I am surprised that it took as long as it did for someone to respond in those terms. Let me clarify: racism is the natural, normal condition for human beings. It arises from Fear of the Other and is a natural consequence of the workings of the brain. It is only in metropolitan areas that this fear is overcome and to that extent all large cities are morally superior to suburbs and rural areas (just as they are more stressful).
If, as you put it "racism is the natural, normal condition for human beings. It arises from Fear of the Other and is a natural consequence of the workings of the brain" pray tell me why there is anything wrong with being racist, if it is normal and natural?
You then say: "It is only in metropolitan areas that this fear is overcome and to that extent all large cities are morally superior to suburbs and rural areas (just as they are more stressful). So if antiracism only flourishes in the stressful, unnatural and artificial environment of a large city, then it would surely follow that antiracism is an evil?
There is one cast iron reason why racism is wrong, just as being mean to the disabled is wrong. That is because all human beings have an immortal soul given by God and as such are deserving of respect and compassion and treatment in accordance with the Ten commandments (and even positive discrimination where their bodily abilities are lesser).
If that were not the case there would be no cast iron moral argument against racism and exploiting people of other races in the same way as we exploit animals. Even parliament recognises this with the Dangerous Dogs Act. This is an utterly racist act that discriminates against certain races of dogs. However it is wholly uncontentious.
The funny thing is that the thing the Metropolitan elite hate most, Christianity, is the thing that underpins its most sacred nostrums.
They have spent decades trying to undermine Christianity, and are now standing aghast that savagery and me first selfishness rather than the expected liberal brotherhood are emerging to replace it.
Everyone knows nothing will ever change and the present main parties are the only game in town - after all, in the near millennia of an English/British parliament, the current setup has been with us for nearly 70 years, which is pretty much the whole time, and firm evidence of its permanence - not even Audrey can remember anything different.
Very true. Sometimes it does work against Big Business too.
I spent some time working with BT's Regulatory team on bband roll-out and we had real commercial issues that we couldn't make work, no matter what Ofcom wanted.
It's too simplistic to say that Big Business lobbies without taking into account that their regulator needs to live in the real world too. Running the numbers and knowing how hard it was to make things stand-up was most educational. Those who haven't directly experienced working for a regulated firm often have little idea what's involved/why things *can't just be done*. Sometimes for very good market domination reasons, other times for stupid ones that actually keep prices artificially high.
I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
snip
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.
Regulation raises the barriers to entry. It doesn't stop the established players, because they lobby the regulators, and shape the regulation.
@Paul_Mid_Beds - The funny thing is that the thing the Metropolitan elite hate most, Christianity, is the thing that underpins its most sacred nostrums.
Presumably, then, you would not consider the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown members of the metropolitan elite. So who would you place in it?
Not long ago I did post links to research done in the States and here that showed there was no correlation between CEOs pay and the performance of their corporations. The idea of needing world class leaders is a myth and a con. These corporate super heroes are just as likely to bankrupt a company as to make it grow and become more successful.
How we as a country can break free from this, I don't know. For the good of society I think we have to but then we also have to maintain the rule of law and the freedom for someone to pay what they think a person is worth.
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.
I'll agree with that. The excessive rewards as greed. Capitalism needs to be rid of them if it is to survive.
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest. Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?
There is no problem in principle. The problem is that there are too many war torn shit holes and not enough United Kingdom.
Purple and yellow aren't happy bedfellows unless you're trying to send a subliminal message in my book.
I didn't notice the Express - does anyone know who's taken over from Mr O'Flynn? I assume they'll remain solidly pro-Kipperite tendency - an endorsement from a mass circulation paper would be quite something. Even in the Express, I assume their readers turn out in big numbers.
I couldn't help but notice that the front pages of today's Mail and Express both have prominent purple and yellow sections. Now, this may be a coincidence - both areas in those colours are to do with promotions - but it may not. Both front pages also lead on the EU contribution story too.
I have speculated in the past about whether any paper(s) will endorse UKIP and if so, which and when. While such endorsements usually carry little weight of their own, they do matter in terms of editorial policy about which stories are covered and how, and in UKIP's case, it would also matter because a first endorsement would be another step on the road to major party status; it would provide credibility with the rest of the media (more so were that endorsement to come from the Mail than the Express, it has to be said). The converse is also true, if they can't pick up an endorsement, it'll act as a drag on how the rest of the media see them.
Just 5% of MPs think Ukip will pick up more than five seats
Bookie seat odds are currently at +/-5.5, and Boston and Clacton are absolute shoo-ins.
Neil Hamilton has apparently applied to be UKIP candidate for Boston. The candidate could yet mess that one up.
Hamilton was also one of the four new members elected to the UKIP National Executive yesterday. In fact he topped the poll.
Hamilton is a weird case, having being accused of misconduct yet nothing being proved, he saw himself as a victim (in public at least) of a media witch hunt in the middle of a storm of Tory sleaze and sex scandals, and vowing to extract revenge from the Tories for throwing him under the bus.
In conclusion he wants revenge from being accused of doing something that was never proven, and that is the key in why he has support from UKIP.
Perhaps the allegations from 1995 will play a factor in Boston or perhaps not, since they were never proven and it's almost 20 years ago.
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest. Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?
I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.
SO, you're wrong on this one.
Our family firm competes extremely effectively against some of the biggest companies in Europe. We are small, but we focus very carefully on our customers and our niche, and have developed a sustainable business model.
The big guys are absolutely keen to create an ever increasing regulatory burden: they have a much larger customer base that they can amortise fixed costs across: increasing the barriers to entry advantages the incumbents and helps to sustain their oligopoly against challengers (even if they don't serve their customers well)
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest. Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?
So they can make this country a war torn shithole?
Just seen a UKIP poster for the police commissioner election in South Yorkshire.
It's pretty strong stuff. 1400 reasons why you shouldn't trust labour and photo of young woman...
Cue for the Labour party and usual suspects to shout blue murder. How it is unfair and "disreputable" for UKIP to highlight this in their election address...
Far better to bury it away. Like the Tories did - unless of course they wanted to go in low key to harness the anti-Labour vote to UKIP. Great plan. Unfortunately they are so strategically inept I doubt they did this.
I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.
Regulation raises the barriers to entry. It doesn't stop the established players, because they lobby the regulators, and shape the regulation.
It depends on what the regulation is and how it is targeted. The patent system, for example, is a great equaliser, which is why so many big tech companies hate it. In the same way, planning and environmental legislation has a far greater impact on bigger, more established concerns than start-ups, as does anti-trust and competition legislation.
The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Low Wages - Main cause an unlimited supply of workers from countries with much lower pay often willing to live absymsal conditions meaning employers can cut wages.
Lack of decent housing - the above compete for housing with people born here forcing rents up by increasing demand
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
Lack of good childcare, education - see lack of decent housing.
When will the left get it into its head that people oppose immigration not because people are racist but because the country is a small island and resources are limited and large numbers of incomers exacerbate the problems of lack of resources.
