Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
That's not my argument, and you know it.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I'm saying, 1) They are not lower quality people 2) I prefer to look at the quality they bring to this country overall.
Just imagine if Stephen Hawking wasn't British, and he wanted to emigrate here, he'd be rejected.
You're putting words into Farage's mouth that he didn't say, and then getting outraged about them. It's sad how Tories are now peddling the same dishonest intellectual tactics that they once bemoaned the Left for doing.
If John Bickley had won, UKIP would have had two MPs with dramatically different sets of views.
so a bit like every other party then.
No not at all. Other parties have a lot more than two MPs, so the dynamics of mavericks are completely different.
John Bickley was a good candidate, as I said in a post a while back when I said UKIP had a chance in H & M. I'd say you could characterise his views as being close to those of his voters - sort of 'mainstream UKIP' in terms of his voters.
Douglas Carswell is a very different kettle of fish. His concerns are not the concerns of his voters; he's as much a maverick in UKIP as he was in the Conservative Party. As the only UKIP MP, that's a curious position.
Since the spread of this contageous disease is such a frightful and expensive issue, are you also opposed to HIV positive people visiting the UK for a holiday? Or is it exactly contageous enough to only worry about immigrants?
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
That's not my argument, and you know it.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I'm saying, 1) They are not lower quality people 2) I prefer to look at the quality they bring to this country overall.
Just imagine if Stephen Hawking wasn't British, and he wanted to emigrate here, he'd be rejected.
anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person
I'd rather understood the NHS and our political parties were also saying that.
People who are smokers, obese etc. are already being put in the lower quality person category by being told they won't get treatment. What's the difference ?
Really if you're going to troll kippers find something useful to annoy them with, it's pointless saying they do X when all the other parties are doing it too. Try Nigel's hypocrisy on his Euro-expenses at least it has a degree of integrity.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I think age limits for immigrants are also common.
-protect the Australian community from public health and safety risks, particularly active tuberculosis -contain public expenditure on health and community services, including social security benefits, allowances and pensions -safeguard the access of Australian citizens and permanent residents to health care and community services in short supply.
Most visa applicants, and in some circumstances their dependents (whether they are migrating to Australia or not), are required to meet the health requirement."
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
You cannot enforce it at entry points (or very ineffectively) ,what I presume he means is that the NHS will not treat newly arrived immigrants for it and thus presumably deter people with HIV from coming in the first place. Not saying that is right or wrong. On the face of it, it looks mean but I don't think he really has lumped HIV sufferers with murderers from what he has said .I suppose he is addressing the very practical issue of NHS costs head on which the other parties continue to prefer to deal with it in fluffy platitudes especially labour
Indeed - I have suffered from a condition "pilo-nidal sinus" in the past. If I was emigrating to Australia say I'd declare it and gain appropriate insurance cover, or go through whatever hoops are required (It could recur though the probability is slimmish *touch wood*).
Since the spread of this contageous disease is such a frightful and expensive issue, are you also opposed to HIV positive people visiting the UK for a holiday? Or is it exactly contageous enough to only worry about immigrants?
I'm less concerned about people visiting the UK for a holiday, as on the whole they're only here for a couple of weeks and can bring medical treatment from home, compared to immigrants who tend to be here for years, greatly increasing the chance of infection of others (by more than 50-fold) and needing ongoing medical treatment.
If John Bickley had won, UKIP would have had two MPs with dramatically different sets of views.
so a bit like every other party then.
No not at all. Other parties have a lot more than two MPs, so the dynamics of mavericks are completely different.
John Bickley was a good candidate, as I said in a post a while back when I said UKIP had a chance in H & M. I'd say you could characterise his views as being close to those of his voters - sort of 'mainstream UKIP' in terms of his voters.
Douglas Carswell is a very different kettle of fish. His concerns are not the concerns of his voters; he's as much a maverick in UKIP as he was in the Conservative Party. As the only UKIP MP, that's a curious position.
so you're hoping the kippers will have lots more MPs to accommodate the mavericks ?
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
That's not my argument, and you know it.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I'm saying, 1) They are not lower quality people 2) I prefer to look at the quality they bring to this country overall.
Just imagine if Stephen Hawking wasn't British, and he wanted to emigrate here, he'd be rejected.
anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person
I'd rather understood the NHS and our political parties were also saying that.
People who are smokers, obese etc. are already being put in the lower quality person category by being told they won't get treatment. What's the difference ?
Really if you're going to troll kippers find something useful to annoy them with, it's pointless saying they do X when all the other parties are doing it too. Try Nigel's hypocrisy on his Euro-expenses at least it has a degree of integrity.
Trolling Kippers is fun. Nearly as much as trolling the Nats.
Personally I'm with Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell when it comes to the NHS.
If John Bickley had won, UKIP would have had two MPs with dramatically different sets of views.
so a bit like every other party then.
