some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
I am just trying to clarify and understand the Lefty position. If you want to have a shot, the unanswered questions are:
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
If Ed does bring this up, with reference to the specific MP and to drowning refugees, Dave will probably try to associate the letting-people-drown thing with UKIP.
Something like "Of course we don't support that, I'm waiting for the UKIP defection letter from {whatever-his-name-is} any time now" could do the trick
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
Just as UKIP "cleaned up" with 10% in the Beckton by-election.
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator - indeed, that's where it starts. Post-1989 Eastern Europe was the same - once the cheering for the fall of the Communists had stopped, the hard truth was these countries needed huge long-term investment and infrastructural programmes to rebalance after four decades of Marxist mismanagement.
Unfortunately, all we saw was cheap labour for our building sites and coffee shops and the chance to buy some nice Black Sea beachfront property.
Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
I would suggest that part of UKIP's appeal is that they will not try, if in government, to morph into the honorable member for Tripoli South, Gaza Central or Mogadishu West
British voters increasingly want their government to use its power and their tax money to address their concerns (whatever the 'moral' case for that may be).
They are completely and utterly fed up with people using our resources on far flung moral crusades that do not help them and may, indeed, make their situation worse.
Whether that is morally right or wrong, I don;t know, but I suggest that it is certainly the mood of the country right now.
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
I can see you're a part of the "oh it's all too difficult" brigade and your solution is to exploit your own good fortune of living in a first world country by ignoring the immediate peril of thousands of your fellow human beings. Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
Just as UKIP "cleaned up" with 10% in the Beckton by-election.
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator - indeed, that's where it starts. Post-1989 Eastern Europe was the same - once the cheering for the fall of the Communists had stopped, the hard truth was these countries needed huge long-term investment and infrastructural programmes to rebalance after four decades of Marxist mismanagement.
Unfortunately, all we saw was cheap labour for our building sites and coffee shops and the chance to buy some nice Black Sea beachfront property.
Eastern Europe was given enormous aid for the transition process. Most Eastern European countries are unrecognisable from the state they were in. Wage differentials do however persist as do standards of living, although we are regressing quickly.
Boats should be rescued with them being towed back to their point of departure and any who reach our shores deported post haste. Enough have died already.
Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
I would suggest that part of UKIP's appeal is that they will not try, if in government, to morph into the honorable member for Tripoli South, Gaza Central or Mogadishu West
British voters increasingly want their government to use its power and their tax money to address their concerns (whatever the 'moral' case for that may be).
They are completely and utterly fed up with people using our resources on far flung moral crusades that do not help them and may, indeed, make their situation worse.
Whether that is morally right or wrong, I don;t know, but I suggest that it is certainly the mood of the country right now.
It's a mood of a part of the electorate. If it had wider appeal, UKIP would be leading in the polls.
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator -
Much better to help people in the country they are in rather than the lucky and (relatively) wealthy few who are able to pay people traffickers to transport them to Europe. For that reason the current Governments 0.7% Foreign Aid spending is a great commitment.
Harry's credo is that nurses are grasping greedy people who are a burden to the good honest British taxpayer. Another great Tory attack line from the PB Brains Trust
We could save millions of African children every year from premature death, just by sticking 3p on the income tax. 3 measly p. No ifs or buts. Do you want those children to die? Would you starve to death if your income tax went up by 3p? YES OR NO?
We do search and rescue in our own exceptionally extensive and dangerous coastal waters. It's absolutely great if other countries do it in theirs.
I can see you're a part of the "oh it's all too difficult" brigade and your solution is to exploit your own good fortune of living in a first world country by ignoring the immediate peril of thousands of your fellow human beings. Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
3p on income tax to avert this. should ed miliband propose this? Why not?
There's already an international aid budget. One no doubt you've also railed against.
Oooh, that's all right then, isn't it? Conscience salved, job done.
Try telling that to the parents of starving children in South Sudan. God forbid your standard of living should drop to save them.
I'll take that as a yes, you've whinged about the international aid budget too. No surprise there.
Yes, as it happens I'm happy my government commits to the UN target for international aid and development. It is the one shining light of this appalling admininstration that they've backed this policy to the hilt while all around them the xenophobe tendency was whining for the budget to be cut.
You may well be tired of the "r-word" being brought up. There's a reason for that. Your white skin. I have one too. But that doesn't stop white skins being an unmerited privilege.
I don't think you will find that the good people of places like Jaywick, near Clacton, will agree that "white skins" grant "an unmerited privilege"
Nor will people in council estates across the north.
Thats why people banging on about the R word all the time makes them rather cross.
And they are voting UKIP in industrial quantities.
I daresay they don't. That doesn't make them right. Good to see someone at last accepting that UKIP is a racist Party.
To quote Peter Brimelow a racist is someone a liberal is losing an argument to.
The left likes to conflate ethnocentrocism with racism, a word of dubious origins and questionable definition.
Deluding yourself that somehow the complexity of it all mitigates your own moral failing.
I would suggest that part of UKIP's appeal is that they will not try, if in government, to morph into the honorable member for Tripoli South, Gaza Central or Mogadishu West
British voters increasingly want their government to use its power and their tax money to address their concerns (whatever the 'moral' case for that may be).
They are completely and utterly fed up with people using our resources on far flung moral crusades that do not help them and may, indeed, make their situation worse.
Whether that is morally right or wrong, I don;t know, but I suggest that it is certainly the mood of the country right now.
It's a mood of a part of the electorate. If it had wider appeal, UKIP would be leading in the polls.
Good chance that'll happen in the next parliament.
Edit: Probably a fair chance - perhaps not "good"...
2-1 for UKIP to LEAD in any national poll by any BPC polling organisation in the 2015 - 2020 parliament perhaps ?