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
In the end something will give. In the age of the internet, 24 hour TV, the social media and all the rest of it the elite cannot escape the consequences of its rapacious greed forever. There is nowhere to hide. People can see what they are doing and people have votes. Either big business and capital begin to understand that it is not in their own long-term interests to continue to manipulate taxation regimes and generate astronomical incomes while so many people's living standards are stagnating or falling, or solutions will be imposed on them. What we have now is not sustainable.
I agree, Mr Observer, but I think it is going to take a change in corporate governance that forces a new mindset on corporations and their senior leadership. Something more towards stewardship than management for short term share price. Ownership and rewards for capital will probably have to come into too.
I suspect that Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, and those like him will have some good ideas on how this can be fashioned if not accomplished.
I think the problem is that, historically, companies were firmly embedded into their locality or nation, and understood the need to put something back into society.
Now the large multi-nationals are essentially rootless global citizens (this is the same with the super rich) who no longer owe allegiance to a country (and, in fact, play countries off against each other by asking them to bid for investment). I'm not sure there is a real solution to this problem, unless you break up the large multinationals or unless there is scope for local regulatory interaction (for instance, we are increasingly seeing banks revert to being national players in many cases).
That said, although I'm not sure that Obama's changes on tax inversions are the right thingt o do in detail, I absolutely have sympathy for the objective. Companies that abuse international tax regimes to avoid paying a fair share to society are looters, not businessmen. The simple principle should be that if you do profitable business in a country then you should make a contribution to the tax base in that country.
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Except that the method of her departure complicates the issue. She was the one who said it was London's fault!
Just seen a UKIP poster for the police commissioner election in South Yorkshire.
It's pretty strong stuff. 1400 reasons why you shouldn't trust labour and photo of young woman...
I think they got a new advertising agency, they hit the mark but will it hit Labour? Turnout will be an indication, if it exists (compared with last time when no one apart from Labour members voted) then UKIP will have a serious chance there.
The real problems faced by working people are caused by low wages, lack of job security, lack of decent housing, poor social mobility, lack of good childcare, education, family support etc etc.
UKIP offer no solutions to any of this, and they know it, that's why they focus on immigration alone.
Low Wages - Main cause an unlimited supply of workers from countries with much lower pay often willing to live absymsal conditions meaning employers can cut wages.
Lack of decent housing - the above compete for housing with people born here forcing rents up by increasing demand
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
Lack of good childcare, education - see lack of decent housing.
When will the left get it into its head that people oppose immigration not because people are racist but because the country is a small island and resources are limited and large numbers of incomers exacerbate the problems of lack of resources.
So long as the left can gift British citizenship like confetti to new arrivals they will never get it into its head. Like a huge political Ponzi scheme it relies on immigrants being imported into the UK who will then vote Labour. What % of Labour´s vote is ethnic? 25-30%?*
Since Labour cannot go much higher in vote share, and given lower support among white voters, the only way the show can go on is with continued voter imports.
*Given they maybe get 70% of 12% of the population. On 30% total vote share this equates to 28%.
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Except that the method of her departure complicates the issue. She was the one who said it was London's fault!
But the fact remains people still don't like her at all and she was incompetent in her position. Getting rid of her is a plus for Labour.
I'm not saying that on May 8th it will be 'bye-bye UKIP' but they will be the right-wing equivalent of the Greens: a bunch of extremist losers whilst the rest of us get on with the grown-up job of running this rather wonderful country of ours.
Getting a bit worried about this. Must be the second time today I have agreed with AudreyAnne!
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Where did you see she was fired, everything states that she told Ed to stick it up his pipe rather than the other way round.
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Except that the method of her departure complicates the issue. She was the one who said it was London's fault!
But the fact remains people still don't like her at all and she was incompetent in her position. Getting rid of her is a plus for Labour.
In the long run, yes, assuming there is someone decent to replace her. But there is a real short term problem both for the party and whoever replaces her (caretaker leader, possible defeats in 2015 and 2016, major problems if MPs try for the leadership, shortage of obvious MSP candidates of high profile).
Edit: it's an interesting thought to consider if it would have been better for her to resign after the 2015 and 2016 elections.
On the Lamont issue, I have to say that firing an unpopular and incompetent scottish labour leader is not a negative for Labour in scotland. Yes the SNP will say it's all London's fault but the fact is people really disliked her in scotland and she nearly botched the referendum campaign.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Except that the method of her departure complicates the issue. She was the one who said it was London's fault!
But the fact remains people still don't like her at all and she was incompetent in her position. Getting rid of her is a plus for Labour.
We will have a laugh watching them trying to find anyone even just as bad from the dross they have.
I'm not an advertising specialist by any means - but I did find that campaigns which were very direct/aped DIY-ones [like car-boot sale notices] really worked within the *frustrated person* segment. It was their rawness that made them stand-out against the smooth stuff.
Kipper HQ has a real challenge here - how to move from looking like a home-grown activist movement into a sensible Big Party. Lose one and potentially lose the other.
I'll be watching with great interest. My favourite is Private Eye's deliberate use of crap quality paper-stock to retain its subversive feel. It wouldn't have the impact it does if it was all glossy/colour.
Just seen a UKIP poster for the police commissioner election in South Yorkshire.
It's pretty strong stuff. 1400 reasons why you shouldn't trust labour and photo of young woman...
I think they got a new advertising agency, they hit the mark but will it hit Labour? Turnout will be an indication, if it exists (compared with last time when no one apart from Labour members voted) then UKIP will have a serious chance there.
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
Do I really have to explain this?
If you employ UK graduates, the going rate is £40,000, but then you discover that Polish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 because graduates only get £10,000 where they live, then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
But a source close to the Glasgow Pollok MSP said her resignation letter, which will be made public today, would contain “a kick at Ed Miliband and the Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster”.
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
Do I really have to explain this?
If you employ graduates, the going rate is £40,000 but Spanish Greek and portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you a little, thought you were talking about low-wage work. Still, if we're talking about people with good degrees, is anybody actually proposing blocking them from immigrating? Wouldn't these fall under UKIP's "high-quality" immigrants?
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
Is my current prediction. Most likely a Con maj. Govt.
Looks like wishful thinking. Have you plugged those figures in to any prediction sites. Tory majority government on 25 to 30%, looks innumerate.
The prediction sites are close to useless as soon as any insurgent party (UKIP took only about 3% in 2010), starts polling numbers that would return it seats; they simply don't have the data to work with.
That said, I think a Tory majority on those number is highly unlikely as it'd have to mean Tory gains in seats on a net swing to Labour. Even allowing for gains from the Lib Dems, I don't see how that can plausibly happen.
Applying a uniform swing is a pretty blunt instrument and works best I suppose when there are only two parties and their support is evenly spread. However, will it be any worse at the 2015 election than it was at the 2010 election, when we are likely to have UKIP + LDs at around the same (probably a bit less) value as LDs + UKIP were in 2010?
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
Do I really have to explain this?
If you employ UK graduates, the going rate is £40,000, but then you discover that Polish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 because graduates only get £10,000 where they live, then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
I recruit good numbers of overseas doctors (mostly from the EU) they are paid on the same scale. Very often there are no British qualified doctors who apply.
My EU colleagues are not depressing wages, they are taking the jobs that Brits do not want.
@anotherDave - "The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants."
