and could see that there was no hope in your native land. Too many people cramped in a poor swamp of a country.

    Socrates, if you had been born in Bangladesh, wouldn't you want to leave ?

    Seems to me the wealthy country should go to enormous lengths to ensure that they maintain their standard of living. Still nice that the immigrant temporarily improves their own selfish lot whilst giving the indigenous no hope for their future.

    Wrecking one's own country does not justify wrecking someone else's.
  • Last three notable defectors are Reckless, Cash and Banks”

    Is there anyone called "bailed out by the taxpayer" if so watch out for 5pm


    Not Cash, at least not yet.
  • Bob Sykes

    Quite right. If he was going to do this, it should have been effective from the new tax year.

    2020 might as well be 2200 - just too far in the future to be meaningful for anyone at all.

    A baffling and critical flaw in an eyecatching policy.

    So, identical to Labours minimum wage pledge then?

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Mothereffing Tories.

    Chris Deerin ‏@chrisdeerin 24 mins24 minutes ago
    genius http://tinyurl.com/pcmgx69

    Wonderful!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Mr. Patrick, there was a distressing lack of kangaroo-related policies in the speech.

    On the other hand, the personal allowance will rise to £12,500, and the 40% rate will kick in at £50,000, up from about £41,900.

    I was disappointed with the lack of free 'owls' for the elderly - other than that, twas ok.
  • Last three notable defectors are Reckless, Cash and Banks”

    Is there anyone called "bailed out by the taxpayer" if so watch out for 5pm


    Not Cash, at least not yet.
    I think he was referring to Cash Junior. Although probably not qualifying as 'notable' per se.
  • Mr. Patrick, there was a distressing lack of kangaroo-related policies in the speech.

    On the other hand, the personal allowance will rise to £12,500, and the 40% rate will kick in at £50,000, up from about £41,900.

    What! No Ed Balls solar missions? I'm disappointed - we need the ticket revenue.
    But otherwise it all sounds eminently sensible.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Last three notable defectors are Reckless, Cash and Banks”

    Is there anyone called "bailed out by the taxpayer" if so watch out for 5pm


    Not Cash, at least not yet.
    I think it is Bill Cash's son !
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Neil said:

    Neil said:

    philiph said:

    BenM said:

    I don't think we'll be seeing that 3rd MP defection. If I was that MP I'd be having serious second thoughts.

    More critically, this speech is one that could well prise some of that lump of 2010 Lib Dem voters away from Labour.

    I wonder what the shortly to be unemployed Reckless is thinking?
    I wonder what Mrs Reckless is thinking? - 'can't believe we swapped Summer balls at the Hurlingham Club, for this back room of a pub in Clacton..!' ; )
    Is there one?
    Yes, and quite sleazy some are. Especially the one in Jaywick. The one in Frinton’s better.
    How ungallant!

    Have you ever been to Jaywick?
    Have you ever met Mrs Reckless?

    Not to my knowledge. Given that she’s a lawyer and that the Recklesses were married in Westminster Cathedral with their reception in the Palace of Westminster I doubt she’d find Jaywick attractive.
    Frinton on the other hand .........
  • @FalseFlag - When does someone from an immigrant background become indigenous?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    False Flag, "Still nice that the immigrant temporarily improves their own selfish lot whilst giving the indigenous no hope for their future. "

    In the last few hundred years, the most obvious example of a people that have "improved their own selfish lot" by moving to other countries is surely the British.

    They moved to Canada, New Zealand, the US, Australia.

    And indeed -- your words are very accurate -- they left "the indigenous no hope for the future".
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Markets reacting badly to desperate economic numbers from the eurozone again...
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    False Flag, "Still nice that the immigrant temporarily improves their own selfish lot whilst giving the indigenous no hope for their future. "

    In the last few hundred years, the most obvious example of a people that have "improved their own selfish lot" by moving to other countries is surely the British.

    They moved to Canada, New Zealand, the US, Australia.

    And indeed -- your words are very accurate -- they left "the indigenous no hope for the future".

    I am very proud of what my people have achieved in the past but alarmed by what we are now giving up.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    Markets reacting badly to desperate economic numbers from the eurozone again...

    Osborne's fault. If he'd met his targets none of that would be happening.
  • I'm having trouble deciding if SamCam is hotter than Her Royal Qilfiness or not.

    Any PB views?
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    Unfunded pre-election splurge from the self-styled Party of "fiscal responsibility".

    The simpering NHS stuff was laughable. If you love it so much, Dave, why did you spunk billions on a chaotic top-down reorgnisation you promised wouldn't happen, and that no-one wanted apart from the Private Health companies - some Tory donors - who now have their profiteering hands on large chunks of it?
  • HughHugh Posts: 955
    That said, it will get fawning headlines in the Tory press.

    Last big roll of the dice isn't it. If this doesn't move the polls, Ed can start measuring the curtains.
This discussion has been closed.