Watcher as you consider Heywood a marginal, as you keep drivelling on here, perhaps you'd care to frame a bet with me on the Kippers winning it?
In other words, put up or shut up
Hmm, that was one of the late Tim's silly tricks when he wanted to stifle an uncomfortable truth - you're the Lite version. Ugh. Go back to stalking Scott.
Harry's credo is that nurses are grasping greedy people who are a burden to the good honest British taxpayer. Another great Tory attack line from the PB Brains Trust
The NHS should be run for the patients not the staff - that's where Labour and I disagree.
Don't worry, as Stratford is gentrified and the prices go through the roof, hospitals are being closed in havering and the housing built is to be used for newham overspill... It's a big issue here and Ukip will clean up unless something is done.
On the migrants in boats issue, I'm sure no one is suggesting people in genuine need won't be rescued but there is a valid point that by the time they are at sea it's too late. The EU needs to get into Libya and other parts of North Africa and start tackling the problem nearer the source. That doesn't just mean camps but it also means the economic reconstruction of Libya which was the direct result of the civil war.
We cannot evade responsibility for our actions in that conflict and, as with Afghanistan and Iraq, our responsibility doesn't end with the fall of the dictator -
Much better to help people in the country they are in rather than the lucky and (relatively) wealthy few who are able to pay people traffickers to transport them to Europe. For that reason the current Governments 0.7% Foreign Aid spending is a great commitment.
Lord Bauer was the expert on foreign aid, I doubt Cameron has heard of him.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
I am just trying to clarify and understand the Lefty position. If you want to have a shot, the unanswered questions are:
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that; neither do I have a problem with using the money to help deploy an international force to mount search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries. And it is through international cooperation that you are going to do it. Giving people traffickers seaworthy boats rewards criminality, so that's a No from me. I am not sure I get your point about Bangladesh. Presumably search and rescue operations are already mounted when such tragedies occur. In the Mediterranean we are choosing to pursue a policy which we know will mean people will drown.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
I am just trying to clarify and understand the Lefty position. If you want to have a shot, the unanswered questions are:
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that; neither do I have a problem with using the money to help deploy an international force to mount search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries. And it is through international cooperation that you are going to do it. Giving people traffickers seaworthy boats rewards criminality, so that's a No from me. I am not sure I get your point about Bangladesh. Presumably search and rescue operations are already mounted when such tragedies occur. In the Mediterranean we are choosing to pursue a policy which we know will mean people will drown.
Err you can pay your own money direct to a charity and claim tax credit if you really want to help overseas relief, you don;t need the government to do it for you. Furthermore you can pay as much or as little of your salary as you want to .
Morris - sure. My offer to frame a bet on a Ukip GE win there is also open to you sir.
Re: nurses. To govern is to choose. It is your party that wants to give a thumping unfunded tax cut to the upper middle classes so perhaps your invoking of the tired old line the Magic Money Tree is unwise when discussing nurses' pay
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
It's really easy to think of asylum seekers/immigrants/refugees as less than human, in fact, it's easier to not think about them at all. What I try and do is visualise myself and my loved ones in that boat, imagine us living in that camp on the Syria border, try and see in my minds eye the realities of just surviving, and keeping my family together. Innocent Abroad is wrong that we're privileged to be white. We're privileged to be in this country, to be born English (British, if that's your thing), and we should be uncomfortable that we as a seafaring nation want to give up aiding the rescue of those less fortunate than ourselves in the Med, especially as we're responsible for a fair bit of strife in the middle east. That's not to say that we should be towing them to Europe, that's clearly madness, but as we're in the EU, we should be working to find an EU wide, sane, humane policy on immigration. Now, it's obvious that both left and right in this country have feckedup immigration policy over many years, and things are coming to a head. Maybe now is the time for all parties to stop letting point scoring and party tribalism get in the way of actually finding an immigration solution.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
Not sure it did 'badly' in London ,it just did less well.
Or my husband's I Have Cheques Therefore I Have Money mentality.
It's denying that reality is pressing up against us hard. The more Labourites at HQ cling onto believing that they don't have a big problem is good news for their rivals.
3% margin of error. You really shouldnt micro analyise 1% swings here and there. Forest from the trees springs to mind....
Labour supporters are now grimly hanging on to the point that Mike made yesterday: that until and unless the Tory lead is 6% they will gain seats. I think they are wrong about that but that is another story.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
Oh dear - Soho in central London - so that's where the real world is.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
The only "people" in that anecdote is you, isn't it? The beggars and the waitresses are just the mise-en-scene.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
@Sun_Politics: Civil servants have lost track of tens of thousands of asylum seekers flocking to Britain for a new life: http://t.co/wbwXbpCIEU
Ed should definitely stand up at noon and demand that we go and collect more. Sure fire win. That'll shut up Cameron and Farage. No problem.
UKIP's election leaflets will be writing themselves - 'Ed Miliband wants to use your money to help more illegal immigrants get here, rather than spending taxes on doctors, nurses and schools for your children... [Photo Farage, surrounded by children, teachers and healthcare workers]'
Kay Burley on Sky immigration debate addressing who I suppose is the anti immigration person
"20, 30, 40 years ago Pakistanis were seen as immigrants we didn't want but now they are no longer seen as, in inverted comments, bad immigrants, but they play an integral role in our society..."
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that;
At what point do you have a problem with it? A 70% tax rate? The people in Sudan will still be worse off than the people in the UK.
There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries.
But if we do do more, there'll simply be more people born in the third world, and so the starvation will return. Not to mention that we undermine the efforts of such countries to become self-sustaining and grow their own GDP per capita.