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
This country is not, and never will be, extremist.
The problem many are having with arguing against UKIP is that they are defining commonplace and frequently mainstream views as extremist.
It isn't extreme in any way to point out that allowing vast numbers of people into the country at once will have negative effects on wages, housing and public services, and that's before we get into issues of identity, culture and social cohesion.
Just a couple of weeks ago midwives were striking because of vast increases in workloads. Well, adding 4 million citizens to the population in a decade when there is no money available to increase service provision will cause that. It isn't racist, it isn't extreme, it's basic changes to demand.
Immigrants aren't to blame, but governments failing to manage the immigration system are.
We elect governments to govern, not sit around acting as impotent onlookers and bystanders. That's why Brown's "it woz the banks wot dun it" excuses didn't wash, and nor will Cameron/Clegg's as we move forward on this issue.
In a normal nation state, if the population is booming in one area and declining in another, the distribution of public funds would follow the people. Yet, we seem to be pushing money into countries whilst they are pushing out people )and the burden to provide housing and services) towards us.
Rochester Tory hopeful Kelly Tolhurst from a local radio interview yesterday. For whom the belle tolls...
Hahahaha.
She's on auto pilot on immigration on every question, it's like hearing a tape recorder:
Journalist: "Do you say that people will have to live here for 5 years, if someone moves from Bristol to your area, will that be the same?' Tolhurst: "Well absolutely"
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest. Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?
" ... a significant number of the Somali immigrants who settled in Britain in the 50s did so after having served with great distinction in the British Navy in WW2."
I didn't know that. I'd like to read up on it. Do you have a source, please?
So that covers the third generation Somalis. Nothing on the rest. Although I guess "Mo´s" gold medal or something will be trotted out at some point.
Mo Farah's father was born in the UK. I am all for British citizens being able to bring their kids here from war torn, shit holes. What is your problem with it?
So they can make this country a war torn shithole?
No, that is not ok with me.
I am not sure I get your logic. Are you saying that the children of British citizens should stay in war torn shitholes because if they come here the war and the shit will follow them? If so, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
@anotherDave - "The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants."
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
However Apple and Microsoft do have cross-licensing deals, so do Samsung and Google. as does Cisco and Samsung, as do Microsoft and Amazon etc etc
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
I see talk of bosses getting richer while the workers get poorer. The left wing measuring stick of inequality is the gap between richest and poorest, and it's getting bigger thanks to a Labour Party policy
Mass immigration of economic migrants makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Until a politician wakes up, admits this and does what is necessary To tackle the problem, they are just putting a plaster on a broken leg
Eastern European plumbers and electricians work for less money, but that just means their employers profit margin increases.. The customer doesn't get a discount.
So things cost more, but people are paid less, or the same if they're lucky... Meanwhile the profits for the bosses are so much bigger than the fall in wages of the workers they help increase GDP and the pro mass immigration politicians use this to justify the policy
Obviously the result of the policy is the reason why the Labour Party was formed in the first place. That the Labour Party are it's staunchest defenders is why a lot of people feel betrayed and are voting for someone else.
Immigration is not the problem. The real problem is the kind of economic policies espoused by UKIP - pro big business, anti-public service, anti-state, pro-rich.
Falsely scapegoating immigrants in a deliberate attempt to create a smokescreen over the failures of the Rightwing Establishment (of which UKIP is a part) will only get you so far.
In what sense are UKIP pro-Big Business?
They believe in free trade, free movement of capital and a small state. All great for big business: fewer workers rights, less job security, less environmental and planning regulation, increased opportunity to move to cheaper locations abroad and so on.
Big Business like regulation. They can afford compliance, small businesses cannot.
No, big business dislikes anything that gets in its way. The fewer barriers the better.
SO, you're wrong on this one.
Our family firm competes extremely effectively against some of the biggest companies in Europe. We are small, but we focus very carefully on our customers and our niche, and have developed a sustainable business model.
The big guys are absolutely keen to create an ever increasing regulatory burden: they have a much larger customer base that they can amortise fixed costs across: increasing the barriers to entry advantages the incumbents and helps to sustain their oligopoly against challengers (even if they don't serve their customers well)
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
As far as I can tell from the types of articles they are writing Scottish Labour types are struggling to deal with one third of their voters voting for Independence. They are also suffering mental whiplash after producing two years of articles saying "Independence won't break 30% hahaha stupid Nats".
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you a little, thought you were talking about low-wage work. Still, if we're talking about people with good degrees, is anybody actually proposing blocking them from immigrating? Wouldn't these fall under UKIP's "high-quality" immigrants?
Possibly not, in the Australian system you need more (potentially a lot more) points to get in if your skills are in an oversubscribed sector, and less if your skills are in a shortage sector. In some sectors, such as IT, you only get the points if there is a position actually available for you. Which is sensible, bring in people to fill the jobs, dont bring in people to sit on the dole.
@anotherDave - "The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants."
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
However Apple and Microsoft do have cross-licensing deals, so do Samsung and Google. as does Cisco and Samsung, as do Microsoft and Amazon etc etc
Big companies already appropriate the ideas of smaller companies by threatening to crush them with their existing patent portfolio - there will almost always be something that the big company can use to GOTCHA the small company. So the small company is coerced into a cross licensing deal.
Software patents are a scam, a total and utter scam that have done untold harm to the development of technology.
Re Tolhurst for whom the bell tolls. If she was the preferred candidate what was her rival like? Proves that lack of talent isn't just confined to SLAB.
Is Cameron trying to pin the blame on a poor candidate for his party's performance, she doesn't sound as if she has had enough preparation for radio interviews.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
@anotherDave - "The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants."
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
However Apple and Microsoft do have cross-licensing deals, so do Samsung and Google. as does Cisco and Samsung, as do Microsoft and Amazon etc etc
They have licensing deals - some of which involve money exchanging hands (see Samsung and Microsoft, for example). As I say, though, cross-licensing is not the issue, it is the ability to use patents to prevent your ideas being appropriated. This helps smaller players and hinders bigger players.
Re Tolhurst for whom the bell tolls. If she was the preferred candidate what was her rival like? Proves that lack of talent isn't just confined to SLAB.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
Well once again UKIP have the serious candidate while the Tories have a clown. If the Tory candidate in Rochester thinks that Bristol is on the same level as a foreign country what would the Monster Raving Loonies have to say on their campaign?
'I recruit good numbers of overseas doctors (mostly from the EU) they are paid on the same scale. Very often there are no British qualified doctors who apply.'
You can't compare what happens in the public sector where there are fixed salary rates with the private sector.
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
Do I really have to explain this?
If you employ UK graduates, the going rate is £40,000, but then you discover that Polish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 because graduates only get £10,000 where they live, then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
Going rate is less than that, and hasn't budged in ten years.
@anotherDave - "The big tech companies have cross-licensing deals with one another. Again this just affects new entrants."
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
However Apple and Microsoft do have cross-licensing deals, so do Samsung and Google. as does Cisco and Samsung, as do Microsoft and Amazon etc etc
Big companies already appropriate the ideas of smaller companies by threatening to crush them with their existing patent portfolio - there will almost always be something that the big company can use to GOTCHA the small company. So the small company is coerced into a cross licensing deal.
