Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.
When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.
However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.
And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.
When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
I think the difference is that the EU won't ever wake up to the reality of things until we actually leave. They still think they have power over us and can force us into bending us to their will. And, given the Europhilia in the Civil Service, they're probably right. Also, as long as we remain in the EU, they can still move power to Brussels through a non-treaty process.
If we leave, however, we will be able to achieve a far more stripped down model that could not be changed without the UK parliament signing off on it.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
Is it me, or has winter arrived overnight? Yesterday morning I was confounded by how warm it was in the dawn darkness, but today it definitely seems chillier.
Mr. Socrates, quite agree on the EU. A vile bureaucratic empire of idiots whose economic policies and general anti-democratic approach is a disgrace to behold. How long since their accounts were signed off?
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
Moderating consumption is a lot easier when you have an excess of money to spend. Unfortunately most of the moderating has been done by those with the least.
Communism has failed its people time and again, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Gordon Brown borrowing shedloads was a really bad thing; George Osborne borrowing shedloads is the genius of the best chancellor ever.
I hope that clears matters up.
Well, I'm confused - I thought the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 so £100billion must be a very small amount.
The elimination will now be cleared by the end of the next parliament.
So no need to be confused , you just have to change your belief system.
This government's failure to address overspending is shameful. It was their single most important task.
This is true, however the shrieking that results from even the most modest tax rise (pasties) or spending cut makes is indicative of a political class and an electorate who don't give a damn about sorting the problem and/or who are too addicted to what they believe they are entitled to without having to work for it.
Mentioning Greece downthread, I see that they're believers in the magic money tree again, with Syriza well clear in the polls on numbers that would be close to giving them an overall majority.
The attitude of both the ruling and the ruled has a great deal more in common with the Roman Empire in the fourth or fifth centuries than is comfortable.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
The EU already has control of trade.
It does. But this has not stopped some countries doing much better than others when it comes to building export markets. That our share of trade with so many emerging markets is far lower than so many other European countries is our fault, not the EU's.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.
When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.
However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.
And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.
When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
The EU already has control of trade.
No, Britain is free to trade without hinder, with any country outside the the EU. How long will that last though?
@MarkHopkins Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping. All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape. This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.
When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.
However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.
And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.
When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
It's a damn sight more realistic than a July 2015 referendum - an idea which once more showed how empty headed Nigel Farage is.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.
When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.
However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.
And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.
When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
It's a damn sight more realistic than a July 2015 referendum - an idea which once more showed how empty headed Nigel Farage is.
Farage just wants an In Out poll though. No negotiations beforehand.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
The EU already has control of trade.
No, Britain is free to trade without hinder, with any country outside the the EU. How long will that last though?
No they are not. If the EU imposes trade sanctions or tariffs on a particular trading partner then they apply across the EU including the UK. We have seen that recently with China.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Richard I do not think any serious person believes he can achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations. It is surely a device to get through the next election.
Similarly Cameron's unbelievable tax cuts he has proposed for the next parliament .
All the parties are not been honest to the electorate, about the UK`s total debt and deficit and how it will be addressed after the next general election.
Did you actually read the article linked to? It does not say anything like your statement. It suggests putting pressure on Turkey to allow Kurdish reinforcements into Kobane and also pressuring Saudi to stop the flow of money, people and supplies to IS, which the article calls barbaric, and wants defeated.
Indeed Stop the Wars position on this is much the same as Mr Farages expressed opinion.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
He was hardly going to say that it would be easy.
When/if the crunch comes (it won't if Ed Miliband is Prime Minister) the EU will need to decide whether it wishes to accommodate the UK within the EU or to require the UK to fit within the existing structures. All the evidence suggests that they will opt for the former if a deal can be done.
However, i expect that a deal cannot be done, largely because the Eurosceptics are completely unclear in their own minds what they actually want to achieve.
The error on your part is in thinking that if Cameron wins the Eurosceptics will have any part to play in the negotiations.
And it is not simply a matter of existing structures. Cameron is trying to claim that he can and will win concessions on free movement - probably the most fundamental principle of the whole basis of the EU. And one that will only be changed through a new treaty. Do you really imagine for a second that all 28 countries will agree to such a change?
From their viewpoint what's the practical difference between accommodating Britain within the EU on this sort of basis and a subsequent treaty negotiation after Britain had left the EU? The second is much more disorderly and much more hassle, not to mention a much bigger blow to the EU's prestige.
When/if the crunch comes, pressure would be applied successfully to ensure that all recalcitrants fall into line.
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
It's a damn sight more realistic than a July 2015 referendum - an idea which once more showed how empty headed Nigel Farage is.
Farage is wrong on this. However I believe his reasoning is that a 2015 referendum would not allow Cameron to claim some false victory in renegotiations which he could use to lever the result in favour of remaining in.
As I say I think Farage is wrong but his position is at least internally consistent and honest which is more than can be said for Cameron's.
Smoking. Disclaimer: I was a 20-a-day man until 2009, when I had acute chest pain and decided to quit before going to the doctor's!
As people here have noticed, it has become unacceptable very quickly - say in the last 10 years - and each cigarette now costs 50p apart from anything else - if it's not smuggled.
I'm interested in this "ban" in rented housing. How do landlords enforce it?
As someone who smoked, you might not have been aware but the smell of smoke lingers in properties for months if not years. It's pretty obvious when someone has smoked indoors - as for immediately outside the property, I suspect that's ok generally.
It's not attractive and especially for a landlord trying to get tenants.
Do I detect a note of superiority - "I'm a non-smoker, you're just an ex-smoker"?
No, do I touch a note of regret - "You've never smoked, I wish I'd never smoked" ?
You haven't got time to listen to me tell you all the things I wish I'd never done...
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Trouble is Richard, that most PBers won't face up to the absolute control the EU has on British matters like immigration, justice, farming and politics inside the EU parliament. No doubt they will try to extend control of the military and trade next. I can see it coming.
The EU already has control of trade.
No, Britain is free to trade without hinder, with any country outside the the EU. How long will that last though?
No they are not. If the EU imposes trade sanctions or tariffs on a particular trading partner then they apply across the EU including the UK. We have seen that recently with China.
Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping. All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape. This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
Spending money we don't have is making everyone, particularly the poor, worse off over the longer term.
There aren't enough "rich" people in the country to pay for it all, especially if you up taxes further.
Therefore we must have cuts, whether you like it or not, whether it hits low paid or not.
I am not nasty for pointing out reality, and what is in everyone's long term best interest.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Mentioning Rotherham, I do wonder whether the voters of the (former People's Republic of) South Yorkshire might be about to give Labour a kick in the Eds at the PCC by-election later this month. The SV voting system will work against Labour with transfers available between the three right-of-centre candidates, assuming Labour poll under 50% this time (and realistically, under low forties to account for a few transfers to them, to the other eliminated candidate and to nowhere).
UKIP's polling has improved no end since 2012 and what with Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield are not the monolithic Red blocks they once were.
Interestingly not much comment on here this morning on Barroso's comments on Marr that plans to limit EU migration are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU. He also made comment of the need for unanimity amongst the 28 for any changes to the EU. Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?
Richard I do not think any serious person believes he can achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations. It is surely a device to get through the next election.
Similarly Cameron's unbelievable tax cuts he has proposed for the next parliament .