I don't want anyone to die trying to get here, but I also want Britain to keep most of its own wealth and spend it on British people. Perhaps that is selfish; perhaps that is me responding to my good fortune at having being born here rather than somewhere else [the privilege of a white skin, as someone put it].
But there's always a continuum between seeing yourself as a private individual, a citizen of a country, a citizen of a continent and a citizen of the world. Where you put yourself on that scale could be construed as morality, or it could be construed as common sense.
Going back to the first quote, it seems that what you actually believe is that we should all pay more tax, not just yourself. But why not simply give away 90%+ of your wealth to charity if that's the case? You may do already; in which case I salute you for living by your principles.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, SO, but we have to get to the logical bottom of the arguments if this discussion, or the related one on search & rescue, is going to be anything much more than posturing.
Harry's credo is that nurses are grasping greedy people who are a burden to the good honest British taxpayer. Another great Tory attack line from the PB Brains Trust
Is his "credo" not more accurately portrayed as one where public sector expectations of a routine ~3% pay bump merely for turning up more or less on time for a year and doing the exact same job but then ALSO wanting a pay rise on top is not something that private sector employees can relate to or understand since it doesn't exist there?
Therefore going on strike about it elicits little, if any, sympathy. (At least not from those who have understood the issue, which I accept as ever in British politics, is a small minority).
But if we do do more, there'll simply be more people born in the third world, and so the starvation will return. Not to mention that we undermine the efforts of such countries to become self-sustaining and grow their own GDP per capita.
Errr, doesn't pretty much all research ever point to the richer and healthier a society is the lower the birth rate? As poor families with high infant mortality need a large labour force to subsistence farm and get that via procreation.
The idea is we don't just lob over food, we lob over capital investment money to help them grow their GDP. I'm mostly in favour of the "just give money to poor people" approach as well.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
I am just trying to clarify and understand the Lefty position. If you want to have a shot, the unanswered questions are:
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that; neither do I have a problem with using the money to help deploy an international force to mount search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries. And it is through international cooperation that you are going to do it. Giving people traffickers seaworthy boats rewards criminality, so that's a No from me. I am not sure I get your point about Bangladesh. Presumably search and rescue operations are already mounted when such tragedies occur. In the Mediterranean we are choosing to pursue a policy which we know will mean people will drown.
Err you can pay your own money direct to a charity and claim tax credit if you really want to help overseas relief, you don;t need the government to do it for you. Furthermore you can pay as much or as little of your salary as you want to .
Yes, I do that. But you only make a real difference if you pool resources. And that is best done through taxation in my view.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There were some coherent arguments on here a year or more ago, that UKIP would hurt Conservative up to a certain point, before hurting Labour more. ISTR the figure of 6% was mentioned, but cannot fully recall whether that was 6% UKIP vote share before they start hurting Labour, or something else.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
Kay Burley on Sky immigration debate addressing who I suppose is the anti immigration person
"20, 30, 40 years ago Pakistanis were seen as immigrants we didn't want but now they are no longer seen as, in inverted comments, bad immigrants, but they play an integral role in our society..."
Is that a great example?
The most prejudiced/stereotyped comments about Pakistanis I've heard haven't been from white people...
and if it is brought up in PMQ's by for example Ed Miliband ,one hopes he brings it up to further a conviction and not because he thinks it will serve a political advantage
When is anything ever said at PMQs, by anyone, not for political advantage?
If you think political calculations aren't being made by team Ed about what should be brought up today then you're ludicrously naive. FFS he tried to imply that all Tories thought disabled people were worthless a few weeks ago. And Dave's response was the result of a very quick political calculation on his part.
Mr. Observer, if you have money to burn and what to help a given situation, just do a spot of research and donate to the relevant charity.
I do. But on my own that makes very little practical difference. Wealthy individuals and deep pocket corporations can afford to pay more tax. I believe that they should.
Hand on heart, I have to admit that immigration is a big problem for the Conservatives.
There isn't a cigarette wrapper of difference between the Tories and UKIP on what they really want, immigration wise.
The debate is entirely about how it's achieved and how quickly it needs to be done.
A Tory seat going UKIP, isn't a loss in the way that a Tory seat going Labour is.
In the recent Ashcroft CON-LAB marginals polling (sample 11k) for every five UKIP voters wanting a CON government as their preferred GE15 outcome four said a LAB one.
The idea that kippers are all Tories on holiday is nonsense.
Of course it is, but the idea that the Tory-Kipper switchers could be Tories on holiday might not be.
And I'm quite happy to be blatantly two faced about UKIP. I'll hate and condemn them where they're hurting the Tories, and love and laud them where it's Labour losing out.
I'm not sure how these two outcomes are best achieved, but you pointing out that Lab is losing to UKIP as well doesn't make me despair!
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There are now five groups of switchers we need to be conscious of:
1. Red Liberals 2. Purple Tories 3. Blue Liberals 4. Purple Labourites 5. Rainbow Liberals.
We've only really paid much attention to the first two, mainly because they've been around longest but the others are of increasing importance.
The Rainbow Liberals (LD losses to UKIP, Green and Others), seem to be increasing particularly quickly and perhaps represent both a new phase of LD defections and also a secondary defection from a subgroup who've ended up there via Labour.
Mr. Pulpstar, aye, or it could prove costly. That's a policy I've always held, and am sticking to.
Well I 100% know @isam and @TheUnionDivvie both pay up, as does Bond - James Bond (his money should have gone to the website though). I should be able to add @Antifrank and @Fluffythoughts to that list in due course.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There were some coherent arguments on here a year or more ago, that UKIP would hurt Conservative up to a certain point, before hurting Labour more. ISTR the figure of 6% was mentioned, but cannot fully recall whether that was 6% UKIP vote share before they start hurting Labour, or something else.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
It was Survation
"...the optimum UKIP vote share as far as Labour is concerned is actually around 16%. After that point, more of the marginal switchers to UKIP start to come from Labour than the Conservatives (even though the overall UKIP vote is still predominantly Tory into the 20%s, after 16% further growth in UKIP vote is offset by the falling Conservative share)."