No not at all. Other parties have a lot more than two MPs, so the dynamics of mavericks are completely different.
John Bickley was a good candidate, as I said in a post a while back when I said UKIP had a chance in H & M. I'd say you could characterise his views as being close to those of his voters - sort of 'mainstream UKIP' in terms of his voters.
Douglas Carswell is a very different kettle of fish. His concerns are not the concerns of his voters; he's as much a maverick in UKIP as he was in the Conservative Party. As the only UKIP MP, that's a curious position.
so you're hoping the kippers will have lots more MPs to accommodate the mavericks ?
Very sporting of you Richard.
Well I was hoping we'd be able to enjoy Roger Lord MP, but alas that looks unlikely!
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Neither LabourList or Leftfootfoward are happy at the H&M result:
LFF – “In what should be a fairly safe working class Labour seat, Miliband has won with a majority of just 617. Despite needing to show that it is ready for government, Labour has increased its vote share on 2010 by just 0.8 per cent.”
They shouldn't be overjoyed but have people forgotten how to interpret By-Election results?
The SNP won Glasgow East in the 2008 by-election with a majority of 365 only to lose it two years later by 11,840.
The turnout at Heywood was down over 17 thousand from the General Election. Do people think that activist UKIP voters make up the majoirty of that number instead of "can't be arsed to turn out for relatively safe by-election Labour voters"
Has a party ever had voters as lazy as Labour before ?
No? I mean, this is a pretty well known feature of the Labour vote isn't it? It's one of the reasons why their seat count out-performs their raw vote count as they have so many safe seats where people don't turn out to vote but if they were forced to they would vote Labour.
There, right there, is the structural deficit nobody can address because if you do Labour will bleat about "the cuts", get re-elected and make it all even worse.
Ukip deserves credit for offering the disenfranchised non-voters enough motivation to go and vote but needs to understand it is a creation of the British Establishment to prevent the disenfranchised choosing what it fears the most,the kind of left/green government of Sweden.That's why Farage has been given so much air-time.Just imagine the response on Pb to the election of such a government.Pb,the home of the British Establishment,would be a good guide as ever.
There, right there, is the structural deficit nobody can address because if you do Labour will bleat about "the cuts", get re-elected and make it all even worse.
Looks like Osborne isn't making all those tough decisions after all.
Do you agree that someone with HIV is a lower quality person?
Do you even bother to read the arguments of those debating with you?
Just a few posts down the thread: "Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person."
Farage never said they were lower quality persons.
I'm fairly certain he did. Check out Mark Wallace's twitter feed re his Lbc show.
Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide the quote. Mark Wallace is an imbecile and a smearer: his question to Farage was about Zimbabwean immigrants having "the wrong colour skin" for UKIP. He's the sort of thick bigot that hangs the dagger of a racism accusation over everyone, which ends up with vile crimes not being investigated because they're carried out by Pakistanis with a sick culture.
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
In other countries you get a blood test as part of your residency application. The question would then be, would you be excluded if you got HIV in the UK?
He said his party was concerned with the "quality" of people coming to the UK, and made reference to the case of Arnis Zalkalns, the Latvian convicted murderer suspected of killing schoolgirl Alice Gross in west London.
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage told Newsweek Europe.
He added that Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.
Asked whether by "quality" he meant people with a murder conviction, he said: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."
Ed rambles on about Tories losing on their front line in the NW. Safe Labour seat, held by 500 votes...
Could it have been a worse night for Labour, not really, they still have Miliband to inspire voters to place their votes elsewhere. A defeat might have led to the defenestration of Red Ed, something for Labourites to recall, Malcolm Frazer called a snap election in Australia, but lost to Bob Hawke. Labor over there had ditched a useless leader just before a General Election. if you want to win again, ditch Ed.
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
Indeed. It's like winning 1-0 in the cup with a last minute scrambled goal at home against a lower league team. It's not great. It's far too tight. But you are through to fight on.
Looks like it is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously.
I wonder if the (So high as to make no difference in life expectancy between HIV- and HIV+ (Thus effectively "cured") efficacy of anti retroviral drugs had lead to a complacency on the issue particularly amongst men who have sex with other men (To use the Blood donation terminology).
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
"BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking · 10 mins10 minutes ago
Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai win #NobelPeacePrize "for their struggle against the suppression of children"
Good choice. Is Malala the youngest ever Nobel Prize winner?
This is fantastic. Malala is a symbol of hope to so many girls and women that they deserve the same rights as males. We tend to take it for granted in western countries, but elsewhere in the world, females are still treated very badly.
For a young woman of 17, Malala is much more mature than most adults and she will go on to do some great things.
If immigrants are going to be a financial drag on the host country, they are not an asset.
Did you know the cost of treating HIV in this country is less than one billion pounds.
A lot less than diabetes.
As Mark Wallace points out, being HIV positive doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Because a lot more people suffer from diabetes. And people with diabetes don't spread it to others, while the average HIV sufferer pass it on to several other people.
Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person, in the same way that not having a doctorate doesn't make you a lower quality person. Both, however, make you lower quality from the perspective of being a net contributing immigrant.
You are required reading when talking about matters other than immigration.
Sadly such posts are few and far between these days – you seem to be completely hung up on one subject.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
According to Farage you're on a par with a child killer.
The Crawley council result confirmed what is now a definite trend since 2012 as ToryUkip-Con defector- loses a council by-election to Lab.This may be microcosmic of a wider process voters go through as with the LibDems during their meteoric period.It took the voters a while to work out but as soon as they were in control of councils,they invariably mucked it up and got thrown out of city after city.It seems as soon as people see the reality of what Ukip offers in action,as with the Libs,they don't like it and throw them out too. As for last night's other elections,the huge issue is turnout,or rather the lack of it.These elections might over-excite a few politicos but 36 and 51 are dreadful percentage figures.These turnout figures reveal anyone using the word historic needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.What is historically important is the long-term trend of non-participation in what is deemed to be a democracy.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Yeah that HIV comment was disgusting.
He's a vile creature, lumping in HIV sufferers with murderers.
Disgusting comments, but like it or not, they'll ring true with many voters who'll come out for the Farage Party.
You are exactly right and Farage knows it, the more extreme he is the more votes he gets. He knows he has no hope with ethnic minorities, and he knows how frustrated people are with mass immigration. He also knows large swathes of his votes are from those who hold "racist" views and they now have a respectable party to vote for. He will make a lot more contreversial statements in the lead up to the election.
If immigrants are going to be a financial drag on the host country, they are not an asset.
Did you know the cost of treating HIV in this country is less than one billion pounds.
A lot less than diabetes.
As Mark Wallace points out, being HIV positive doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Because a lot more people suffer from diabetes. And people with diabetes don't spread it to others, while the average HIV sufferer pass it on to several other people.
Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person, in the same way that not having a doctorate doesn't make you a lower quality person. Both, however, make you lower quality from the perspective of being a net contributing immigrant.
You are required reading when talking about matters other than immigration.
Sadly such posts are few and far between these days – you seem to be completely hung up on one subject.
Today, I have only been responding to points made by others, defending a man being besmirched as like Nick Griffin for an entirely reasonable point.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
Very amusing.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
I've voting Tory since last week, when it was confirmed that Nick Clegg vetoed Michael Howard as our next man in Bruxelles.
I had £50 at 25/1 on Howard being our next EU Commissioner.
Who gave him a veto about sh1t like that? It's at the PM's discretion.
He said his party was concerned with the "quality" of people coming to the UK, and made reference to the case of Arnis Zalkalns, the Latvian convicted murderer suspected of killing schoolgirl Alice Gross in west London.
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage told Newsweek Europe.
He added that Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.
Asked whether by "quality" he meant people with a murder conviction, he said: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."
yes it probably was a bit clumsy but that is because UKIP is not a polished outfit . As I said below its a mean policy but not worth the faux outrage and the making it into something its not
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
According to Farage you're on a par with a child killer.
Yet another reason to dislike the t**d. One of my sons worked with him on the LME and really, and I mean really, disliked him as a person.
"The idea of the Tories being too "modern" to win in Clacton is a bizarre as it is repugnant. It comes down to a wrong way of seeing voters.
Are Ukip supporters in Clacton really angry, fearful, bewildered and unreasonable? Or decent people, trying to do the best by their families under a system that’s failing them?
If your town had fallen into decay, too late in your life for you to move out, how would you feel about it all?"
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
In other countries you get a blood test as part of your residency application. The question would then be, would you be excluded if you got HIV in the UK?
Had to have an HIV test for my Russian visa, had no problem doing so, their country.
Looks like it is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously.
I wonder if the (So high as to make no difference in life expectancy between HIV- and HIV+ (Thus effectively "cured") efficacy of anti retroviral drugs had lead to a complacency on the issue particularly amongst men who have sex with other men (To use the Blood donation terminology).
The problem is with sex education for young gay men.
Sex education is awful in general, for gay teenage boys it's non-existent.
It's quite exciting that UKIP are looking ahead to 2020, not just May 2015.
"Ukip’s “2020 strategy”: the belief that a series of strong second-placed finishes next May, especially with local candidates who will contest the seats again five years later, will set the party up for a renewed assault at the next election."
@iainmartin1: Has anyone asked @DouglasCarswell about Farage HIV comments? In light of father being esteemed doctor who first diagnosed disease in Uganda?
"The idea of the Tories being too "modern" to win in Clacton is a bizarre as it is repugnant. It comes down to a wrong way of seeing voters.
Are Ukip supporters in Clacton really angry, fearful, bewildered and unreasonable? Or decent people, trying to do the best by their families under a system that’s failing them?
If your town had fallen into decay, too late in your life for you to move out, how would you feel about it all?"