All the parties are not been honest to the electorate, about the UK`s total debt and deficit and how it will be addressed after the next general election.
Of course, that's right. Cameron is seeking to win back UKIP votes. He is responding, following, flailing. It's a sign of weakness. And this is a bloke who is up against Ed Miliband! The world is going mad.
@MarkHopkins Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping. All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape. This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
Nothing bar a revolution tears apart a country like a default.
It mentions both, but distinctly separately. It lays out its reasons for opposing the war (agree or disagree at your leisure) and later on talks about the rhetoric etc is increasing Islamophobia within the UK and that it also opposes that.
"The current US bombing campaign of Iraq and Syria will not defeat ISIS. The way to defeat ISIS is not by using the methods which led to its creation. The wars and interventions in the Middle East for over a decade broke up existing states, destroyed their infrastructure and fostered sectarianism. This provided the fertile soil within which reprehensible ISIS rose."
"The ISIS terrorists have been carrying out all manner of brutal crimes and they must be defeated, but the airstrikes by the US, Britain and their allies are not intended to save lives or to defeat ISIS, but to strengthen the west’s domination of the Middle East region strategically and control its resources, most notably its oil."
"The negative rhetoric about Muslims used to promote the ‘war on terror’ has encouraged an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama UK, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, are reporting a rise of Islamophobia in the UK.".
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
It's a damn sight more realistic than a July 2015 referendum - an idea which once more showed how empty headed Nigel Farage is.
Farage is wrong on this. However I believe his reasoning is that a 2015 referendum would not allow Cameron to claim some false victory in renegotiations which he could use to lever the result in favour of remaining in.
As I say I think Farage is wrong but his position is at least internally consistent and honest which is more than can be said for Cameron's.
Wrong? It's barking mad.
Quite apart from the fact that the bill could not be got through Parliament in the time, the question would need to be settled and signed off, the public would need to be presented with detailed arguments by the two sides as to what the decisions would mean and the EU would need to form a position on the competing ways forward so that the public could reach an informed decision.
That Nigel Farage can even conceive of such a negotiating position after a general election on his party's supposed main plank shows what an incoherent mess UKIP' is.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Mentioning Rotherham, I do wonder whether the voters of the (former People's Republic of) South Yorkshire might be about to give Labour a kick in the Eds at the PCC by-election later this month. The SV voting system will work against Labour with transfers available between the three right-of-centre candidates, assuming Labour poll under 50% this time (and realistically, under low forties to account for a few transfers to them, to the other eliminated candidate and to nowhere).
UKIP's polling has improved no end since 2012 and what with Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield are not the monolithic Red blocks they once were.
On a turnout of less than 20% you'd expect Labour to get a kicking. A UKIP win would be good.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
I'm tempted to do a blog listing all the places this has happened. It's an enormous list, once you dig deep enough.
You absolutely should do. We have three places where it is confirmed it has happened on a mass scale, about 20 places where we've had at least one court case, and who knows how many places where nothing has been done about it at all. It clearly needs a national response so we can understand just how bad the problem is. The only reason Rotherham got any attention was because Professor Jay put a number on it, which meant even the BBC couldn't get away with not putting it as the lead story. It seems the authorities are doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen again.
@MarkHopkins Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping. All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape. This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
Nothing bar a revolution tears apart a country like a default.
What about an independence referendum? Scotland doesn't seem to be a happy place right now.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Mentioning Rotherham, I do wonder whether the voters of the (former People's Republic of) South Yorkshire might be about to give Labour a kick in the Eds at the PCC by-election later this month. The SV voting system will work against Labour with transfers available between the three right-of-centre candidates, assuming Labour poll under 50% this time (and realistically, under low forties to account for a few transfers to them, to the other eliminated candidate and to nowhere).
UKIP's polling has improved no end since 2012 and what with Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield are not the monolithic Red blocks they once were.
On a turnout of less than 20% you'd expect Labour to get a kicking. A UKIP win would be good.
@david_herdson How about a five year plan to get the UK out of debt? Everyone lives off the minimum amount the government has decided is fair, and the rest goes to service the debt. Inside five years capitalism can start again renewed and invigorated, and all you Tories will soon be able to become rich again, because you are all so smart and hardworking. I am sure you will be happy to allow the requisition of your bank balance and assets to achieve your dream of a debt free Britain.... Or not?
' Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?'
So if that's the case it will be easy to win a vote to leave the EU in 2017.
A perfect storm for UKIP,surely they can no longer be frit of a referendum?
He will win nothing and claim everything. Public perception is what will matter, not truth nor the consequences afterwards.
I presume you will be happy to accept that UKIP and the rest of the BOO crowd will not (and should not) sit quietly by after a rigged referendum and accept we will remain in the EU. Indeed the chances are it will do even more damage to the Tory party than if BOO had won.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Mentioning Rotherham, I do wonder whether the voters of the (former People's Republic of) South Yorkshire might be about to give Labour a kick in the Eds at the PCC by-election later this month. The SV voting system will work against Labour with transfers available between the three right-of-centre candidates, assuming Labour poll under 50% this time (and realistically, under low forties to account for a few transfers to them, to the other eliminated candidate and to nowhere).
UKIP's polling has improved no end since 2012 and what with Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield are not the monolithic Red blocks they once were.
On a turnout of less than 20% you'd expect Labour to get a kicking. A UKIP win would be good.
Well it depends who the Ukip candidate is.
Labour needs a good kicking for its own good. And the more UKIP people there are in positions of real authority/power the better they can be judged.
And all of this can be achieved, concluded and signed off before a 2017 referendum when we haven't even started negotiations yet? I am afraid that is simply not a realistic idea. And once the referendum has been held there is absolutely no reason to force the recalcitrants into line.
It's a damn sight more realistic than a July 2015 referendum - an idea which once more showed how empty headed Nigel Farage is.
Farage is wrong on this. However I believe his reasoning is that a 2015 referendum would not allow Cameron to claim some false victory in renegotiations which he could use to lever the result in favour of remaining in.
As I say I think Farage is wrong but his position is at least internally consistent and honest which is more than can be said for Cameron's.
Wrong? It's barking mad.
Quite apart from the fact that the bill could not be got through Parliament in the time, the question would need to be settled and signed off, the public would need to be presented with detailed arguments by the two sides as to what the decisions would mean and the EU would need to form a position on the competing ways forward so that the public could reach an informed decision.
That Nigel Farage can even conceive of such a negotiating position after a general election on his party's supposed main plank shows what an incoherent mess UKIP' is.
No, it just shows what a poor tactician Farage can be at times and why he is the wrong person to lead UKIP.
But do not let this deflect us (as you are clearly trying to do ) from the original question, which was the idiocy and impracticality of Cameron's claims to be able to get a cast iron change to EU policy on internal migration before a 2017 referendum. It is plainly false and designed specifically to con the public into supporting him in 2015.
@david_herdson How about a five year plan to get the UK out of debt? Everyone lives off the minimum amount the government has decided is fair, and the rest goes to service the debt. Inside five years capitalism can start again renewed and invigorated, and all you Tories will soon be able to become rich again, because you are all so smart and hardworking. I am sure you will be happy to allow the requisition of your bank balance and assets to achieve your dream of a debt free Britain.... Or not?