Software patents are a scam, a total and utter scam that have done untold harm to the development of technology.
I disagree completely. In the US patent reform proposals that would reduce the rights of patent owners to assert their rights in favour of strengthening those of infringers is supported by big technology companies and opposed by groups representing lone inventors, start-ups, SMEs and venture capital:
As for software, it depends on what you mean by that. The US has the most liberal software patent regime in the world, but also by far the most dynamic software sector. Europe, which does not allow software patents, is sclerotic by comparison:
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
Salmond had a sex change operation? The SNP behave like back street alley gang, how can you confront them otherwise?
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
I wonder if Lamont's attack on Ed 'nobody would notice if he got run over by a bus' Miliband will cause more or less harm than the £1.7bn bill will cause Cameron/the Conservatives.
I'd say more (as Lamont is specifically attacking Miliband whereas the bill applies to the UK generally), but Miliband's ratings can't decline much further.
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
Salmond had a sex change operation?
where you been , he has gone
Not replaced yet, when you think of the SNP you still think of Salmond.
I wonder if Lamont's attack on Ed 'nobody would notice if he got run over by a bus' Miliband will cause more or less harm than the £1.7bn bill will cause Cameron/the Conservatives.
I'd say more (as Lamont is specifically attacking Miliband whereas the bill applies to the UK generally), but Miliband's ratings can't decline much further.
I think that Lamont was more unpopular than Ed in scotland.
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
Salmond had a sex change operation? The SNP behave like back street alley gang, how can you confront them otherwise?
Okay, anticipating a bit - but most certainly Ms Sturgeon is de facto leader if not quite de jure. Only a few weeks in it anyway.
yes, and they brighten up a salad. Am quite a fan of wild pickings as well, around here are wild strawberries, sorrel, garlic, samphire, mushrooms, damsons, crab apples and sloes. wild rose petals are good with a pud.
Purple and yellow aren't happy bedfellows unless you're trying to send a subliminal message in my book.
I didn't notice the Express - does anyone know who's taken over from Mr O'Flynn? I assume they'll remain solidly pro-Kipperite tendency - an endorsement from a mass circulation paper would be quite something. Even in the Express, I assume their readers turn out in big numbers.
I couldn't help but notice that the front pages of today's Mail and Express both have prominent purple and yellow sections. Now, this may be a coincidence - both areas in those colours are to do with promotions - but it may not. Both front pages also lead on the EU contribution story too.
I have speculated in the past about whether any paper(s) will endorse UKIP and if so, which and when. While such endorsements usually carry little weight of their own, they do matter in terms of editorial policy about which stories are covered and how, and in UKIP's case, it would also matter because a first endorsement would be another step on the road to major party status; it would provide credibility with the rest of the media (more so were that endorsement to come from the Mail than the Express, it has to be said). The converse is also true, if they can't pick up an endorsement, it'll act as a drag on how the rest of the media see them.
I wonder if Lamont's attack on Ed 'nobody would notice if he got run over by a bus' Miliband will cause more or less harm than the £1.7bn bill will cause Cameron/the Conservatives.
I'd say more (as Lamont is specifically attacking Miliband whereas the bill applies to the UK generally), but Miliband's ratings can't decline much further.
I think that Lamont was more unpopular than Ed in scotland.
I don't think there's any polling that backs that up.
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
What? Why would competition for low wage jobs be a large factor in social mobility?
Do I really have to explain this?
If you employ UK graduates, the going rate is £40,000, but then you discover that Polish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 because graduates only get £10,000 where they live, then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
I recruit good numbers of overseas doctors (mostly from the EU) they are paid on the same scale. Very often there are no British qualified doctors who apply.
My EU colleagues are not depressing wages, they are taking the jobs that Brits do not want.
Why do think there are there so few British doctors applying for those posts, Dr. Sox? Is it because that of medical schools are not turning out enough new entrants to the profession or that there are not enough training places in your speciality or what? Are there some specialities that are, for whatever reason, more attractive to home grown medicos? Is there a gender element in this - I read somewhere that a very significant proportion of medical students are now female are there some specialities that attract lady doctors more than others? Could it be that actually not many people want to work in Leicestershire?
From recent personal experience I still have yet to me a British doctor at the eye hospital but those in my local A & E are about 70-30 Brits and all male aside from two consultants, one of whom is Irish.
I wonder if Lamont's attack on Ed 'nobody would notice if he got run over by a bus' Miliband will cause more or less harm than the £1.7bn bill will cause Cameron/the Conservatives.
I'd say more (as Lamont is specifically attacking Miliband whereas the bill applies to the UK generally), but Miliband's ratings can't decline much further.
I think that Lamont was more unpopular than Ed in scotland.
I don't think there's any polling that backs that up.</blockquote
Almost always Mr M is less popular than Mr Cameron, and that is quite something! IIRC Ms Lamont is rather higher, but not near Ms Sturgeon (usually: a few polls have had them fairly close).
I'm not an advertising specialist by any means - but I did find that campaigns which were very direct/aped DIY-ones [like car-boot sale notices] really worked within the *frustrated person* segment. It was their rawness that made them stand-out against the smooth stuff.
Kipper HQ has a real challenge here - how to move from looking like a home-grown activist movement into a sensible Big Party. Lose one and potentially lose the other.
I'll be watching with great interest. My favourite is Private Eye's deliberate use of crap quality paper-stock to retain its subversive feel. It wouldn't have the impact it does if it was all glossy/colour.
Just seen a UKIP poster for the police commissioner election in South Yorkshire.
It's pretty strong stuff. 1400 reasons why you shouldn't trust labour and photo of young woman...
I think they got a new advertising agency, they hit the mark but will it hit Labour? Turnout will be an indication, if it exists (compared with last time when no one apart from Labour members voted) then UKIP will have a serious chance there.
It's a trend you see advertisers try a fair bit. Usually on awful toothpaste ads with deliberately poor lighting and/or dubbing to give them the impression of a cheap continental translating job. Evidently we like our drugs to come with a sense of efficient German parsimony.
On the next SLAB leader, it has to be a man and an MSP, also since Labour faces an attack by the SNP from it's left and in Glasgow, it has to be someone from Glasgow.
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
Interesting! Though, er, why a man?
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
It has to be a man because the SNP are a dirty playing party who have no problem turning politics into a bar brawl, so you need someone who isn't and doesn't look like a softy.
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
But the SNP and Tories are led by women in Scotland!
Salmond had a sex change operation?
where you been , he has gone
Not replaced yet, when you think of the SNP you still think of Salmond.
Re Tolhurst for whom the bell tolls. If she was the preferred candidate what was her rival like? Proves that lack of talent isn't just confined to SLAB.
Is Cameron trying to pin the blame on a poor candidate for his party's performance, she doesn't sound as if she has had enough preparation for radio interviews.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
I think she got in (into the primary I mean) by promising to be a Cameron zombie. CCHQ trying to have their cake and eat it -crush Reckless but not get in an independent minded potential rebel like Sarah Wollaston. I think this strategy will fail.