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
Morning, Billy Bunters, and what an interesting nite it was!
It was worth staying up for Carswell's acceptance speech. You can see why he carries such a personal vote. Longer term however the Heywood result looks more significant. It was obviously a stallar nite for UKIP and I cannot find a crumb of comfort for any of the other Parties with the possible exception of the Greens.
The task of stopping UKIP at Rochester has become more more difficult. They are in to 4/9 with Betfair, 2/5 generally with the bookies. On Betfair UKIP Seats Market you can forget about the None option: 1 to 5 is out to 1.9 whilst Over 5 is in to 2.4. Crossover beckons.
If Reckless does win, I don't know what the ceiling on UKIP seats at the GE might be.
Within 700 votes in Heywood. If Labour had actually cared about democracy and allowed the voters of the place to have time for a proper debate, UKIP would have won. No matter. It's this sort of disdain for it's own base that will see UKIP grab seats off Labour in time.
Labours share of the vote increased in Heywood.
UKIP have another close but no cigar moment.
Complacent.
Labour increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for Labour.
Increased share of the vote is surprising with a strong NOTA challenge IMO
Ffs. You are the only main opposition party to an unpopular coalition. Your GE result in 2010 was yr worst in nearly 80 years. You should have surged from that appalling result and won this seat handsomely.
Instead you nearly got beat by a fringe hard right party.
It's a bad bad result for Labour, as grim as Clacton is for the Tories. Any spinner, from either party, who claims otherwise, is lying.
No its not,
The right wing parties in Heywood and Middleton started with a 2010 base of 37% compared to LAB 40% vote share.
LAB % of the vote increases despite Tories and LD not running any campaign.
Enough Tories vote Tory to help LAB retain the seat.
Only UKIP can beat LAB in the North. The ones who continued to vote Tory saved Ed from what would have been a big story.
Thanks for that
That was tactical voting. To make sure Ed wasn't ditched.
Very amusing.
Have you ditched your tactical voting plan for Sheffield Halam for the same reason.
I've voting Tory since last week, when it was confirmed that Nick Clegg vetoed Michael Howard as our next man in Bruxelles. I had £50 at 25/1 on Howard being our next EU Commissioner.
Who gave him a veto about sh1t like that? It's at the PM's discretion.
Exactly. Stuff has been going on which gives the apperance that Cameron has jumped every time Clegg threw a tantrum.
@iainmartin1: Has anyone asked @DouglasCarswell about Farage HIV comments? In light of father being esteemed doctor who first diagnosed disease in Uganda?
I'd imagine nobody's quite that stupid, but Kevin Maguire has still to pronounce of course.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
According to Farage you're on a par with a child killer.
Yet another reason to dislike the t**d. One of my sons worked with him on the LME and really, and I mean really, disliked him as a person.
You're using a made up reason to dislike him based on made up claims. It's almost like you had a preconceived view and are willing to accept any claim that backs up your prejudice no matter how flimsy the evidence.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
How do you test for 'moral character'? How do you even define it?
@iainmartin1: Has anyone asked @DouglasCarswell about Farage HIV comments? In light of father being esteemed doctor who first diagnosed disease in Uganda?
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
If the Labour leadership look at the Heywood result, and decide they need to do something to stop their voters defecting to UKIP, what will they do? The obvious response would be to talk tougher on Europe, but that would be unpopular with a significant chunk of their voters, and MPs.
If the Labour leadership just write off Heywood as a freak by-election result, MPs and candidates in vulnerable seats will still have their private worries, and could even take independent action, promising to support a tougher line on Europe in their campaign literature, without regard for party policy.
On reflection I can think of one crumb of comfort - for the Tories at least.
Another 600 or so votes for UKIP in Heywood and Ed would have been handing in his resignation today. Since he is obviously so easy for them to beat, that would not have been good.
Otherwise it was pretty bad news all round if you weren't a Kipper.
From last night's vote is seems the Labour score on a national or regional poll does not accurately the number of voters who will turn out to put a cross in the box in a given constituency.
Labour have a very big turnout problem. Especially with ed.
"BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking · 10 mins10 minutes ago
Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai win #NobelPeacePrize "for their struggle against the suppression of children"
Good choice. Is Malala the youngest ever Nobel Prize winner?
Good choice this time by the committee – after Barry/EU, god knows it required rehabilitating.
I think you may be right, Malala Yousafzai is 17, the previous youngest person to receive a Nobel prize was Sir William Lawrence Bragg (Physics, 1915). He was 25 years.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
How do you test for 'moral character'? How do you even define it?
You could not let in convicted murderers and rapists for a start.
btw, thanks antifrank - your blogpost is fantastic. I'm broadly in agreement with what you say and laid Reckless overnight @ 1.22. Seeing as I backed him previously for a large amount at 1.8, i'm very green whatever happens in Rochester.