Given how quickly the productive people would move themselves and their capital outside the UK were such a proposal seriously considered, you would quickly find your debt situation far worse. Not least because GDP would shrink so quickly. Many on the British left seem to act like the 1970s and its lessons never happened.
Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.
YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.
If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?
Good Morning. I love it when @audreyanne and co, start to dissimulate and infer that this particular poll is all nonsense. Something that Mike did in his intro with - good old YouGov to the rescue. What these observers can't hide is that UKIP is gaining adherents and supporters and it absolutely KILLS THEM to admit it.
question is who is behind the puppet and pulling her strings
@Socrates Would these people be much of a loss? They obviously would not want to help the country out, preferring to look after their own selfish ends. With them out of the way, people who want to aid the country could then move into the positions the selfish were occupying.
'I presume you will be happy to accept that UKIP and the rest of the BOO crowd will not (and should not) sit quietly by after a rigged referendum '
On the one hand you are saying Cameron will get nothing from the negotiations and on the other you are saying that UKIP & BOO crowd will be unwilling & unable to articulate that to the electorate.
UKIP wanted a referendum,they got the offer of one in 2017 then they said they don't want one,now they want one in July 2015,now it will be a rigged referendum.
Why don't UKIP just say they don't want a referendum and save us from the ridiculous excuses.
@MarkHopkins Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping. All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape. This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
Nothing bar a revolution tears apart a country like a default.
What about an independence referendum? Scotland doesn't seem to be a happy place right now.
I should really have said "Precious few things tear apart a country like a default", but no, an independence referendum is chickenfeed in comparison. That might have a lasting impact on an emotional and social level but the kind of things that have to be imposed when the government has to cut, say, 20% off its spending overnight bring about those same results and a whole boatload more too.
Great thread (again). Loving this focus on polling analysis. The fact that so many non2010 voters then went UKIP in the prompt suggests that the prompt poll is unreliable.
YouGov with UKIP at 16% sounds about right then.
If we take that YouGov how do things look compared to pre-Conference season? Am I right in thinking that little has changed?
Good Morning. I love it when @audreyanne and co, start to dissimulate and infer that this particular poll is all nonsense. Something that Mike did in his intro with - good old YouGov to the rescue. What these observers can't hide is that UKIP is gaining adherents and supporters and it absolutely KILLS THEM to admit it.
question is who is behind the puppet and pulling her strings
Malcolm I would be surprised if anyone is.
I believe that she is a Cameron supporter, who does not really see much beyond that.
'I presume you will be happy to accept that UKIP and the rest of the BOO crowd will not (and should not) sit quietly by after a rigged referendum '
On the one hand you are saying Cameron will get nothing from the negotiations and on the other you are saying that UKIP & BOO crowd will be unwilling & unable to articulate that to the electorate.
UKIP wanted a referendum,they got the offer of one in 2017 then they said they don't want one,now they want one in July 2015,now it will be a rigged referendum.
Why don't UKIP just say they don't want a referendum and save us from the ridiculous excuses.
Still clinging to these stupid claims about referenda I see John. What UKIP want is for us to leave the EU. For that to be achieved we have to have a referendum that can be won, not one that has been fixed before hand by a Europhile PM who will never accept us leaving the EU. People don't like to believe they are being lied to, nor are they happy to accept change when they don't believe it is necessary.
So a PM coming back and lying about what he has achieved in renegotiations is going to make it far more difficult for the BOO side to win. Certainly not impossible but not as easy as it would be if we had one of the main parties campaigning for us to leave.
Personally I don't like leaving that sort of thing to chance so for me getting rid of the Europhile liar who is currently sitting in No 10 makes a BOO victory far more likely in the long term.
Of course unlike you I am not hindered by fanatical adherence to any particular party which makes logical thinking so much easier.
@Socrates Would these people be much of a loss? They obviously would not want to help the country out, preferring to look after their own selfish ends. With them out of the way, people who want to aid the country could then move into the positions the selfish were occupying.
Plenty of them are happy to help out the country, and have been doing for years, paying half of their income to fund Labour's bloated state, while taking a mere fraction of that in public services. It would just be that they have also saved hard to look after their families and wouldn't see why their savings should be seized when there are still irresponsible people being subsidised. Patriotism is a fine thing, but it doesn't happen in the absence of all logic.
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
I'm tempted to do a blog listing all the places this has happened. It's an enormous list, once you dig deep enough.
SeanT room for more than one polemic article from you on this! I hold the Police mainly responsible for the feeble way they just looked away. The fact that it encompasses many of the Police areas is indicative of an institutional problem within the Police Leadership. The new role of PCCs was aimed at ensuring the Police had the "right" set of priorities. Sadly the PCCs have often come from the old police boards of councillors and too often lack the drive and intelligence to ensure that the police have the right priorities. Some of the PCCs are even people who opposed the setting up of the PCCs so work away for £80k undermining the job! They should start with banning for at least 5 years the promotion of any officer that had such incidents reported to them and did not take action or ask their superior for permission to take action. Maybe bring in a new rule called "delayed pension for failures and incompetence" adding 5 years to the service required by these people before they got their usual pensions...?
The Conservative face a fracking revolt in 120 'safe' seats, including most of the Front Bench, plus former Front Bench DEFRA Owen Paterson. If UKIP get rid of its pro-fracking stance, and go anti-fracking/shale gas, Tory seats would tumble like nine pins. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/conservative-face-electoral-destruction.html UKIP could make 24% into a winning 35% in a month.
The only obstacle being 'former' Conservative Roger Helmer MEP, UKIP's Energy spokesman, who's dug the party in on a pro-fracking stance.
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate. - Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years -Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA. -Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well. -COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater. -COGCC Website 6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime. -Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system. -Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
How would we cope without the unfettered immigration, the copious bureaucracy, spending billions to join a club that hobbles our economy?
We'd manage. The EU's eurozone insanity is going to send the juggernaut careering off a cliff sooner or later.
Bring it on I say! I'd LOVE to be a pygmy nation with no world influence. As long as we have a sufficient armed services to protect our people, and sufficient economic room for manoeuvre to feed them, I'm happy. It seems that being a 'world power' these days causes nothing but misery. Stable, neutral, prosperous, democratic and fair -that's the UK I want. I find the idea we need to aspire to 'power' over other countries profoundly illiberal.
@Socrates Save the rich and starve the poor seems to be your favoured message? It seldom works out well, as eventually the poor far outnumber the rich, and decide that the rich can best serve the nation by hanging from lamp posts. We are not at that stage yet, but don't be to sure it is not in our future.
How would we cope without the unfettered immigration, the copious bureaucracy, spending billions to join a club that hobbles our economy?
We'd manage. The EU's eurozone insanity is going to send the juggernaut careering off a cliff sooner or later.
It's not like we're the sixth largest economy and a nuclear power with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council or anything.
I heard Barasso, this morning, talk about Ebola. He used that as an example of how the UK's influence would diminish if it were no longer a member of the EU.
It mentions both, but distinctly separately. It lays out its reasons for opposing the war (agree or disagree at your leisure) and later on talks about the rhetoric etc is increasing Islamophobia within the UK and that it also opposes that.
"The current US bombing campaign of Iraq and Syria will not defeat ISIS. The way to defeat ISIS is not by using the methods which led to its creation. The wars and interventions in the Middle East for over a decade broke up existing states, destroyed their infrastructure and fostered sectarianism. This provided the fertile soil within which reprehensible ISIS rose."