We've also heard a lot about people's personal animus for Mark Reckless -what if a lot of this was actually *because* he was a Tory? What if joining UKIP's barmy army has actually detoxified him in the eyes of the voting public of Rochester, rather than made things worse?
Why do think there are there so few British doctors applying for those posts, Dr. Sox? Is it because that of medical schools are not turning out enough new entrants to the profession or that there are not enough training places in your speciality or what? Are there some specialities that are, for whatever reason, more attractive to home grown medicos? Is there a gender element in this - I read somewhere that a very significant proportion of medical students are now female are there some specialities that attract lady doctors more than others? Could it be that actually not many people want to work in Leicestershire?
From recent personal experience I still have yet to me a British doctor at the eye hospital but those in my local A & E are about 70-30 Brits and all male aside from two consultants, one of whom is Irish.
I'd be very interested in your views on this.
My brother-in-law is a GP Partner trying to fill empty slots in his rural practice, he has the budget but can't get the applicants. The stated reason for the few interviewers he has not taking the job is because they got an offer for a similar job in Australia for about double the money, and doing about half the hours - hard to compete with that...
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.
I think this is the main reason the attempts to kill UKIP with media campaigns have failed. Voters find UKIP a useful instrument, and they can shape it to their liking.
The Conservative and Labour Parties have persuaded the voters that they're both crap.
Breathtaking arrogance and complacency. Simply breathtaking.
Nah it's just pragmatism. Been here, done that, soooooooo many times. From Clegasms to the SDP I've heard it all before.
The only sad thing is that on May 8th the kipper-bangers on here will be gone so the amusement will have to be vicarious.
Right, I have some work to do.
There's just a lot of wishful thinking in your posts.
In the 1950s, the Conservatives and Labour took 95% of the vote between them, on high turnouts. They had millions of members.
In 2010 they took 67% between them, on a much lower turnout. Their combined membership is now about 10% of what it was back then. Current polling suggests their combined score will be 65% or less. In the European election they took less than 50% of the vote between them, and in the last two rounds of local elections, they took 55-60% between them.
Ask youself are the LDs so hamstrung that they would lose this seat to The Greens? Bear in mind for every 1 vote for the Watermelons, 13 went to the LDs, 8 to Labour. Williams the LD had 48% vote share, then Labour with 27% and the Greens on 3.8%. The Greens could still take votes enough votes off Labour & Williams still gets in.
Having studied politics and lived a good few years I think this is the most astute post, and probably thread leader, on pb.com for quite some time.
There's a tendency for political fans to get excited and excitable about every latest trend, tantrum and twist. The reality is that GE2015 will change very little. As you rightly suggest, the Con-Lab duopoly will still be in place. In fact in terms of MPs it will be much stronger than GE2010.
Of course you think that. You agree with what Stodge has written because of bias confirmation and so think his post is 'brilliant'. The fact that it is also completely wrong does not even begin to cross your mind.
It is wrong because the one thing it fails to address are real issues - the real reasons people vote for candidates. The current slide in the popularity of the main parties has come about because they have failed to address those issues - whether they are immigration and Europe, the environment or aspiring nationalism. This is why the 'also rans' are now starting to make real headway and it is also why they will not simply fade away as Stodge predicts and you so fervently hope.
If it wasn't UKIP (and SNP) disrupting the system, it would be someone else. The Conservative and Labour parties are shells of what they were 30 years ago in terms of membership and public support.
I met up with a few friends last night. Generally city types, all have jobs in the city or live in the city.
I experienced one full-blown anti-UKIP rant when I told one old friend I thought UKIP would win R&S. He even said, "too many bloody stupid English people". I had to point out to him he was English himself. He voted Tory in 2010, very well-off and successful banker.
A 2nd friend (an elected Conservative councillor in London) gave me a more polite and succinct rant. She basically said, 'good riddance' and 'better off out [the party] than in'.
They weren't really interested in my arguments. Just angry, annoyed and/or dismissive.
They're still in the mode of Denial.
I don't want something to happen, therefore it can't be happening.
Why do think there are there so few British doctors applying for those posts, Dr. Sox? Is it because that of medical schools are not turning out enough new entrants to the profession or that there are not enough training places in your speciality or what? Are there some specialities that are, for whatever reason, more attractive to home grown medicos? Is there a gender element in this - I read somewhere that a very significant proportion of medical students are now female are there some specialities that attract lady doctors more than others? Could it be that actually not many people want to work in Leicestershire?
From recent personal experience I still have yet to me a British doctor at the eye hospital but those in my local A & E are about 70-30 Brits and all male aside from two consultants, one of whom is Irish.
I'd be very interested in your views on this.
My brother-in-law is a GP Partner trying to fill empty slots in his rural practice, he has the budget but can't get the applicants. The stated reason for the few interviewers he has not taking the job is because they got an offer for a similar job in Australia for about double the money, and doing about half the hours - hard to compete with that...
Impossible to compete with that I should have thought, unless one can get other factors into play, professional development for example.
Why do think there are there so few British doctors applying for those posts, Dr. Sox? Is it because that of medical schools are not turning out enough new entrants to the profession or that there are not enough training places in your speciality or what? Are there some specialities that are, for whatever reason, more attractive to home grown medicos? Is there a gender element in this - I read somewhere that a very significant proportion of medical students are now female are there some specialities that attract lady doctors more than others? Could it be that actually not many people want to work in Leicestershire?
From recent personal experience I still have yet to me a British doctor at the eye hospital but those in my local A & E are about 70-30 Brits and all male aside from two consultants, one of whom is Irish.
I'd be very interested in your views on this.
My brother-in-law is a GP Partner trying to fill empty slots in his rural practice, he has the budget but can't get the applicants. The stated reason for the few interviewers he has not taking the job is because they got an offer for a similar job in Australia for about double the money, and doing about half the hours - hard to compete with that...
Hasn’t there been a medically qualified ‘brain drain’ from the UK now for several years?
I seem to recall many discussions here on PB and elsewhere, that a problem with many NHS trained doctors and nurses was the numbers that immigrated shortly after qualifying. Much talk then of repaying the British tax payer who had funded their training by imposing compulsory ‘x’ number of years contracts after graduation. – Not sure if that is the case now however.
Re Tolhurst for whom the bell tolls. If she was the preferred candidate what was her rival like? Proves that lack of talent isn't just confined to SLAB.
Is Cameron trying to pin the blame on a poor candidate for his party's performance, she doesn't sound as if she has had enough preparation for radio interviews.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
I think she got in (into the primary I mean) by promising to be a Cameron zombie. CCHQ trying to have their cake and eat it -crush Reckless but not get in an independent minded potential rebel like Sarah Wollaston. I think this strategy will fail.
We've also heard a lot about people's personal animus for Mark Reckless -what if a lot of this was actually *because* he was a Tory? What if joining UKIP's barmy army has actually detoxified him in the eyes of the voting public of Rochester, rather than made things worse?
Feeling very fluey today. In case anyone forgot, we still haven't had the breakdown of those primary votes; or have we and I wasn't informed.
Re Tolhurst for whom the bell tolls. If she was the preferred candidate what was her rival like? Proves that lack of talent isn't just confined to SLAB.