There, right there, is the structural deficit nobody can address because if you do Labour will bleat about "the cuts", get re-elected and make it all even worse.
How on earth is this the "first" comparison. This is brought up pretty much every year (as seen by the related articles links).
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
I am confused about this suggestion doing the rounds that a vote for the Tories is the only way to get a UK referendum in 2017, do people seriously think that Mr Carswell and any colleagues he has in parliament after the election are NOT going to vote for a referendum? If there had been 618 more votes for UKIP in H&M (and it was sustained through the election) that would be another vote FOR a referendum on the EU, rather than a Labour vote against it.
UKIP is campaigning against the Tories, therefore UKIP do not want a referendum. Any vote for UKIP that secures anything other than a Conservative MP secures an MP opposed to a referendum.
Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
AFAIAA it's only UKIP claiming this.
There are three things screwing the public finances: the size and per capita cost of the public sector, debt interest, and the pensions bill. The two former were inflated by Labour, partly funded by robbing private sector pensions and wage packets but largely paid for by debt i.e. unfunded.
To paper over the uncontrollable debt explosion Labour imported millions of immigrants and put them on benefits. Happily, these almost all vote Labour.
None of these is amenable to being fixed on less than a 20-year timescale. We need a fiscally conservative four-term government to do so. This is not going to happen, because anyone who campaigns on reducing public sector remuneration by 20% in real terms will never get elected.
We are completely structurally screwed to the point not only will things not actually get better, they will, if Labour gets, get even worse.
At some point the left will agree on some sort of private wealth expropriation. The mansion tax is testing the waters. It will quickly go from £12k above £2million to £10k on every private property, probably not limited to houses.
This won't be used to reduce debt - it will be pissed away in current spending.
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
Not at all. The article is quite clear on that point:
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Seems eminiently sensible to me.
Why would he enter a debate with Farage when for him a leaders' debate is all about driving home the theme of Ed is crap ?
One of the few sensible approaches I've seen from Cameron for a while.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
How do you test for 'moral character'? How do you even define it?
You could not let in convicted murderers and rapists for a start.
But that's a small subset. Go on: how do you test for moral character, to prevent those without it (whatever it might be) from entering?
If John Bickley had won, UKIP would have had two MPs with dramatically different sets of views.
so a bit like every other party then.
Kippers are not automatons and we all think for ourselves, with the one overriding common purpose: to save the UK for it's people, from the manipulating political and business elite of the country.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
No it's not.
You can treat it at c $5 per day if you are willing to go for the (relatively complex) regime of pills. It only gets expensive if you want to use Quad instead.
HIV is a manageable chronic disease. No different to high blood pressure really.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
How do you test for 'moral character'? How do you even define it?
You could not let in convicted murderers and rapists for a start.
But that's a small subset. Go on: how do you test for moral character, to prevent those without it (whatever it might be) from entering?
Obviously it's the sort of thing that you can't guarantee, but not letting people in with convictions for serious crimes would be a basic thing you could do. I also think people from countries with a history of extremism should have an interview, after swearing an oath to tell the truth, where they can be asked about such things as whether killings of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and women who commit 'dishonour' are ever justified.
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
Wow that would be a UKIP breakthrough.
I would put UKIP on a maximum of 5 myself and maybe as low as 1 (Clacton) but we will see,
I do think they will gain Rochester next month though
It also implies a Lib-Lab *minority* coalition. That would take things to a whole new level!
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Thanks Socca – that explains it. I must agree – Labour and the Libs should keep shouting about this and, ideally, bring the Kippers into the party too (clearly Farage should be involved, given the KIP poll ratings).
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
No it's not.
You can treat it at c $5 per day if you are willing to go for the (relatively complex) regime of pills. It only gets expensive if you want to use Quad instead.
HIV is a manageable chronic disease. No different to high blood pressure really.
HIV is .... No different to high blood pressure really.
It'll be most interesting to see what happens to the Kipper's polling post Clacton and H&M. Will the almost double whammy coverage convert a lot more to think it's possible to turn the status quo on its head? At a GE too - especially for those who are serial DNV before?
'If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.'
Surely they would be a health tourist & not an migrant.
Labour's problem is not UKIP, it is Labour. In Heywood and Middleton Labour-inclined voters just saw no point in going out to the polls. And who can blame them? The party inspires no confidence because it has no credibility - how can it do when it has no real idea of why it wants to be in power, except to stop the Tories? How does that get people to come out and vote in a by-election? The answer is that it does not.
Labour apathy plus the anti-Labour vote coalescing around UKIP made the result in Heywood and Middleton close. EdM can't do much about the latter. He is totally responsible for the former. In a GE, when turnout will be higher (though still shockingly low), Labour will probably get away without suffering too many shocks in its heartlands. But that may only work for one more GE. At some stage, someone in that party has got to realise just how utterly separated it has become from the lives of millions of people who are well-disposed to the Labour brand but who feel no connection to what they see and hear from the party's leadership. If that does not happen, then Labour is finished. It will be the party that died of complacency.