"The ISIS terrorists have been carrying out all manner of brutal crimes and they must be defeated, but the airstrikes by the US, Britain and their allies are not intended to save lives or to defeat ISIS, but to strengthen the west’s domination of the Middle East region strategically and control its resources, most notably its oil."
"The negative rhetoric about Muslims used to promote the ‘war on terror’ has encouraged an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama UK, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, are reporting a rise of Islamophobia in the UK.".
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
Nonsense. It doesn't even directly link the islamophobia to the bombings, but rather to rhetoric used by government.
No I don't agree with them, but it doesn't mean I agree with you misrepresenting their views.
@Socrates Would these people be much of a loss? They obviously would not want to help the country out, preferring to look after their own selfish ends. With them out of the way, people who want to aid the country could then move into the positions the selfish were occupying.
Sadly, it's brain farts like this that undermine you when you do actually have a serious point to make.
@SeanT Shock horror, the powerful exploit the weak and vulnerable. It was ever thus Sean, and in fact, it is the basic building block of your political view.
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
Did you actually read the article linked to? It does not say anything like your statement. It suggests putting pressure on Turkey to allow Kurdish reinforcements into Kobane and also pressuring Saudi to stop the flow of money, people and supplies to IS, which the article calls barbaric, and wants defeated.
Indeed Stop the Wars position on this is much the same as Mr Farages expressed opinion.
It mentions both, but distinctly separately. It lays out its reasons for opposing the war (agree or disagree at your leisure) and later on talks about the rhetoric etc is increasing Islamophobia within the UK and that it also opposes that.
"The current US bombing campaign of Iraq and Syria will not defeat ISIS. The way to defeat ISIS is not by using the methods which led to its creation. The wars and interventions in the Middle East for over a decade broke up existing states, destroyed their infrastructure and fostered sectarianism. This provided the fertile soil within which reprehensible ISIS rose."
"The ISIS terrorists have been carrying out all manner of brutal crimes and they must be defeated, but the airstrikes by the US, Britain and their allies are not intended to save lives or to defeat ISIS, but to strengthen the west’s domination of the Middle East region strategically and control its resources, most notably its oil."
"The negative rhetoric about Muslims used to promote the ‘war on terror’ has encouraged an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama UK, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, are reporting a rise of Islamophobia in the UK.".
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
We are flying thousands of kilometers then bombing IS positions within a couple of kilometers of the Turkish border, while the fellow NATO member Turkey prevents Kurdish reinforcements getting into Kobane.
Saudi planes are also dropping bombs on IS, while beheading their own citizens for crimes such as apostasy and being gay. Saudi is a major source of money, volunteers and supplies to IS.
Stop the War are saying that we are following the wrong strategy. They do seem to have a point.
I have mixed views. I always detested it in restaurants, but I didn't mind it in pubs or private clubs. Strangely, I like it less walking behind a smoker on the pavement on the high-street (where do you go?) compared to smoking in public parks, which you can by and large avoid.
You obviously don't live in overcrowded London though, where managing to grab a piece of real estate in a public park on a sunny afternoon can be a mission in most of them.
Last night I saw someone who had moved back to London after spending five years abroad, and she said she could definitely notice the increase in congestion over only that time. Another friend in the group pointed out that just 15 years ago, when the Christmas lights went up, they used to drive down from north London (zone 3), park in Oxford street (!) and walk along looking at the displays in every window. With immigration remaining at current levels, London's going to be truly hell in another 15 years. Even with a top rate construction plan, there's no way we can accommodate the population surge we have now in the capital. It's completely unsustainable if the governments cares about people's standard of living.
Certainly not, I live in rural Hampshire. Although I did live in London (for a year) during 2012 to support my wife's career and studies, and didn't enjoy it. Even though we had a 2-bedroom flat by the river.
I commute to London daily during the week for work. I've totally had enough by Friday, and love coming back to the countryside to breathe and relax during the weekend.
It's a totally different pace of life here. You should try it.
Edit: speaking of which, I'm heading off for a walk in the woods with my wife now. Catch you later.
@Luckyguy1983 Hardly a brainfart if you have some degree of imagination. It is a counterfactual to the idea of capitalism that the poor spend to much, and the rich are not rich enough. I am not seriously advocating it as a way forward, but relying on those with comparatively little to practice moderation and sacrifice while those at the top don't, is not the smartest idea for the good of a country.
SeanT room for more than one polemic article from you on this! I hold the Police mainly responsible for the feeble way they just looked away. The fact that it encompasses many of the Police areas is indicative of an institutional problem within the Police Leadership. The new role of PCCs was aimed at ensuring the Police had the "right" set of priorities. Sadly the PCCs have often come from the old police boards of councillors and too often lack the drive and intelligence to ensure that the police have the right priorities. Some of the PCCs are even people who opposed the setting up of the PCCs so work away for £80k undermining the job! They should start with banning for at least 5 years the promotion of any officer that had such incidents reported to them and did not take action or ask their superior for permission to take action. Maybe bring in a new rule called "delayed pension for failures and incompetence" adding 5 years to the service required by these people before they got their usual pensions...?
The trouble is this whole issue is so incendiary and horrific and bewildering, it becomes hard to stop obsessing once you investigate. As far as I can see there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of these cases across the country: dozens of GANGS in dozens of TOWNS - and these are just the ones arrested or convicted, so far.
It needs a proper news journalist sleuthing it down, not a part time blogger. And, moreover, right now I am trying to write a book to a deadline, not wade into an explosive debate which will use up lots of time and energy (hence my recent silence on the Telegraph).
You are correct that it needs a proper news journalist to do this. But the question is, in the absence of that, what is the next best option? If everyone concludes someone else with more expertise/time needs to do it because it's such a big issue, then the end result could be that no-one does it. Clegg and Cameron clearly have no sense of moral responsibility in getting to the bottom of this. The public need to pressure them into it, and, to do that, the public need to be aware of the true extent of this. The well-being of thousands of children is at stake.
@Socrates Save the rich and starve the poor seems to be your favoured message? It seldom works out well, as eventually the poor far outnumber the rich, and decide that the rich can best serve the nation by hanging from lamp posts. We are not at that stage yet, but don't be to sure it is not in our future.
That's not my message at all. I just believe that the best method for supporting the poor isn't the mass confiscation of private property and the crashing of the economy.
"The negative rhetoric about Muslims used to promote the ‘war on terror’ has encouraged an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama UK, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, are reporting a rise of Islamophobia in the UK.".
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
Nonsense. It doesn't even directly link the islamophobia to the bombings, but rather to rhetoric used by government.
No I don't agree with them, but it doesn't mean I agree with you misrepresenting their views.
Why the F does this moron even mention Islamophobia in an article about bombing ISIS? What has "Islamophobia" got to do with defending minorities from rape and genocide? Why does he refer to Islamophobia at all if he doesn't want to blur the issues, to excuse his grotesque posturing on ISIS in the most mendacious way - by making out his position is a species of anti-racism?
Stop being a twit. Stop defending this cretin.
Because he's saying that the rhetoric being used is causing the islamophobia?
Try and be better than this Sean, there's plenty of ways to oppose what's in that piece. Hell, I disagree with them. You don't need to embellish things.