Is Cameron trying to pin the blame on a poor candidate for his party's performance, she doesn't sound as if she has had enough preparation for radio interviews.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
We've also heard a lot about people's personal animus for Mark Reckless -what if a lot of this was actually *because* he was a Tory? What if joining UKIP's barmy army has actually detoxified him in the eyes of the voting public of Rochester, rather than made things worse?
There is little doubt he will be receiving Labour votes next month.
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
Ask youself are the LDs so hamstrung that they would lose this seat to The Greens? Bear in mind for every 1 vote for the Watermelons, 13 went to the LDs, 8 to Labour. Williams the LD had 48% vote share, then Labour with 27% and the Greens on 3.8%. The Greens could still take votes enough votes off Labour & Williams still gets in.
Difficult to take the article too seriously when it's sub-header says "Polls this week put the Greens on 8%, overtaking the Lib Dems for the first time in a decade and providing a clear challenge to Ukip in the east"
For the first time in a decade? Technically true but implying that the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems c 2004. In fact, they were nowhere unusual, floating around in low single figures while the Lib Dems were basking in their post-Iraq popularity and within ten points of first place. "First time in about a quarter of a century" would be more accurate.
That said, if the Greens, rather than Labour, is the main challenger to the Lib Dems given where the parties finished in 2010, it doesn't say much for Miliband's men.
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
And it is interesting that very few people in the country and even on this site are prepared to engage with this fundamental reality.
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
Absolute bollocks, my dear @felix. UKIP is the only party - if you care to listen - that is saying that changing British politics will be a hard struggle, and will not be easily won.
Matthew Lewis @MattLewisAuthor 4h4 hours ago 25 October 1415 Battle of Agincourt sees Henry V slaughter a much larger but poorly organised French army.
Just like UKIP is preparing to do to much larger political forces, 600 years later.
My brother-in-law is a GP Partner trying to fill empty slots in his rural practice, he has the budget but can't get the applicants. The stated reason for the few interviewers he has not taking the job is because they got an offer for a similar job in Australia for about double the money, and doing about half the hours - hard to compete with that...
If everyone else banned immigrants, which is what UKIP seem to want for us, then nobody would be able leave their country.
The Tory candidate in Rochester is "absolutely" against people from Bristol being eligible for social housing in Rochester unless they've lived there for five years:
Breathtaking arrogance and complacency. Simply breathtaking.
Nah it's just pragmatism. Been here, done that, soooooooo many times. From Clegasms to the SDP I've heard it all before.
The only sad thing is that on May 8th the kipper-bangers on here will be gone so the amusement will have to be vicarious.
Right, I have some work to do.
The party structure is generally stable, it's true. It's not, however, immutable. Most obviously, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals in the first half of the century. True, they were helped by the Liberals in that process, partly by the expanding electorate, partly by pre-1918 pacts, and partly by splitting in 1916 and 1931. Even so, the Liberals went from having formed the government during WWI to only contesting 112 seats (of which they won just 33) after the 1931 election.
There are plenty of examples of other once-leading parties across the world which the electorate has discarded. Where now are:
Canadian Progressive Conservatives Italian Christian Democrats Italian Socialist Party Dutch Christian Democrats PASOK of Greece
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
Absolute bollocks, my dear @felix. UKIP is the only party - if you care to listen - that is saying that changing British politics will be a hard struggle, and will not be easily won.
The problem is only partly the politics. The real problem, so to speak, is the public, that has sat through too many years of "something for nothing" and "all must have prizes" and can't deal with the realities of life - that there is no magic money tree, and that the country is spending over 100bn quid every year it doesn't have.
People dont realise that its not a question of trimming a bit here and there, its a question of the government not doing whole classes of things for you that it currently does, but not being able to reduce taxes significantly, and then spending at least a decade paying off the 1.5 TRILLION pounds we owe other people before we can even consider increasing provision again.
This isnt a political statement, it's not even really an economic statement, its basic arithmetic,
Ask youself are the LDs so hamstrung that they would lose this seat to The Greens? Bear in mind for every 1 vote for the Watermelons, 13 went to the LDs, 8 to Labour. Williams the LD had 48% vote share, then Labour with 27% and the Greens on 3.8%. The Greens could still take votes enough votes off Labour & Williams still gets in.
Difficult to take the article too seriously when it's sub-header says "Polls this week put the Greens on 8%, overtaking the Lib Dems for the first time in a decade and providing a clear challenge to Ukip in the east"
For the first time in a decade? Technically true but implying that the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems c 2004. In fact, they were nowhere unusual, floating around in low single figures while the Lib Dems were basking in their post-Iraq popularity and within ten points of first place. "First time in about a quarter of a century" would be more accurate.
That said, if the Greens, rather than Labour, is the main challenger to the Lib Dems given where the parties finished in 2010, it doesn't say much for Miliband's men.
Tory Candidate had 5x Green vote.
Williams faces completely new field from 2010. Greens may have picked up some Council seats from LDs, but have been celebrating 500th members in Bristol. It would be a huge sensation if they did gain it, but from a base of 3.8% their goal almost seems delusional?
My brother-in-law is a GP Partner trying to fill empty slots in his rural practice, he has the budget but can't get the applicants. The stated reason for the few interviewers he has not taking the job is because they got an offer for a similar job in Australia for about double the money, and doing about half the hours - hard to compete with that...
If everyone else banned immigrants, which is what UKIP seem to want for us, then nobody would be able leave their country.
I am pretty sure business travellers and tourists are not included.
The Tory candidate in Rochester is "absolutely" against people from Bristol being eligible for social housing in Rochester unless they've lived there for five years:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqa4Yduikc
Does the same apply to immigrants, EU or non-EU?
Or would that be racist? So, Bristol - NO, Pakistan - YES
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
Absolute bollocks, my dear @felix. UKIP is the only party - if you care to listen - that is saying that changing British politics will be a hard struggle, and will not be easily won.
It may be what you hear but most people hear that immigration and the EU have caused all of the problems and that without both all will be well. I don't dispute that both have caused damage - even if most of it unintentional - but no-one in Britain really wants to accept the reality of austerity. Most politicians are not evil troughers but it's so much easier to think they are than accept that jo public has some collective responsibility for the mess we're in.
UKIP have the field right now because of their strong line on immigration, the EU, the unpopularity of the coalition and the weakness of Labour. However, they are little different from the rest because they offer Utopia for free. They like all the rest want to ignore the economic realities that living standards in Western Europe have to continue to decline for a good few years yet and no magic wand can change this.
Absolute bollocks, my dear @felix. UKIP is the only party - if you care to listen - that is saying that changing British politics will be a hard struggle, and will not be easily won.
The problem is only partly the politics. The real problem, so to speak, is the public, that has sat through too many years of "something for nothing" and "all must have prizes" and can't deal with the realities of life - that there is no magic money tree, and that the country is spending over 100bn quid every year it doesn't have.
People dont realise that its not a question of trimming a bit here and there, its a question of the government not doing whole classes of things for you that it currently does, but not being able to reduce taxes significantly, and then spending at least a decade paying off the 1.5 TRILLION pounds we owe other people before we can even consider increasing provision again.