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that;
At what point do you have a problem with it? A 70% tax rate? The people in Sudan will still be worse off than the people in the UK.
There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries.
But if we do do more, there'll simply be more people born in the third world, and so the starvation will return. Not to mention that we undermine the efforts of such countries to become self-sustaining and grow their own GDP per capita.
I don't want anyone to die trying to get here, but I also want Britain to keep most of its own wealth and spend it on British people. Perhaps that is selfish; perhaps that is me responding to my good fortune at having being born here rather than somewhere else [the privilege of a white skin, as someone put it].
But there's always a continuum between seeing yourself as a private individual, a citizen of a country, a citizen of a continent and a citizen of the world. Where you put yourself on that scale could be construed as morality, or it could be construed as common sense.
Going back to the first quote, it seems that what you actually believe is that we should all pay more tax, not just yourself. But why not simply give away 90%+ of your wealth to charity if that's the case? You may do already; in which case I salute you for living by your principles.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, SO, but we have to get to the logical bottom of the arguments if this discussion, or the related one on search & rescue, is going to be anything much more than posturing.
I don't take it as a personal attack. My position is that me and people like me can afford to pay more tax and that there is a need for us to do so. I am happy to leave it to the state to decide how that money should be spent - but I have no problem if the state decides it should go on more aid to Sudan or on helping to mount search and rescue operations in the Med. I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect the to pay more tax. In the end third world poverty cannot be solved by raising tax rates in one country. It is an international issue. But that does not mean that we cannot do more.
But if we do do more, there'll simply be more people born in the third world, and so the starvation will return. Not to mention that we undermine the efforts of such countries to become self-sustaining and grow their own GDP per capita.
Errr, doesn't pretty much all research ever point to the richer and healthier a society is the lower the birth rate? As poor families with high infant mortality need a large labour force to subsistence farm and get that via procreation.
The idea is we don't just lob over food, we lob over capital investment money to help them grow their GDP. I'm mostly in favour of the "just give money to poor people" approach as well.
Sure, the intimation of the original point was that we did something specifically about people starving, which I took to mean food aid. That was probably presumptive of me. Capital investment's a far better idea, though unfortunately it's more prone to graft as well.
As for "just give money to poor people" - well, there's a lot of them. How poor are you willing to make yourself [and/or your country] in that aim?
Watcher as you consider Heywood a marginal, as you keep drivelling on here, perhaps you'd care to frame a bet with me on the Kippers winning it?
In other words, put up or shut up
Hmm, that was one of the late Tim's silly tricks when he wanted to stifle an uncomfortable truth - you're the Lite version. Ugh. Go back to stalking Scott.
It's really easy to think of asylum seekers/immigrants/refugees as less than human, in fact, it's easier to not think about them at all. What I try and do is visualise myself and my loved ones in that boat, imagine us living in that camp on the Syria border, try and see in my minds eye the realities of just surviving, and keeping my family together. Innocent Abroad is wrong that we're privileged to be white. We're privileged to be in this country, to be born English (British, if that's your thing), and we should be uncomfortable that we as a seafaring nation want to give up aiding the rescue of those less fortunate than ourselves in the Med, especially as we're responsible for a fair bit of strife in the middle east. That's not to say that we should be towing them to Europe, that's clearly madness, but as we're in the EU, we should be working to find an EU wide, sane, humane policy on immigration. Now, it's obvious that both left and right in this country have feckedup immigration policy over many years, and things are coming to a head. Maybe now is the time for all parties to stop letting point scoring and party tribalism get in the way of actually finding an immigration solution.
Happy with virtually all of that, as long as 'finding an immigration solution' means controlling the total numbers arriving and settling in the UK to a level that commands popular support *as well as* offering humanitarian support and assistance to resettle and support fellow human beings who are in distress.
Too many (particularly on the Left) only really mean to action the latter, and ignore the former, when they speak of 'finding an immigration solution'.
Harry's credo is that nurses are grasping greedy people who are a burden to the good honest British taxpayer. Another great Tory attack line from the PB Brains Trust
Is his "credo" not more accurately portrayed as one where public sector expectations of a routine ~3% pay bump merely for turning up more or less on time for a year and doing the exact same job but then ALSO wanting a pay rise on top is not something that private sector employees can relate to or understand since it doesn't exist there?
Therefore going on strike about it elicits little, if any, sympathy. (At least not from those who have understood the issue, which I accept as ever in British politics, is a small minority).
The nurses strike had broad support amongst the public as I recall.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
Oh dear - Soho in central London - so that's where the real world is.
No sooner do the words leave Roger's ipad as he sups his frappucinno than the sky ticker reads
"A 21 year old man has been arrested in Hackney in London on suspicion of assisting another person to commit acts of terrorism in relation to Syria"
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There were some coherent arguments on here a year or more ago, that UKIP would hurt Conservative up to a certain point, before hurting Labour more. ISTR the figure of 6% was mentioned, but cannot fully recall whether that was 6% UKIP vote share before they start hurting Labour, or something else.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
It was Survation
"...the optimum UKIP vote share as far as Labour is concerned is actually around 16%. After that point, more of the marginal switchers to UKIP start to come from Labour than the Conservatives (even though the overall UKIP vote is still predominantly Tory into the 20%s, after 16% further growth in UKIP vote is offset by the falling Conservative share)."