The Conservative face a fracking revolt in 120 'safe' seats, including most of the Front Bench, plus former Front Bench DEFRA Owen Paterson. If UKIP get rid of its pro-fracking stance, and go anti-fracking/shale gas, Tory seats would tumble like nine pins. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/conservative-face-electoral-destruction.html UKIP could make 24% into a winning 35% in a month.
The only obstacle being 'former' Conservative Roger Helmer MEP, UKIP's Energy spokesman, who's dug the party in on a pro-fracking stance.
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate. - Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years -Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA. -Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well. -COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater. -COGCC Website 6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime. -Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system. -Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
This from the man who claimed that fracking would be a major issues in the Newark by-election even though there was and is no fracking planned in the constituency ever because the geology is wrong.
This also from the man who claimed that methane was a major endocrine disruptor.
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
We are flying thousands of kilometers then bombing IS positions within a couple of kilometers of the Turkish border, while the fellow NATO member Turkey prevents Kurdish reinforcements getting into Kobane.
Saudi planes are also dropping bombs on IS, while beheading their own citizens for crimes such as apostasy and being gay. Saudi is a major source of money, volunteers and supplies to IS.
Stop the War are saying that we are following the wrong strategy. They do seem to have a point.
If the USA hadn't started bombing Kobane, quite seriously, a few days ago, ISIS would have seized the town and started their rapes and massacres. Everyone is quite clear on that. It may not work, but at least it has stopped the Islamonazi advance, for now.
"Commanders returning with wounded fighters for treatment in Turkey have provided a first-hand account of the American air strikes that changed the course of the battle for the Syrian border town of Kobane"
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
Might prevent you from talking utter bilge for a few blissful moments too.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Mr. Foxinsox, point-by-point, 1. Doesn't advocate anything, just recites past mistakes 2. Reiteration 3. Disagree 4. A legitimate point but not one mutually exclusive or even contradictory to the air strike policy 5. As per 4. 6. As per 4. 7. Disagree, and air strikes may be one reason why Kobane has held out so much longer than expected 8. All in favour of aid in those countries, again, not contrary to air strikes 9. Glad they found time for another daft statement about Islamophobia 10. The West may be partially to blame (certainly for the needless war in 2003) but this particular brand of religious extremism has no origin in the West. If STW want to feel all 'white guilt' and blame nasty white people and Christians and the West and Europe for things, that's up to them. ISIS is not a creature of the West, but the hatchling of Islamism.
' What UKIP want is for us to leave the EU. For that to be achieved we have to have a referendum that can be won'
So Farage thinks an EU referendum can be won in July 2015 and not two years later when the result of any negotiations will be clear for all to see together with an unpopular mid term government that has dished out more austerity.
Why is everyone so concerned about foreigners being killed by the NWO in needless wars where they create the enemy - Al Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL and so on? They are delivering death into Britain now. Yet all political parties are in favour.
See what's going on around the world.
Susan Wallace Babbs, Parachute CO Picture Exposure: Air- benzene, tetrachloroetheneand 1,4-dichlorobenzene Symptoms: Vomiting, diarrhea, lesions, pain, elevated heart rate Testimony: One day, while walking through a field near her home, Susan collapsed unconscious from breathing in elevated levels of hydrocarbons that had come off of a nearby condensate tank from a fracking well, less than 1/2 mile away. "The next morning Wallace-Babb was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. As weeks passed, anytime she went outdoors, her symptoms worsened. Wallace-Babb's doctor began to suspect she had been poisoned... Wallace-Babb's symptoms mirror those reported by a handful of others living near her ranch in Parachute, Colo"
"I took to wearing a respirator and swim goggles outside to tend to my animals" - Susan Wallace Babbs.
It does say that. keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
We are flying thousands of kilometers then bombing IS positions within a couple of kilometers of the Turkish border, while the fellow NATO member Turkey prevents Kurdish reinforcements getting into Kobane.
Saudi planes are also dropping bombs on IS, while beheading their own citizens for crimes such as apostasy and being gay. Saudi is a major source of money, volunteers and supplies to IS.
Stop the War are saying that we are following the wrong strategy. They do seem to have a point.
If the USA hadn't started bombing Kobane, quite seriously, a few days ago, ISIS would have seized the town and started their rapes and massacres. Everyone is quite clear on that. It may not work, but at least it has stopped the Islamonazi advance, for now.
"Commanders returning with wounded fighters for treatment in Turkey have provided a first-hand account of the American air strikes that changed the course of the battle for the Syrian border town of Kobane"
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
Perhaps it would be easier if the USA bombed from its bases in Turkey?
The RAF has not been bombing Kobane, and indeed its flights have often dropped no bombs. IS will not be defeated by such missions.
Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS.
It's important to be objective about UKIPs prospects if we are going to bet right. The key assessment we have to make is to examine what their strategy will be. Obviously some of this will depend upon the Rochester result.
However, they are planning, according to my sources, a significant campaign of advertisements in the local press next month, at least here in the East of England.
They are also adopting a strategy to maximise their presence even in seats where they have no serious prospects or where they think there will be major press attention during the GE Campaign.
They are currently concentrating on main roads in these areas, trying to get as many poster sites as possible to give them an impact well beyond their actual support levels
I think studying UKIP's strategy during the this parliament will be fascinating. Mr Goodwin is planning his next book on this subject.
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/520631132547977216
During the 2014 local/EU campaign I seem to recall there were reports of UKIP advertising in areas that did not have local elections, and that the response was that the advertising was part of a long term strategy, aiming for greater success in the years ahead.
I find it quite encouraging that a Mr Sykes seems to be taking a hands on role here. Someone with a track record of success. (Much like Lord Ashcroft.)
It does say that. It says we should stop bombing. It offers no alternative way of saving the Kurds of Kobane - or the minorities of Iraq and Syria - from the headcutters. So the writer, Aaron Kiely, is happy to sacrifice thousands to the rapist Nazis to keep his conscience clean of "imperialism".
Quite ludicrously, he claims the west is *really* bombing because we "want to control the oil".
The principle MORAL reason he wants to stop bombing is because it is encouraging "an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks" - the writer is super-keen to conflate the two issues.
As Mike K says, the NUS is degenerate. That is exactly the right word. And you seem to share that degeneracy?
We are flying thousands of kilometers then bombing IS positions within a couple of kilometers of the Turkish border, while the fellow NATO member Turkey prevents Kurdish reinforcements getting into Kobane.
Saudi planes are also dropping bombs on IS, while beheading their own citizens for crimes such as apostasy and being gay. Saudi is a major source of money, volunteers and supplies to IS.
Stop the War are saying that we are following the wrong strategy. They do seem to have a point.
If the USA hadn't started bombing Kobane, quite seriously, a few days ago, ISIS would have seized the town and started their rapes and massacres. Everyone is quite clear on that. It may not work, but at least it has stopped the Islamonazi advance, for now.
"Commanders returning with wounded fighters for treatment in Turkey have provided a first-hand account of the American air strikes that changed the course of the battle for the Syrian border town of Kobane"
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
Might prevent you from talking utter bilge for a few blissful moments too.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
So stating I disagree with the article but not in the same way as you, in your mind counts me as being an accessory (giving mindspace?) and supporting the 'rapey-killy' thing.
"Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS."
You make that sound like a bad thing. We sell sorts of stuff to countries that have the death penalty are you advocating that we stop trading with China, Japan or the USA?