This isnt a political statement, it's not even really an economic statement, its basic arithmetic,
Comments
You then say: "It is only in metropolitan areas that this fear is overcome and to that extent all large cities are morally superior to suburbs and rural areas (just as they are more stressful). So if antiracism only flourishes in the stressful, unnatural and artificial environment of a large city, then it would surely follow that antiracism is an evil?
There is one cast iron reason why racism is wrong, just as being mean to the disabled is wrong. That is because all human beings have an immortal soul given by God and as such are deserving of respect and compassion and treatment in accordance with the Ten commandments (and even positive discrimination where their bodily abilities are lesser).
If that were not the case there would be no cast iron moral argument against racism and exploiting people of other races in the same way as we exploit animals. Even parliament recognises this with the Dangerous Dogs Act. This is an utterly racist act that discriminates against certain races of dogs. However it is wholly uncontentious.
The funny thing is that the thing the Metropolitan elite hate most, Christianity, is the thing that underpins its most sacred nostrums.
They have spent decades trying to undermine Christianity, and are now standing aghast that savagery and me first selfishness rather than the expected liberal brotherhood are emerging to replace it.
I spent some time working with BT's Regulatory team on bband roll-out and we had real commercial issues that we couldn't make work, no matter what Ofcom wanted.
It's too simplistic to say that Big Business lobbies without taking into account that their regulator needs to live in the real world too. Running the numbers and knowing how hard it was to make things stand-up was most educational. Those who haven't directly experienced working for a regulated firm often have little idea what's involved/why things *can't just be done*. Sometimes for very good market domination reasons, other times for stupid ones that actually keep prices artificially high.
Presumably, then, you would not consider the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown members of the metropolitan elite. So who would you place in it?
I'll agree with that. The excessive rewards as greed. Capitalism needs to be rid of them if it is to survive.
Have you ever eaten a nasturtium [sp]? I do love them, but never tried one.
In conclusion he wants revenge from being accused of doing something that was never proven, and that is the key in why he has support from UKIP.
Perhaps the allegations from 1995 will play a factor in Boston or perhaps not, since they were never proven and it's almost 20 years ago.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-vote-percentage
I think Paddy Power have a higher/lower for UKIP vote share too.
Very noble of you.
Our family firm competes extremely effectively against some of the biggest companies in Europe. We are small, but we focus very carefully on our customers and our niche, and have developed a sustainable business model.
The big guys are absolutely keen to create an ever increasing regulatory burden: they have a much larger customer base that they can amortise fixed costs across: increasing the barriers to entry advantages the incumbents and helps to sustain their oligopoly against challengers (even if they don't serve their customers well)
No, that is not ok with me.
Cue for the Labour party and usual suspects to shout blue murder. How it is unfair and "disreputable" for UKIP to highlight this in their election address...
Far better to bury it away. Like the Tories did - unless of course they wanted to go in low key to harness the anti-Labour vote to UKIP. Great plan. Unfortunately they are so strategically inept I doubt they did this.
Lack of decent housing - the above compete for housing with people born here forcing rents up by increasing demand
Poor Social mobility - again to move up the latter you have to compete with graduates from countries with far lower wages who will do the job for less.
Lack of good childcare, education - see lack of decent housing.
When will the left get it into its head that people oppose immigration not because people are racist but because the country is a small island and resources are limited and large numbers of incomers exacerbate the problems of lack of resources.
As for Tony Blair, being attacked by him is a kiss of life, everyone in Britain (apart from Hodges and company) hate his guts.
Edit: which would prove the truth of Ms Lamont's Parthian shots even more.
Now the large multi-nationals are essentially rootless global citizens (this is the same with the super rich) who no longer owe allegiance to a country (and, in fact, play countries off against each other by asking them to bid for investment). I'm not sure there is a real solution to this problem, unless you break up the large multinationals or unless there is scope for local regulatory interaction (for instance, we are increasingly seeing banks revert to being national players in many cases).
That said, although I'm not sure that Obama's changes on tax inversions are the right thingt o do in detail, I absolutely have sympathy for the objective. Companies that abuse international tax regimes to avoid paying a fair share to society are looters, not businessmen. The simple principle should be that if you do profitable business in a country then you should make a contribution to the tax base in that country.
Turnout will be an indication, if it exists (compared with last time when no one apart from Labour members voted) then UKIP will have a serious chance there.
Since Labour cannot go much higher in vote share, and given lower support among white voters, the only way the show can go on is with continued voter imports.
*Given they maybe get 70% of 12% of the population. On 30% total vote share this equates to 28%.
Getting rid of her is a plus for Labour.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/24/Britain-s-Pubs-are-Dying
UKIP's share of the 18-24 voters is about to explode! For cheaper booze, vote UKIP!
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/6029004/Jo-Ive-got-an-Ed-ache.html
I'm not saying that on May 8th it will be 'bye-bye UKIP' but they will be the right-wing equivalent of the Greens: a bunch of extremist losers whilst the rest of us get on with the grown-up job of running this rather wonderful country of ours.
Getting a bit worried about this. Must be the second time today I have agreed with AudreyAnne!
Perhaps the arrogance of audreyanne goes a long way to explain the actual thread header.
Edit: it's an interesting thought to consider if it would have been better for her to resign after the 2015 and 2016 elections.
Kipper HQ has a real challenge here - how to move from looking like a home-grown activist movement into a sensible Big Party. Lose one and potentially lose the other.
I'll be watching with great interest. My favourite is Private Eye's deliberate use of crap quality paper-stock to retain its subversive feel. It wouldn't have the impact it does if it was all glossy/colour.
http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=gkqa4Yduikc
Rochester Tory hopeful Kelly Tolhurst from a local radio interview yesterday. For whom the belle tolls...
There are not many people who are male and a Glasgow MSP, so I say it has to be James Kelly (the shadow cabinet secretary for infrastructure, investment and cities strategy).
If you employ UK graduates, the going rate is £40,000, but then you discover that Polish, Spanish, Greek and Portugese graduates are willing and able to come here and do the job for £20,000 because graduates only get £10,000 where they live, then what do you think is going to happen?
Therefore the chap from the council estate who works hard and gets a degree still can't get a job or ends up getting a job that pays little more than a McJob, whereas 20 years ago he would have got a middle class job with a middle class wage making him able to for example buy a house and generally move upwards socially.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/johann-lamont-quits-as-scottish-labour-leader-1-3583592
Haven't found details of Lamont's letter yet.
In presentation terms the top contender by far is in the red corner.
This has just come in from my favourite (no, honestly) Unionist commentator memorable for his scathing comments on Lamont when she had just performed ON HIS SIDE in an indyref discussion on live TV:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/alas-poor-johann-lamont-a-symptom-not-the-cause-of-labours-decline-in-scotland/
"Despite the polls Labour may yet salvage something in Scotland at the general election next year but their chances of regaining supremacy at Holyrood look dismal. A new leader may help but, in the end, that’s not the largest of Labour’s problems. They need an idea and a purpose and, at present, there’s no sign of either appearing. But without an idea you can’t write a story and without a story you can’t win elections. Johann Lamont wasn’t up to the job but it wasn’t all her fault. She was just a symptom, not the cause, of Labour’s decline."