The AM Telegraph email points to informal discussions going on between the Tory party and the DUP in NI,who have 8 seats currently but hope for more.Accepting the only game in town for the L/Ds is another coalition with the the Tories, so their seats can be added to the Tory total,it could be these DUPpers who get the Cameron over the 326 finishing line. How ironic that the Tory party could be reliant upon Ulster Votes For English laws yet again.
The Tories had a majority in England in 2010. It is the UK as a whole where they don't have a majority.
Why is thew only game in town for the Lib Dems a coalition with the Tories.It will depend as in 2010 on the exact number of seats held by each party.
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 is 'we must spare no expense to help every last refugee' and 10 is 'use their boats for target practice' - what score do we think is about right for the views of the following? :
1. Dave 2. Ed 3. Man in the street of a somewhat righty persuasion 4. Man in the street of a somewhat lefty persuasion
My suspicion is that 3 and 4 may score higher than 1 and 2 generally and that 3 is higher than 1 and 4 is higher than 2. Judging this correctly has much potential to attract or lose votes for all concerned.
What about the obviously (if I'm being a little mischievous) most important group: 2010 LD Lab switchers?
I expect they're somewhat lower than the other 4s
another post poisoned by the obsessive political game. This is why people are put of politicians its because everything is reduced to a game to score points from any issue ,to 'position' yourselves on everything to win a certain section of votes -Its pathetic and morally crap
Have you read my earlier posts?
Having and expressing a view on how this will play with different sections of the electorate isn't a sign of moral degeneracy; it's just what happens here.
Exactly , it happens here because its farly representative of how politicians think in the modern world. Everything has to be done to get votes ,every position is taken to get some 'switchers' - Maybe a decent period of a month perhaps and you could start to talk about how many votes you will get from having your view .The fact that you talk about it at the same time as arguing the case you do shows you care far more about lib dem 'switchers' than any immigrant on the seas. Its pathetic to most people to talk about votes at a time like this
This is Political Betting. Psephology and its betting implications are the intended focus.
And what the hell do you mean "at a time like this"?
Have I accidentally stumbled into a memorial service for drowned refugees?
This is a live political issue and could well be brought up in PMQs today. Should we really ignore it?
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
Nope. I have political views. I would not force those on anyone. I exercise a vote like anyone else. If people do not agree with me, I lose. But I will still hold the views I do.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There were some coherent arguments on here a year or more ago, that UKIP would hurt Conservative up to a certain point, before hurting Labour more. ISTR the figure of 6% was mentioned, but cannot fully recall whether that was 6% UKIP vote share before they start hurting Labour, or something else.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
It was Survation
"...the optimum UKIP vote share as far as Labour is concerned is actually around 16%. After that point, more of the marginal switchers to UKIP start to come from Labour than the Conservatives (even though the overall UKIP vote is still predominantly Tory into the 20%s, after 16% further growth in UKIP vote is offset by the falling Conservative share)."
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
But if we do do more, there'll simply be more people born in the third world, and so the starvation will return. Not to mention that we undermine the efforts of such countries to become self-sustaining and grow their own GDP per capita.
Errr, doesn't pretty much all research ever point to the richer and healthier a society is the lower the birth rate? As poor families with high infant mortality need a large labour force to subsistence farm and get that via procreation.
The idea is we don't just lob over food, we lob over capital investment money to help them grow their GDP. I'm mostly in favour of the "just give money to poor people" approach as well.
Sure, the intimation of the original point was that we did something specifically about people starving, which I took to mean food aid. That was probably presumptive of me. Capital investment's a far better idea, though unfortunately it's more prone to graft as well.
As for "just give money to poor people" - well, there's a lot of them. How poor are you willing to make yourself [and/or your country] in that aim?
Yeah, the structure of aid is a minefield with so many ways it can go wrong. Of cours, I'm in favour of clearing literal minefields as it frees up land for use, makes people feel safer and cuts down on expensive medical care.
When it comes to "giving money to poor people" it's about restructuring current aid budgets rather than handing over all my wealth. There's growing evidence that simply handing over $X to every person in a village is a better way of spending that amount of aid money than having it going through multiple levels of graft-heavy government.
On a more 1st world basis Utah (of all places) has decided to tackle it's homeless problem by simply giving an apartment and assigning a case worker to every homeless person they identify. The sums in terms of costs of medical care and petty crime caused by the homeless is greater than simply giving them an apartment. When the sums add up the direct, almost counter intuitive approach, can be the right one. They've only just started this program so it will be interesting to see if it works.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
Yeah, people should be free to give cancer to strangers. Right on.
And laws against playing loud music at 3am in the morning are also totally wrong as well.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
There were some coherent arguments on here a year or more ago, that UKIP would hurt Conservative up to a certain point, before hurting Labour more. ISTR the figure of 6% was mentioned, but cannot fully recall whether that was 6% UKIP vote share before they start hurting Labour, or something else.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
It was Survation
"...the optimum UKIP vote share as far as Labour is concerned is actually around 16%. After that point, more of the marginal switchers to UKIP start to come from Labour than the Conservatives (even though the overall UKIP vote is still predominantly Tory into the 20%s, after 16% further growth in UKIP vote is offset by the falling Conservative share)."
Possibly. Are there other polls showing similar trends?
*If* the UKIP vote unwinds, it would be interesting to see if both Conservatives or Labour see equally-proportioned returns. Not that I expect any unwinding in the polls before the GE, sadly.
Mr. Alistair, the music comparison is flawed because that affects other people's homes. I believe people have a right to smoke in their own home, but not in other people's (except with permission).
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
Mr. Pulpstar, I wasn't suggesting other people might not pay, I was suggesting I might well end up losing the bets.
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
It rather depends on what you mean by moral. It seems pretty immoral to me to allow smokers to inflict their habit on people who may not like having it inflicted on them.