Perhaps it would be easier if the USA bombed from its bases in Turkey?
The RAF has not been bombing Kobane, and indeed its flights have often dropped no bombs. IS will not be defeated by such missions.
Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS.
More ridiculous still, we get Saudi Arabia to train thousands more 'moderate' rebels (y'know, they're the fluffy islamists) to go into Syria, topple Assad, and bring about the same Sharia basket case in Syria that ISIS want. It's utterly beyond parody, and whilst I greatly appreciate Sean T when he has his tail up going after a genuine injustice, his current Murdoch-esque sensationalism over ISIS and refusal to engage with the real issues driving this conflict is pathetic. We are obsessed with unseating Assad, and to do so we will make Syria a Libya-esque hell and call it liberation.
' What UKIP want is for us to leave the EU. For that to be achieved we have to have a referendum that can be won'
So Farage thinks an EU referendum can be won in July 2015 and not two years later when the result of any negotiations will be clear for all to see together with an unpopular mid term government that has dished out more austerity.
Any you think UKIP is credible???
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
I don't find it particularly unhelpful -it's a good deal milder than calling someone an accessory to genocide. Perhaps I should have added why it's bilge, but you'll see I've done that further up.
I'm intrigued to see the hostility to e-cigs, which I first encountered over the summer from my mother. I'm not a smoker, but I find this baffling. It suggests to me that the objection to smoking goes well beyond a public health concern and into aesthetics.
I think its an example of zealots confusing their purpose with their past actions.
Smoking in all its forms has become evil, rather than the harm that habitually smoking tobacco does as a contributory factor in lung diseases.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
The UK is currently doing very little to stop ISIS. Nobody in their right mind believes the current UK policy hinders ISIS attempts to kill, maim and wound Iraqis and Syrians. Is the UK an accessory to attempted genocide?
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
So stating I disagree with the article but not in the same way as you, in your mind counts me as being an accessory (giving mindspace?) and supporting the 'rapey-killy' thing.
Really?
I do wonder about Sean recently and if he has started using again.
The other day when I pointed how ponceyboots Gaylord he had become over one YouGov poll showing Yes ahead he rebutted with that he had won the Indyref thanks to his telegraph column.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
I'm struck by how insane but kinda clever that theory is. Not that I believe it, for the record.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
So stating I disagree with the article but not in the same way as you, in your mind counts me as being an accessory (giving mindspace?) and supporting the 'rapey-killy' thing.
Really?
I do wonder about Sean recently and if he has started using again.
The other day when I pointed how ponceyboots Gaylord he had become over one YouGov poll showing Yes ahead he rebutted with that he had won the Indyref thanks to his telegraph column.
Honestly you can't beat delusions like that.
Save your energy.
I think the rest of us forget that SeanT is literally professionally opinionated, whereas we all just do it as a hobby. The intensity of his views is something to behold, I won't deny.
Er, if you look at my answer to Antifrank I already said I thought that Farage's position was wrong. But there is also the fact that there is more chance of BOO winning a referendum when it is clearly on the basis of no change (2015) rather than winning one on the basis of false hope of change (2017).
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union can only be amended under article 48 of the former, either by means of the ordinary revision procedure or by the simplified revision procedure. Both procedures require any treaty change to be ratified by all the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The idea that any treaty change, as opposed to a putative treaty change subject to the ratification of every other member state, will be on the table by 2017 is absurd. A real change in the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe with require a treaty change. If Cameron has not obtained that by 2017, it seems likely that he will be forced by his own logic to recommend withdrawal in any referendum. The man may be a charlatan, but I do not see either how (1) he could plausibly recommend to stay in under such circumstances or (2) could present a renegotiation without a treaty change as substantive.
I agree with your interpretation. That has been my point all along. My issue is that he will try to fool the public with some assurance that these changes will take place after a vote to stay in. In fact I would go so far as to say that is exactly what he will do. He must know that, as you have pointed out, he cannot achieve what he is claiming even now and yet he persists in insisting it is possible.
Why do you think he is doing this if not to try and persuade us that a post referendum ratification of the changes is achievable?
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
Is that the one Tapestry was referring to the other day? Who in their right mind believes this stuff?
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
lol
challenging the fates - not necessarily wise for a seventies TV presenter.
"Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS."
You make that sound like a bad thing. We sell sorts of stuff to countries that have the death penalty are you advocating that we stop trading with China, Japan or the USA?
I do not think we should support regimes with arms sales that use capital punishment for such "crimes" as changing religion, blasphemy or being gay.
Saudi Arabia do have capital punishment for these. If they are barbaric for IS they are barbaric for Saudi too.
Looking at the ComRes poll, Anthony Wells offers an interesting theory for the difference in UKIP support between online/phone pollsters:
"(I am personally intrigued by the possibility that prompting may have a different impact in telephone polls, where people may feel obliged to pick one of the options offered by a human interviewer, than in an online poll where it’s just clicking through to another list of options – but obviously I don’t have phone polls to test it on!)"
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
I have always been quite a fan of Bill Oddie but I think he might well have jumped the shark with that one. Quite mad.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
I'm struck by how insane but kinda clever that theory is. Not that I believe it, for the record.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
So stating I disagree with the article but not in the same way as you, in your mind counts me as being an accessory (giving mindspace?) and supporting the 'rapey-killy' thing.
Really?
I do wonder about Sean recently and if he has started using again.
The other day when I pointed how ponceyboots Gaylord he had become over one YouGov poll showing Yes ahead he rebutted with that he had won the Indyref thanks to his telegraph column.
Honestly you can't beat delusions like that.
Save your energy.
I think the rest of us forget that SeanT is literally professionally opinionated, whereas we all just do it as a hobby. The intensity of his views is something to behold, I won't deny.
I'm not annoyed at all that SeanT is paid to write his telegraph columns and my pieces for PB are for free.
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
Is that the one Tapestry was referring to the other day? Who in their right mind believes this stuff?
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
Is that the one Tapestry was referring to the other day? Who in their right mind believes this stuff?
95% of Guardian readers - they believe anything as long as it is to do with A) Anti America Oil Companies C) Conspiracy theories D) Israel or E) Big Pharma.
He must know that, as you have pointed out, he cannot achieve what he is claiming even now and yet he persists in insisting it is possible.
Why do you think he is doing this if not to try and persuade us that a post referendum ratification of the changes is achievable?
As I said, the man is a charlatan, and he will continue to maintain the almost impossible is not merely plausible but likely until he is forced to accept reality. Bear in mind he has been dragged kicking and screaming to his current position from his more extravagant Europhilia in 2010-2011. Cameron's tactic, as in all matters, has been to buy off short-term difficulties with incremental concessions rather than to set out a principled position. We should expect the same to continue in the unfortunate event that he remains Prime Minister after the next general election to the House of Commons.
"Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS."
You make that sound like a bad thing. We sell sorts of stuff to countries that have the death penalty are you advocating that we stop trading with China, Japan or the USA?
I do not think we should support regimes with arms sales that use capital punishment for such "crimes" as changing religion, blasphemy or being gay.
Saudi Arabia do have capital punishment for these. If they are barbaric for IS they are barbaric for Saudi too.
on that basis we can also ditch most of the overseas aid budget - good move Doc.
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
lol
challenging the fates - not necessarily wise for a seventies TV presenter.