My EU colleagues are not depressing wages, they are taking the jobs that Brits do not want.
Without patents big tech can just appropriate the ideas and innovations of smaller businesses. Microsoft and Google do not have a cross-licensing agreement, neither do Samsung and Apple, and so on. But cross-licensing is not the issue anyway; it is the ability of smaller companies to enter a market and disrupt it - patents enable that.
It isn't extreme in any way to point out that allowing vast numbers of people into the country at once will have negative effects on wages, housing and public services, and that's before we get into issues of identity, culture and social cohesion.
Just a couple of weeks ago midwives were striking because of vast increases in workloads. Well, adding 4 million citizens to the population in a decade when there is no money available to increase service provision will cause that. It isn't racist, it isn't extreme, it's basic changes to demand.
Immigrants aren't to blame, but governments failing to manage the immigration system are.
We elect governments to govern, not sit around acting as impotent onlookers and bystanders. That's why Brown's "it woz the banks wot dun it" excuses didn't wash, and nor will Cameron/Clegg's as we move forward on this issue.
In a normal nation state, if the population is booming in one area and declining in another, the distribution of public funds would follow the people. Yet, we seem to be pushing money into countries whilst they are pushing out people )and the burden to provide housing and services) towards us.
It's another EU "state" design flaw.
She's on auto pilot on immigration on every question, it's like hearing a tape recorder:
Journalist: "Do you say that people will have to live here for 5 years, if someone moves from Bristol to your area, will that be the same?'
Tolhurst: "Well absolutely"
However Apple and Microsoft do have cross-licensing deals, so do Samsung and Google. as does Cisco and Samsung, as do Microsoft and Amazon etc etc
As for the idea, Labour will have to rediscover socialism in scotland.
Big companies already appropriate the ideas of smaller companies by threatening to crush them with their existing patent portfolio - there will almost always be something that the big company can use to GOTCHA the small company. So the small company is coerced into a cross licensing deal.
Software patents are a scam, a total and utter scam that have done untold harm to the development of technology.
Is Cameron trying to pin the blame on a poor candidate for his party's performance, she doesn't sound as if she has had enough preparation for radio interviews.
I would be very surprised if she won, unless there is an automatic tick Conservative box reflex action in Kent. Reckless won't feel quite so threatened by KT.
They have licensing deals - some of which involve money exchanging hands (see Samsung and Microsoft, for example). As I say, though, cross-licensing is not the issue, it is the ability to use patents to prevent your ideas being appropriated. This helps smaller players and hinders bigger players.
"He claims £32,678 a year in state benefits and may now be in line for more"
Isn't there a benefit cap of £25K, or is it a little bit more porous than Dave would like us to believe ?
If the Tory candidate in Rochester thinks that Bristol is on the same level as a foreign country what would the Monster Raving Loonies have to say on their campaign?
'I recruit good numbers of overseas doctors (mostly from the EU) they are paid on the same scale. Very often there are no British qualified doctors who apply.'
You can't compare what happens in the public sector where there are fixed salary rates with the private sector.
Software patents are a scam, a total and utter scam that have done untold harm to the development of technology.
I disagree completely. In the US patent reform proposals that would reduce the rights of patent owners to assert their rights in favour of strengthening those of infringers is supported by big technology companies and opposed by groups representing lone inventors, start-ups, SMEs and venture capital:
http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=f94720af-5f0b-4e31-8fab-b863e1d64c0b
As for software, it depends on what you mean by that. The US has the most liberal software patent regime in the world, but also by far the most dynamic software sector. Europe, which does not allow software patents, is sclerotic by comparison:
http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=3567090c-b445-467f-b73b-9c6c87c670c0
The SNP behave like back street alley gang, how can you confront them otherwise?
I wonder if Lamont's attack on Ed 'nobody would notice if he got run over by a bus' Miliband will cause more or less harm than the £1.7bn bill will cause Cameron/the Conservatives.
I'd say more (as Lamont is specifically attacking Miliband whereas the bill applies to the UK generally), but Miliband's ratings can't decline much further.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29770496
From recent personal experience I still have yet to me a British doctor at the eye hospital but those in my local A & E are about 70-30 Brits and all male aside from two consultants, one of whom is Irish.
I'd be very interested in your views on this.
We've also heard a lot about people's personal animus for Mark Reckless -what if a lot of this was actually *because* he was a Tory? What if joining UKIP's barmy army has actually detoxified him in the eyes of the voting public of Rochester, rather than made things worse?
In the 1950s, the Conservatives and Labour took 95% of the vote between them, on high turnouts. They had millions of members.
In 2010 they took 67% between them, on a much lower turnout. Their combined membership is now about 10% of what it was back then. Current polling suggests their combined score will be 65% or less. In the European election they took less than 50% of the vote between them, and in the last two rounds of local elections, they took 55-60% between them.
They're close to running out of votes.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/25/green-party-surge-bristol-west
Ask youself are the LDs so hamstrung that they would lose this seat to The Greens? Bear in mind for every 1 vote for the Watermelons, 13 went to the LDs, 8 to Labour. Williams the LD had 48% vote share, then Labour with 27% and the Greens on 3.8%. The Greens could still take votes enough votes off Labour & Williams still gets in.
I don't want something to happen, therefore it can't be happening.
I seem to recall many discussions here on PB and elsewhere, that a problem with many NHS trained doctors and nurses was the numbers that immigrated shortly after qualifying. Much talk then of repaying the British tax payer who had funded their training by imposing compulsory ‘x’ number of years contracts after graduation. – Not sure if that is the case now however.
For the first time in a decade? Technically true but implying that the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems c 2004. In fact, they were nowhere unusual, floating around in low single figures while the Lib Dems were basking in their post-Iraq popularity and within ten points of first place. "First time in about a quarter of a century" would be more accurate.
That said, if the Greens, rather than Labour, is the main challenger to the Lib Dems given where the parties finished in 2010, it doesn't say much for Miliband's men.
25 October 1415 Battle of Agincourt sees Henry V slaughter a much larger but poorly organised French army.
Just like UKIP is preparing to do to much larger political forces, 600 years later.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqa4Yduikc
There are plenty of examples of other once-leading parties across the world which the electorate has discarded. Where now are:
Canadian Progressive Conservatives
Italian Christian Democrats
Italian Socialist Party
Dutch Christian Democrats
PASOK of Greece
To name but a few of the top of my head?
People dont realise that its not a question of trimming a bit here and there, its a question of the government not doing whole classes of things for you that it currently does, but not being able to reduce taxes significantly, and then spending at least a decade paying off the 1.5 TRILLION pounds we owe other people before we can even consider increasing provision again.
This isnt a political statement, it's not even really an economic statement, its basic arithmetic,
Williams faces completely new field from 2010. Greens may have picked up some Council seats from LDs, but have been celebrating 500th members in Bristol. It would be a huge sensation if they did gain it, but from a base of 3.8% their goal almost seems delusional?
I am pretty sure business travellers and tourists are not included.
Does the same apply to immigrants, EU or non-EU?
Or would that be racist? So, Bristol - NO, Pakistan - YES