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
Nope. I have political views. I would not force those on anyone. I exercise a vote like anyone else. If people do not agree with me, I lose. But I will still hold the views I do.
Of course it comes down to voting in the end. But if you lose the vote, you can still act on your views by giving your money away. You've already acknowledged you do, but do you give away a sum equivalent to the extra tax you feel you should pay? [You may well do, I don't know.]
If all the well-off people who think they are substantially undertaxed actually gave the notional difference away to charity, rather than a few £50-100 donations to ease their consciences, they'd collectively have a huge sum [which they could target as they chose].
I have to conclude that, in the main, they actually think people with more income/wealth than them are the ones who are substantially undertaxed.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
Mr. Alistair, the music comparison is flawed because that affects other people's homes. I believe people have a right to smoke in their own home, but not in other people's (except with permission).
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
If I sunbathe is affects only me. If I smoke - and I do like the odd cigar - it affects a lot of people around me. Why should my right to a cigar trump their right to breathe smoke free air?
Is Graham Stringer the most likely Labour MP to defect to UKIP?
He's supported the EU referendum bill and Dominic Raab's amendment on immigrant felon's. He wasn't afraid to be the first to speak out and call for Gordon Brown to resign as Labour leader. There was a 9.8% vote for UKIP+BNP in his seat at the 2010 GE.
While another defection from the Conservatives is probably more likely, a defection from Labour would be a massive coup for UKIP.
Mr. Alistair, the music comparison is flawed because that affects other people's homes. I believe people have a right to smoke in their own home, but not in other people's (except with permission).
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
If I sunbathe is affects only me. If I smoke - and I do like the odd cigar - it affects a lot of people around me. Why should my right to a cigar trump their right to breathe smoke free air?
So do you think smoking should be banned everywhere except in the home? Or banned everywhere?
Apologies, I am not being sarcastic/ironic I don't get what you are saying
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
Nope. I have political views. I would not force those on anyone. I exercise a vote like anyone else. If people do not agree with me, I lose. But I will still hold the views I do.
Of course it comes down to voting in the end. But if you lose the vote, you can still act on your views by giving your money away. You've already acknowledged you do, but do you give away a sum equivalent to the extra tax you feel you should pay? [You may well do, I don't know.]
If all the well-off people who think they are substantially undertaxed actually gave the notional difference away to charity, rather than a few £50-100 donations to ease their consciences, they'd collectively have a huge sum [which they could target as they chose].
I have to conclude that, in the main, they actually think people with more income/wealth than them are the ones who are substantially undertaxed.
If someone says they believe they should be taxed more, that says to me they believe they should be taxed more. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's a distance of maybe 50 yards during which I was approached by 2 aggressive beggars (both white English) a thought occurred to me.
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
I think "Roger" may actually be an entry for the Turner Prize 2015. It's been a spectacular installation.
some Tories on here wish to make it one. My guess is that it probably would not be a good idea for the Tory leadership to follow their lead. But if they wish to, so be it.
And again, the thread is based on the premise of Labour leadership making it so. Those damned Tories...
And my posts are based on the fact that several posters on here believe it is a good idea to use the issue as a weapon with which to attack lefties. I disagree with them.
I am just trying to clarify and understand the Lefty position. If you want to have a shot, the unanswered questions are:
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
I don't know what the lefty position is. My position is that I believe I should pay more tax and if that is used to help starving people in Sudan I have absolutely no problem with that; neither do I have a problem with using the money to help deploy an international force to mount search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. There has never been more wealth in the UK or in the world generally. That people do still starve to death is an obscenity. I think the UK could do more, as could most other countries. And it is through international cooperation that you are going to do it. Giving people traffickers seaworthy boats rewards criminality, so that's a No from me. I am not sure I get your point about Bangladesh. Presumably search and rescue operations are already mounted when such tragedies occur. In the Mediterranean we are choosing to pursue a policy which we know will mean people will drown.
Err you can pay your own money direct to a charity and claim tax credit if you really want to help overseas relief, you don;t need the government to do it for you. Furthermore you can pay as much or as little of your salary as you want to .
Yes, I do that. But you only make a real difference if you pool resources. And that is best done through taxation in my view.
Hmm.
That relies on a consensus of what is a "good cause". Would you for example have funded the Goma refugee camp? Plenty of starving people there. Plenty of Tutsi also.
Of course that is a flagship example of an egregious charity decision but each has its own flavour.
Best off as the suggestion was, to do your own research and give your own wealth.
Mr. Alistair, the music comparison is flawed because that affects other people's homes. I believe people have a right to smoke in their own home, but not in other people's (except with permission).
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
If I sunbathe is affects only me. If I smoke - and I do like the odd cigar - it affects a lot of people around me. Why should my right to a cigar trump their right to breathe smoke free air?
So do you think smoking should be banned everywhere except in the home? Or banned everywhere?
Apologies, I am not being sarcastic/ironic I don't get what you are saying
I am saying that comparing smoking to sunbathing because both cause cancer is a bit silly. I would not ban smoking in private homes, I'd also allow it in enclosed areas - such as pubs and bars - where it is made clear that smoking is permitted and people can choose whether or not to enter. In public spaces I would have clearly marked designated areas which non-smokers can avoid if they wish to.
If I looked at this stuff from purely a marketing perspective - what seems to be going on is that the Early Adopters [those who went Kipper ages ago and mostly Tories] are now being overtaken by the Considered Buyers [who are more conservative purchasers] who were attracted to the idea, but were a bit scared of it too.
Early Adopters give something a very skewed profile - they're full of noisy advocates and change lovers/mavericks. When a product gets into the Considered phase group - it really gets traction. That Labourites are falling heavily into this segment is a worry for them. These voters aren't faddish or protesters against The Establishment [whatever one you choose] - they're buying in to something they think is safe.