The page 404's for me from the link you posted either the wrong link or someone decided to take it down I guess
Conspiracy theory on Ebola is that it is a hoax (actually spread by Red Cross innoculation jabs), designed to get US troops into Nigeria to secure the massive oil finds (after the failure of its attempt to do so over Boko Haram).
I'm struck by how insane but kinda clever that theory is. Not that I believe it, for the record.
You offer no alternative that makes any sense. so people like you, and corporeal and definitely Aaron Kiely - and Nigel Farage, for that matter - would have contentedly sat back and watched ISIS slaughter and behead an entire city. Well done. Should be proud of yerselves.
I'm off for lunch with the family. Oysters, I think. Get rid of the lingering distaste from pb this morning.
About 5 minutes ago I wrote, and you quoted me saying I disagreed with the piece, but thought you were misrepresenting their reasoning.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
Anyone who gives mindspace to the bollocks from Stop the War is, right now, an accessory to attempted genocide. It's not complex. At all.
If you're happy being that accessory, if you're happy to let ISIS do their rapey-killy thing - like half of pb this morning - fair enough. Later.
So stating I disagree with the article but not in the same way as you, in your mind counts me as being an accessory (giving mindspace?) and supporting the 'rapey-killy' thing.
Really?
I do wonder about Sean recently and if he has started using again.
The other day when I pointed how ponceyboots Gaylord he had become over one YouGov poll showing Yes ahead he rebutted with that he had won the Indyref thanks to his telegraph column.
Honestly you can't beat delusions like that.
Save your energy.
I think the rest of us forget that SeanT is literally professionally opinionated, whereas we all just do it as a hobby. The intensity of his views is something to behold, I won't deny.
I'm not annoyed at all that SeanT is paid to write his telegraph columns and my pieces for PB are for free.
Not annoyed at all
Fair point. And like your lack of annoyance I have no opinion on the relative quality of those articles.
Comments
If we leave, however, we will be able to achieve a far more stripped down model that could not be changed without the UK parliament signing off on it.
Is it me, or has winter arrived overnight? Yesterday morning I was confounded by how warm it was in the dawn darkness, but today it definitely seems chillier.
Mr. Socrates, quite agree on the EU. A vile bureaucratic empire of idiots whose economic policies and general anti-democratic approach is a disgrace to behold. How long since their accounts were signed off?
Communism has failed its people time and again, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Mentioning Greece downthread, I see that they're believers in the magic money tree again, with Syriza well clear in the polls on numbers that would be close to giving them an overall majority.
The attitude of both the ruling and the ruled has a great deal more in common with the Roman Empire in the fourth or fifth centuries than is comfortable.
P.S. Did you see the secret report in Birmingham that Rotherham-style abuse has happened there?
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-report-reveals-7948902
Worth mentioning on your blog I think. We now have three towns where it has happened on a mass scale with a cover-up: Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham. And no further coverage on the mainstream media.
Why are you wittering on about communism? I was pointing out a basic fact, that you amongst many on this board seem incapable of grasping.
All the cuts you are in favour of, hit the low paid the hardest, while letting the better off escape.
This might make your little capitalist heart glow, but it tears apart the society you profess to care about.
An example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-27/eu-hits-chinese-solar-glass-exporters-with-tariffs-up-to-42-1-.html
It is surely a device to get through the next election.
Similarly Cameron's unbelievable tax cuts he has proposed for the next parliament .
All the parties are not been honest to the electorate, about the UK`s total debt and deficit and how it will be addressed after the next general election.
Indeed Stop the Wars position on this is much the same as Mr Farages expressed opinion.
As I say I think Farage is wrong but his position is at least internally consistent and honest which is more than can be said for Cameron's.
Spending money we don't have is making everyone, particularly the poor, worse off over the longer term.
There aren't enough "rich" people in the country to pay for it all, especially if you up taxes further.
Therefore we must have cuts, whether you like it or not, whether it hits low paid or not.
I am not nasty for pointing out reality, and what is in everyone's long term best interest.
UKIP's polling has improved no end since 2012 and what with Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield are not the monolithic Red blocks they once were.
No mark, I never said you were nasty. Only incapable of rational thought.
' Does anyone seriously believe Cameron can now achieve any of the things he is claiming in his renegotiations?'
So if that's the case it will be easy to win a vote to leave the EU in 2017.
A perfect storm for UKIP,surely they can no longer be frit of a referendum?
It mentions both, but distinctly separately. It lays out its reasons for opposing the war (agree or disagree at your leisure) and later on talks about the rhetoric etc is increasing Islamophobia within the UK and that it also opposes that.
"The current US bombing campaign of Iraq and Syria will not defeat ISIS. The way to defeat ISIS is not by using the methods which led to its creation. The wars and interventions in the Middle East for over a decade broke up existing states, destroyed their infrastructure and fostered sectarianism. This provided the fertile soil within which reprehensible ISIS rose."
"The ISIS terrorists have been carrying out all manner of brutal crimes and they must be defeated, but the airstrikes by the US, Britain and their allies are not intended to save lives or to defeat ISIS, but to strengthen the west’s domination of the Middle East region strategically and control its resources, most notably its oil."
"The negative rhetoric about Muslims used to promote the ‘war on terror’ has encouraged an increasing number of Islamophobic attacks. Tell Mama UK, which monitors anti-Muslim attacks, are reporting a rise of Islamophobia in the UK.".
Quite apart from the fact that the bill could not be got through Parliament in the time, the question would need to be settled and signed off, the public would need to be presented with detailed arguments by the two sides as to what the decisions would mean and the EU would need to form a position on the competing ways forward so that the public could reach an informed decision.
That Nigel Farage can even conceive of such a negotiating position after a general election on his party's supposed main plank shows what an incoherent mess UKIP' is.
How about a five year plan to get the UK out of debt?
Everyone lives off the minimum amount the government has decided is fair, and the rest goes to service the debt. Inside five years capitalism can start again renewed and invigorated, and all you Tories will soon be able to become rich again, because you are all so smart and hardworking.
I am sure you will be happy to allow the requisition of your bank balance and assets to achieve your dream of a debt free Britain....
Or not?
I presume you will be happy to accept that UKIP and the rest of the BOO crowd will not (and should not) sit quietly by after a rigged referendum and accept we will remain in the EU. Indeed the chances are it will do even more damage to the Tory party than if BOO had won.
But do not let this deflect us (as you are clearly trying to do ) from the original question, which was the idiocy and impracticality of Cameron's claims to be able to get a cast iron change to EU policy on internal migration before a 2017 referendum. It is plainly false and designed specifically to con the public into supporting him in 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29680059
How would we cope without the unfettered immigration, the copious bureaucracy, spending billions to join a club that hobbles our economy?
We'd manage. The EU's eurozone insanity is going to send the juggernaut careering off a cliff sooner or later.
Would these people be much of a loss? They obviously would not want to help the country out, preferring to look after their own selfish ends.
With them out of the way, people who want to aid the country could then move into the positions the selfish were occupying.
'I presume you will be happy to accept that UKIP and the rest of the BOO crowd will not (and should not) sit quietly by after a rigged referendum '
On the one hand you are saying Cameron will get nothing from the negotiations and on the other you are saying that UKIP & BOO crowd will be unwilling & unable to articulate that to the electorate.