No doubt the Tories face similar problems. But I don't particularly care about them.
'If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.'
Surely they would be a health tourist & not an migrant.
Not necessarily, they may be coming here genuinely to work and also have a medical condition.
I'm not judging them (Farage may well be though !) but the NHS is under strain.
''Obviously it's the sort of thing that you can't guarantee, but not letting people in with convictions for serious crimes would be a basic thing you could do''
The thing is that these things have to apply universally. An American or Indian businessman grilled by immigration on arrival might never return.
It's more interesting for me than Galloway blowing Labour out of water in Bradford [West?]. There is only one George Galloway - but the Kipper chappy managed to almost do it irrespective of the personal bandwagon George rode.
As a lifelong asthmatic I very much resent the phrase "anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person” There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
Then you'll be glad to know no-one claimed it.
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
How do you test for 'moral character'? How do you even define it?
You could not let in convicted murderers and rapists for a start.
But that's a small subset. Go on: how do you test for moral character, to prevent those without it (whatever it might be) from entering?
Obviously it's the sort of thing that you can't guarantee, but not letting people in with convictions for serious crimes would be a basic thing you could do. I also think people from countries with a history of extremism should have an interview, after swearing an oath to tell the truth, where they can be asked about such things as whether killings of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and women who commit 'dishonour' are ever justified.
But that would only catch a tiny fraction of people who, according to some definitions, have poor moral character.
Again: how do you define 'moral character'? Or is it just yet another mindless anti-Islam rant?
If John Bickley had won, UKIP would have had two MPs with dramatically different sets of views.
so a bit like every other party then.
Kippers are not automatons and we all think for ourselves, with the one overriding common purpose: to save the UK for it's people, from the manipulating political and business elite of the country.
So ukip doesn't manipulate? Flip flops on HS2 and the NHS don't count as manipulation?
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
It does not in anyway make you a lower quality or unworthy person. What it does however is make you a costly person to the NHS. Figures available via google suggest the yearly cost of treatment is around 7000£ escalating when you come down with secondary illnesses.
A person would have to be earning significantly above average before they became a net gain to the country economically.
Is it not tory policy to look at the economic situation of all the immigrants it can control? Was it my imagination that they set minimum threshold earnings for those applying via the family route?
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
Thanks Socca – that explains it. I must agree – Labour and the Libs should keep shouting about this and, ideally, bring the Kippers into the party too (clearly Farage should be involved, given the KIP poll ratings).
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
ROFL
really BaJ ?
I think the worst of the bunch will be Ed a man so wooden he had a walk on part in the Woodentops.
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
Not at all. The article is quite clear on that point:
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
They compare for education, age, experience, sex and region but they don't control for what I consider the most important facotr job. So they aren't comparing medical consultants in the private sector vs medical consultants in the public sector or private vs state teachers or indeed private vs state low level admin assistants.
So we have no way of knowing where the pension bonanza is being felt. Is it all in NHS consultant surgeons pensions or is it in Police and Fire service remuneration?
The last time I saw this type of comparison that controlled by job when you got to, say, mid-level manager with departmental budget in millions type position the Private sector total remuneration pissed on the public sector pay packet.
If the Labour leadership look at the Heywood result, and decide they need to do something to stop their voters defecting to UKIP, what will they do? The obvious response would be to talk tougher on Europe, but that would be unpopular with a significant chunk of their voters, and MPs.
If the Labour leadership just write off Heywood as a freak by-election result, MPs and candidates in vulnerable seats will still have their private worries, and could even take independent action, promising to support a tougher line on Europe in their campaign literature, without regard for party policy.
Labour voters are staying at home. That is Labour's problem.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
No it's not.
You can treat it at c $5 per day if you are willing to go for the (relatively complex) regime of pills. It only gets expensive if you want to use Quad instead.
HIV is a manageable chronic disease. No different to high blood pressure really.
"The cost of treating someone with HIV in the UK is estimated at around £18,000 per year, although this varies depending on the type and number of drugs taken and the stage of HIV infection ". http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm So, roughly £360k over 20 years.
Sounds a lot to me. And, of course, it is communicable, unlike diabetes and high blood pressure. I'm with Farage on this. Why allow people to immigrate who are going to be a drain on the country's finances? If they have exceptional qualities such as being a highly specialised engineeer or whatever, then fine. But we should be looking for people who will benefit the UK, not be a drain.
Comments
West Heath (Rushmoor) result:
UKIP - 50.9% (+4.1)
CON - 24.0% (-2.8)
LAB - 15.1% (+2.3)
LDEM - 10.0% (-3.6)
John Bickley was a good candidate, as I said in a post a while back when I said UKIP had a chance in H & M. I'd say you could characterise his views as being close to those of his voters - sort of 'mainstream UKIP' in terms of his voters.