Interesting that the trend appears to show UKIP gaining votes off Labour with the Tories reasonably flat, which contradicts the narrative of UKIP hurting the Tories more.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
Possibly. Are there other polls showing similar trends?
*If* the UKIP vote unwinds, it would be interesting to see if both Conservatives or Labour see equally-proportioned returns. Not that I expect any unwinding in the polls before the GE, sadly.
ComRes are the only firm I'm aware of that tracks this (their 'favourable' numbers are very similar to these 'would seriously consider' numbers, they seem to be measuring the same thing.)
You could look at Survation (who are the only firm to be even handed with their prompting.) They typically have the Conservatives in the high 20s.
Mr. Alistair, the music comparison is flawed because that affects other people's homes. I believe people have a right to smoke in their own home, but not in other people's (except with permission).
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
If I sunbathe is affects only me. If I smoke - and I do like the odd cigar - it affects a lot of people around me. Why should my right to a cigar trump their right to breathe smoke free air?
"That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful."
It's not disgraceful, Morris.
Governments impose all sorts of restrictions on 'in the public interest' and by and large we accept, sometimes with good grace, sometimes not. The principle is established, but where to draw the line is subject to continual review.
The problem here is the practicality of the proposal. How do you impose it? What's a public space? Does it apply to visitors to the UK? What sanctions would be appropriate?
I run regularly in public parks and it is unpleasant when you get a lungful of somebody's second hand smoke, but I just shrug and accept it as one of life's little tribulations. There are far worse hazards I can think of - like those monstrous great prams that take up the entire width of the pavement and force you out into the road.
I realise that plenty of people do not have my income and I would not expect them to pay more tax.
But presumably those that do, you would? i.e. you'd make them live by your principles, not their own?
Nope. I have political views. I would not force those on anyone. I exercise a vote like anyone else. If people do not agree with me, I lose. But I will still hold the views I do.
A good illustration of r***t wing thinking vs l**t wing thinking (I know you don't like labels).
The r***t believes that the individual should decide for themselves what to spend money on (aside from evident (and even that can be troubling) common "goods"); the l**t believes that not enough individuals have the correct thinking and therefore want to spend money on their behalf.
But you have answered the question yourself. If people don't agree with you you would "lose". But on each individual example, with people either donating or not donating they are essentially voting. As you suggest and recommend. So you are agreeing with the r***t wing view?
Mr. Observer, public spaces belong to the public, not the public who happen to agree with you. Smoking is not criminal. It's madness to propose banning smoking in public. As for your right not to breathe in smoke - you have the right to take a few steps away. In much the same way you have the right to avoid people who suffer halitosis.
If you sunbathe and catch cancer those people around you will be funding your medical care.
And if we're discussing affecting others, alcohol has a far higher cost than smoking. If everybody stopped smoking today then the NHS would face billions more in shortfall. If everybody stopped drinking today then the NHS would be miles better off.
Comments
Snap, snap, snap, as UKIP crocodile advances in places like the now marginal Heywood and Middleton.
Why is miliband not urging 3p on the income tax to avert the imminent famine in Sudan?
Why don't we just give the people traffickers seaworthy boats?
Why are we not deployed in the coastal waters of Bangladesh to rescue the victims of the constant ferry-sinkings there?
Something like "Of course we don't support that, I'm waiting for the UKIP defection letter from {whatever-his-name-is} any time now" could do the trick
I would suggest that part of UKIP's appeal is that they will not try, if in government, to morph into the honorable member for Tripoli South, Gaza Central or Mogadishu West
British voters increasingly want their government to use its power and their tax money to address their concerns (whatever the 'moral' case for that may be).
They are completely and utterly fed up with people using our resources on far flung moral crusades that do not help them and may, indeed, make their situation worse.
Whether that is morally right or wrong, I don;t know, but I suggest that it is certainly the mood of the country right now.
Try telling that to the parents of starving children in South Sudan. God forbid your standard of living should drop to save them.
Boats should be rescued with them being towed back to their point of departure and any who reach our shores deported post haste. Enough have died already.
Yes, as it happens I'm happy my government commits to the UN target for international aid and development. It is the one shining light of this appalling admininstration that they've backed this policy to the hilt while all around them the xenophobe tendency was whining for the budget to be cut.
The left likes to conflate ethnocentrocism with racism, a word of dubious origins and questionable definition.
In other words, put up or shut up
And if he misses that open goal, it really is game over for him.
Edit: Probably a fair chance - perhaps not "good"...
2-1 for UKIP to LEAD in any national poll by any BPC polling organisation in the 2015 - 2020 parliament perhaps ?
Can anyone offer a link to AndyJS' google docs list?
Also, some of the nurses on strike are getting a 3% pay rise. From which magic money tree will pay rises higher than that be funded?
I'm laughing a lot at this thread already - I can't wait for more like this.
Re: nurses. To govern is to choose. It is your party that wants to give a thumping unfunded tax cut to the upper middle classes so perhaps your invoking of the tired old line the Magic Money Tree is unwise when discussing nurses' pay
Looks like a half decent value loser to me, or a no value winner.
(1-25 Labour)
I predict it'll be one of those UKIP 2nd places which should allow me to win my bet with Antifrank.
So remunerating front line staff properly has no effect on the standard of patient care? Interesting view. Not one I share
In here I was greeted by an attractive smiling Pole who remembered how I like my coffee and a cackling conversation between two Spanish waitresses who seemed to find everything hilarious. Outside it's drizzling but the atmosphere in here is continental cosmopolitan and lively
I switched on my iPad and flicked through the thread. Why I wondered did the Party of 'Farage' do so badly in London and indeed most places that people might want to live?
I'd say Labour have a problem in that seat.