UKIP wanted a referendum,they got the offer of one in 2017 then they said they don't want one,now they want one in July 2015,now it will be a rigged referendum.
Why don't UKIP just say they don't want a referendum and save us from the ridiculous excuses.
'It seems Barroso agrees with the Clegg, EU ambassador to Britain, that we would be a pygmy without the EU:'
Exactly the same crap we heard if we didn't join the Euro.
I believe that she is a Cameron supporter, who does not really see much beyond that.
So a PM coming back and lying about what he has achieved in renegotiations is going to make it far more difficult for the BOO side to win. Certainly not impossible but not as easy as it would be if we had one of the main parties campaigning for us to leave.
Personally I don't like leaving that sort of thing to chance so for me getting rid of the Europhile liar who is currently sitting in No 10 makes a BOO victory far more likely in the long term.
Of course unlike you I am not hindered by fanatical adherence to any particular party which makes logical thinking so much easier.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/conservative-face-electoral-destruction.html
UKIP could make 24% into a winning 35% in a month.
The only obstacle being 'former' Conservative Roger Helmer MEP, UKIP's Energy spokesman, who's dug the party in on a pro-fracking stance.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/sack-roger-helmer-ukips-policies-are.html
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate.
- Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years
-Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA.
-Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well.
-COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater.
-COGCC Website
6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime.
-Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system.
-Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
Save the rich and starve the poor seems to be your favoured message? It seldom works out well, as eventually the poor far outnumber the rich, and decide that the rich can best serve the nation by hanging from lamp posts.
We are not at that stage yet, but don't be to sure it is not in our future.
Does he think anyone really believes this crap?
No I don't agree with them, but it doesn't mean I agree with you misrepresenting their views.
Shock horror, the powerful exploit the weak and vulnerable.
It was ever thus Sean, and in fact, it is the basic building block of your political view.
Saudi planes are also dropping bombs on IS, while beheading their own citizens for crimes such as apostasy and being gay. Saudi is a major source of money, volunteers and supplies to IS.
Stop the War are saying that we are following the wrong strategy. They do seem to have a point.
I commute to London daily during the week for work. I've totally had enough by Friday, and love coming back to the countryside to breathe and relax during the weekend.
It's a totally different pace of life here. You should try it.
Edit: speaking of which, I'm heading off for a walk in the woods with my wife now. Catch you later.
Hardly a brainfart if you have some degree of imagination.
It is a counterfactual to the idea of capitalism that the poor spend to much, and the rich are not rich enough.
I am not seriously advocating it as a way forward, but relying on those with comparatively little to practice moderation and sacrifice while those at the top don't, is not the smartest idea for the good of a country.
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/no-way-to-defeat-isis-10-reasons-to-oppose-us-uk-bombing-of-iraq-and-syria
I am not in STW, but their points are not unreasonable, and have major overlap with mainstream parties such as UKIP.
Try and be better than this Sean, there's plenty of ways to oppose what's in that piece. Hell, I disagree with them. You don't need to embellish things.
This also from the man who claimed that methane was a major endocrine disruptor.
You are a lunatic Tap.
Now you're misrepresenting me by saying I agreed with it.
1. Doesn't advocate anything, just recites past mistakes
2. Reiteration
3. Disagree
4. A legitimate point but not one mutually exclusive or even contradictory to the air strike policy
5. As per 4.
6. As per 4.
7. Disagree, and air strikes may be one reason why Kobane has held out so much longer than expected
8. All in favour of aid in those countries, again, not contrary to air strikes
9. Glad they found time for another daft statement about Islamophobia
10. The West may be partially to blame (certainly for the needless war in 2003) but this particular brand of religious extremism has no origin in the West. If STW want to feel all 'white guilt' and blame nasty white people and Christians and the West and Europe for things, that's up to them. ISIS is not a creature of the West, but the hatchling of Islamism.
Edited extra bit: anyway, off for a bit.
' What UKIP want is for us to leave the EU. For that to be achieved we have to have a referendum that can be won'
So Farage thinks an EU referendum can be won in July 2015 and not two years later when the result of any negotiations will be clear for all to see together with an unpopular mid term government that has dished out more austerity.
Any you think UKIP is credible???
See what's going on around the world.
Susan Wallace Babbs, Parachute CO
Picture
Exposure: Air- benzene, tetrachloroetheneand 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Symptoms: Vomiting, diarrhea, lesions, pain, elevated heart rate
Testimony: One day, while walking through a field near her home, Susan collapsed unconscious from breathing in elevated levels of hydrocarbons that had come off of a nearby condensate tank from a fracking well, less than 1/2 mile away. "The next morning Wallace-Babb was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. As weeks passed, anytime she went outdoors, her symptoms worsened. Wallace-Babb's doctor began to suspect she had been poisoned... Wallace-Babb's symptoms mirror those reported by a handful of others living near her ranch in Parachute, Colo"
"I took to wearing a respirator and swim goggles outside to tend to my animals" - Susan Wallace Babbs.
The RAF has not been bombing Kobane, and indeed its flights have often dropped no bombs. IS will not be defeated by such missions.
Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS.
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/520631132547977216
During the 2014 local/EU campaign I seem to recall there were reports of UKIP advertising in areas that did not have local elections, and that the response was that the advertising was part of a long term strategy, aiming for greater success in the years ahead.
I find it quite encouraging that a Mr Sykes seems to be taking a hands on role here. Someone with a track record of success. (Much like Lord Ashcroft.)
Really?
"Meanwhile we sell weapons to the beheaders of Saudi, to drop on the beheaders of IS."
You make that sound like a bad thing. We sell sorts of stuff to countries that have the death penalty are you advocating that we stop trading with China, Japan or the USA?
Here are some lovely moderate rebels that we think are the ideal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csm7n5TpPbg
That is the best case scenario.
Personally I would like to see a much later referendum - towards the end of the next Parliament - having given time for the results of any renegotiation to have been ratified (or rejected) in a new treaty so we know exactly where we stand. Nothing else can give us the security that whatever deal Cameron says he has is actually going to happen. But the fact that Cameron is still persisting in claiming he can get binding changes by 2017 when we know this is utterly impractical says all you really need to know about his commitment to real renegotiation.
Smoking in all its forms has become evil, rather than the harm that habitually smoking tobacco does as a contributory factor in lung diseases.
The other day when I pointed how ponceyboots Gaylord he had become over one YouGov poll showing Yes ahead he rebutted with that he had won the Indyref thanks to his telegraph column.
Honestly you can't beat delusions like that.
Save your energy.
Why do you think he is doing this if not to try and persuade us that a post referendum ratification of the changes is achievable?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11172446/Bill-Oddie-claims-working-class-Brits-should-be-contained.html
The presenter believes the answer to Britain's over-population problem is restricting the size of British working-class families rather than curbing immigration.
I think UKIP will live off this story for many a day. Who are the fruitcakes and buffoons now?
challenging the fates - not necessarily wise for a seventies TV presenter.
Saudi Arabia do have capital punishment for these. If they are barbaric for IS they are barbaric for Saudi too.
"(I am personally intrigued by the possibility that prompting may have a different impact in telephone polls, where people may feel obliged to pick one of the options offered by a human interviewer, than in an online poll where it’s just clicking through to another list of options – but obviously I don’t have phone polls to test it on!)"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9028
Not annoyed at all
It is like people are repressing Vetogasm