Douglas Carswell is a very different kettle of fish. His concerns are not the concerns of his voters; he's as much a maverick in UKIP as he was in the Conservative Party. As the only UKIP MP, that's a curious position.
Just a few posts down the thread: "Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person."
Farage never said they were lower quality persons.
I'd rather understood the NHS and our political parties were also saying that.
People who are smokers, obese etc. are already being put in the lower quality person category by being told they won't get treatment. What's the difference ?
Really if you're going to troll kippers find something useful to annoy them with, it's pointless saying they do X when all the other parties are doing it too. Try Nigel's hypocrisy on his Euro-expenses at least it has a degree of integrity.
http://www.visabureau.com/australia/immigration-points-test.aspx
--------
"The purpose of the health requirement is to:
-protect the Australian community from public health and safety risks, particularly active tuberculosis
-contain public expenditure on health and community services, including social security benefits, allowances and pensions
-safeguard the access of Australian citizens and permanent residents to health care and community services in short supply.
Most visa applicants, and in some circumstances their dependents (whether they are migrating to Australia or not), are required to meet the health requirement."
https://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/health-requirements/overview-health-req.htm
Very sporting of you Richard.
Personally I'm with Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell when it comes to the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23777685
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152840/Public-vs-private-sector-pay-gap-is-5000-or-a-fifth-of-earnings.html
There, right there, is the structural deficit nobody can address because if you do Labour will bleat about "the cuts", get re-elected and make it all even worse.
In other countries you get a blood test as part of your residency application.
The question would then be, would you be excluded if you got HIV in the UK?
May I play this game?
Tories and those who have ever voted for them are vile. They not only eat babies but they especially like working class babies.
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage told Newsweek Europe.
He added that Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.
Asked whether by "quality" he meant people with a murder conviction, he said: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-condemned-for-calling-for-ban-on-hivpositive-migrants-coming-to-the-uk-9786376.html
Could it have been a worse night for Labour, not really, they still have Miliband to inspire voters to place their votes elsewhere. A defeat might have led to the defenestration of Red Ed, something for Labourites to recall, Malcolm Frazer called a snap election in Australia, but lost to Bob Hawke. Labor over there had ditched a useless leader just before a General Election. if you want to win again, ditch Ed.
The Tories got stuffed at home.
http://www.bodyconfidential.co.uk/Health/Manchesters-HIV-Rates-Reach-Record-High
Looks like it is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously.
I wonder if the (So high as to make no difference in life expectancy between HIV- and HIV+ (Thus effectively "cured") efficacy of anti retroviral drugs had lead to a complacency on the issue particularly amongst men who have sex with other men (To use the Blood donation terminology).
Presumably TSE is appalled by David Cameron overseeing an immigration system where the elderly are lumped in with murderers.
There is absolutely nothing I personally could have done to prevent my condition. It’s also noteworthy that my gt gt grandfather’s death certificate shows “asthma” as his cause of death.
For a young woman of 17, Malala is much more mature than most adults and she will go on to do some great things.
Sadly such posts are few and far between these days – you seem to be completely hung up on one subject.
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings/mgMemberIndex.aspx?VW=TABLE&PIC=1&FN=WARD
"The idea of the Tories being too "modern" to win in Clacton is a bizarre as it is repugnant. It comes down to a wrong way of seeing voters.
Are Ukip supporters in Clacton really angry, fearful, bewildered and unreasonable? Or decent people, trying to do the best by their families under a system that’s failing them?
If your town had fallen into decay, too late in your life for you to move out, how would you feel about it all?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola
Presumably you have a source for yours?
Noticed a couple of posters seemed to be saying that the TV debates are off because Dave is chicken.
Is this correct? Source?
Sex education is awful in general, for gay teenage boys it's non-existent.
"Ukip’s “2020 strategy”: the belief that a series of strong second-placed finishes next May, especially with local candidates who will contest the seats again five years later, will set the party up for a renewed assault at the next election."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/ukips-assault-labour-continues
Our medical conditions, our height, our disabilities, our skin colour and our eye shape do not matter one jot in terms of our quality as people. The only thing that matters for that is our moral character. Sadly the current system lets in a lot of people without that.
It was worth staying up for Carswell's acceptance speech. You can see why he carries such a personal vote. Longer term however the Heywood result looks more significant. It was obviously a stallar nite for UKIP and I cannot find a crumb of comfort for any of the other Parties with the possible exception of the Greens.
The task of stopping UKIP at Rochester has become more more difficult. They are in to 4/9 with Betfair, 2/5 generally with the bookies. On Betfair UKIP Seats Market you can forget about the None option: 1 to 5 is out to 1.9 whilst Over 5 is in to 2.4. Crossover beckons.
If Reckless does win, I don't know what the ceiling on UKIP seats at the GE might be.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-accused-of-dragging-his-feet-over-call-to-begin-tv-election-debates-9785213.html
On the day UKIP make huge gains in by-elections, it comes out that Cameron's running scare of debates. How is he going to stand up to the leaders of the EU if he can't even stand up to Farage and Miliband in a neutral debate? The man is a frit coward.
If the Labour leadership just write off Heywood as a freak by-election result, MPs and candidates in vulnerable seats will still have their private worries, and could even take independent action, promising to support a tougher line on Europe in their campaign literature, without regard for party policy.
Another 600 or so votes for UKIP in Heywood and Ed would have been handing in his resignation today. Since he is obviously so easy for them to beat, that would not have been good.
Otherwise it was pretty bad news all round if you weren't a Kipper.
Labour have a very big turnout problem. Especially with ed.
I think you may be right, Malala Yousafzai is 17, the previous youngest person to receive a Nobel prize was Sir William Lawrence Bragg (Physics, 1915). He was 25 years.
And just like every year the reporting on the figures likes to play fast an loose with whether they are doing like-for-like or whole population comparisons.
There are three things screwing the public finances: the size and per capita cost of the public sector, debt interest, and the pensions bill. The two former were inflated by Labour, partly funded by robbing private sector pensions and wage packets but largely paid for by debt i.e. unfunded.
To paper over the uncontrollable debt explosion Labour imported millions of immigrants and put them on benefits. Happily, these almost all vote Labour.
None of these is amenable to being fixed on less than a 20-year timescale. We need a fiscally conservative four-term government to do so. This is not going to happen, because anyone who campaigns on reducing public sector remuneration by 20% in real terms will never get elected.
We are completely structurally screwed to the point not only will things not actually get better, they will, if Labour gets, get even worse.
At some point the left will agree on some sort of private wealth expropriation. The mansion tax is testing the waters. It will quickly go from £12k above £2million to £10k on every private property, probably not limited to houses.
This won't be used to reduce debt - it will be pissed away in current spending.
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
Why would he enter a debate with Farage when for him a leaders' debate is all about driving home the theme of Ed is crap ?
One of the few sensible approaches I've seen from Cameron for a while.
How many Lib Dem seats at the last GE did they poll 22%+ in ?
You can treat it at c $5 per day if you are willing to go for the (relatively complex) regime of pills. It only gets expensive if you want to use Quad instead.
HIV is a manageable chronic disease. No different to high blood pressure really.
Dave is running scared. For good reason – he is the worst of the four at the debate format. Prefers set pieces and auto cues.
Blood pressure is not a communicable disease.
Well not biologically speaking, anyway.
Given the current mood music. UKIP should be up a lot.
'If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.'
Surely they would be a health tourist & not an migrant.
Labour apathy plus the anti-Labour vote coalescing around UKIP made the result in Heywood and Middleton close. EdM can't do much about the latter. He is totally responsible for the former. In a GE, when turnout will be higher (though still shockingly low), Labour will probably get away without suffering too many shocks in its heartlands. But that may only work for one more GE. At some stage, someone in that party has got to realise just how utterly separated it has become from the lives of millions of people who are well-disposed to the Labour brand but who feel no connection to what they see and hear from the party's leadership. If that does not happen, then Labour is finished. It will be the party that died of complacency.
No doubt the Tories face similar problems. But I don't particularly care about them.
Vote UKIP > Get Labour.
@david_conn: Hillsborough: S Yorks Insp Sykes has confirmed Police Fed urged MP to tell in parliament allegations about fans he now agrees are false.
I'm not judging them (Farage may well be though !) but the NHS is under strain.
The thing is that these things have to apply universally. An American or Indian businessman grilled by immigration on arrival might never return.
It's more interesting for me than Galloway blowing Labour out of water in Bradford [West?]. There is only one George Galloway - but the Kipper chappy managed to almost do it irrespective of the personal bandwagon George rode.
Again: how do you define 'moral character'? Or is it just yet another mindless anti-Islam rant?
A person would have to be earning significantly above average before they became a net gain to the country economically.
Is it not tory policy to look at the economic situation of all the immigrants it can control? Was it my imagination that they set minimum threshold earnings for those applying via the family route?
A man who won't be affected anyway. Neither will his constituents.
really BaJ ?
I think the worst of the bunch will be Ed a man so wooden he had a walk on part in the Woodentops.
So we have no way of knowing where the pension bonanza is being felt. Is it all in NHS consultant surgeons pensions or is it in Police and Fire service remuneration?
The last time I saw this type of comparison that controlled by job when you got to, say, mid-level manager with departmental budget in millions type position the Private sector total remuneration pissed on the public sector pay packet.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm
So, roughly £360k over 20 years.
Sounds a lot to me. And, of course, it is communicable, unlike diabetes and high blood pressure.
I'm with Farage on this. Why allow people to immigrate who are going to be a drain on the country's finances? If they have exceptional qualities such as being a highly specialised engineeer or whatever, then fine. But we should be looking for people who will benefit the UK, not be a drain.