Innocent Abroad is wrong that we're privileged to be white. We're privileged to be in this country, to be born English (British, if that's your thing), and we should be uncomfortable that we as a seafaring nation want to give up aiding the rescue of those less fortunate than ourselves in the Med, especially as we're responsible for a fair bit of strife in the middle east.
That's not to say that we should be towing them to Europe, that's clearly madness, but as we're in the EU, we should be working to find an EU wide, sane, humane policy on immigration.
Now, it's obvious that both left and right in this country have feckedup immigration policy over many years, and things are coming to a head. Maybe now is the time for all parties to stop letting point scoring and party tribalism get in the way of actually finding an immigration solution.
The Morris Dancer Party has not yet determined its fiscal policies for the 2015 election.
Nurses have also seen a massive tax cut as the personal allowance has risen dramatically.
A pointlessly long winded way of saying you don't want to put your money where your mouth is. Oh well, plus ca change
Or my husband's I Have Cheques Therefore I Have Money mentality.
It's denying that reality is pressing up against us hard. The more Labourites at HQ cling onto believing that they don't have a big problem is good news for their rivals.
A phenomenon that began in London in the days of Livingstone had slowly spread across the whole of the South and east of England by 2010.
Now it's rolling all the way up the east coast and it's in the suburban midlands, rife in Yorkshire, whilst festering in the North West.
In fairness to poor old Ed, it isn't his doing.
People like Livingstone are the real culprits. They sowed the seed and did the damage to labour decades ago.
Of course, it may be more complex than that with some LD-Lab switchers going back to the LDs and the LDs then losing other voters to UKIP.
"20, 30, 40 years ago Pakistanis were seen as immigrants we didn't want but now they are no longer seen as, in inverted comments, bad immigrants, but they play an integral role in our society..."
Is that a great example?
I don't want anyone to die trying to get here, but I also want Britain to keep most of its own wealth and spend it on British people. Perhaps that is selfish; perhaps that is me responding to my good fortune at having being born here rather than somewhere else [the privilege of a white skin, as someone put it].
But there's always a continuum between seeing yourself as a private individual, a citizen of a country, a citizen of a continent and a citizen of the world. Where you put yourself on that scale could be construed as morality, or it could be construed as common sense.
Going back to the first quote, it seems that what you actually believe is that we should all pay more tax, not just yourself. But why not simply give away 90%+ of your wealth to charity if that's the case? You may do already; in which case I salute you for living by your principles.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, SO, but we have to get to the logical bottom of the arguments if this discussion, or the related one on search & rescue, is going to be anything much more than posturing.
Is his "credo" not more accurately portrayed as one where public sector expectations of a routine ~3% pay bump merely for turning up more or less on time for a year and doing the exact same job but then ALSO wanting a pay rise on top is not something that private sector employees can relate to or understand since it doesn't exist there?
Therefore going on strike about it elicits little, if any, sympathy. (At least not from those who have understood the issue, which I accept as ever in British politics, is a small minority).
I am on Great Grimsby for UKIP at 16-1.
The idea is we don't just lob over food, we lob over capital investment money to help them grow their GDP. I'm mostly in favour of the "just give money to poor people" approach as well.
If anyone can recall who it was (it may have been a pollster) then I'd like to know, as they seem to have got it about right.
If you think political calculations aren't being made by team Ed about what should be brought up today then you're ludicrously naive. FFS he tried to imply that all Tories thought disabled people were worthless a few weeks ago. And Dave's response was the result of a very quick political calculation on his part.
1. Red Liberals
2. Purple Tories
3. Blue Liberals
4. Purple Labourites
5. Rainbow Liberals.
We've only really paid much attention to the first two, mainly because they've been around longest but the others are of increasing importance.
The Rainbow Liberals (LD losses to UKIP, Green and Others), seem to be increasing particularly quickly and perhaps represent both a new phase of LD defections and also a secondary defection from a subgroup who've ended up there via Labour.
"...the optimum UKIP vote share as far as Labour is concerned is actually around 16%. After that point, more of the marginal switchers to UKIP start to come from Labour than the Conservatives (even though the overall UKIP vote is still predominantly Tory into the 20%s, after 16% further growth in UKIP vote is offset by the falling Conservative share)."
http://survation.com/local-elections-2013-seat-projections-too-conservative/
As for "just give money to poor people" - well, there's a lot of them. How poor are you willing to make yourself [and/or your country] in that aim?
Too many (particularly on the Left) only really mean to action the latter, and ignore the former, when they speak of 'finding an immigration solution'.
"A 21 year old man has been arrested in Hackney in London on suspicion of assisting another person to commit acts of terrorism in relation to Syria"
It seems that Survation got that broadly correct at least a year in advance. Kudos to them.
Voters that would "seriously consider voting for UKIP"
current-Con 28%, current-Lab 16%, current-LD 9%
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1293/sunday-mirror-independent-on-sunday-poll.htm
Mr. Observer, governments should try not to inflict their particular moral stances on people beyond what is strictly necessary. That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful.
"Having walked down Old Compton St to Patisserie Valerie's"
You obviously walk on the wild side of life.
When it comes to "giving money to poor people" it's about restructuring current aid budgets rather than handing over all my wealth. There's growing evidence that simply handing over $X to every person in a village is a better way of spending that amount of aid money than having it going through multiple levels of graft-heavy government.
On a more 1st world basis Utah (of all places) has decided to tackle it's homeless problem by simply giving an apartment and assigning a case worker to every homeless person they identify. The sums in terms of costs of medical care and petty crime caused by the homeless is greater than simply giving them an apartment. When the sums add up the direct, almost counter intuitive approach, can be the right one. They've only just started this program so it will be interesting to see if it works.
I am happy to meet you in the middle and let you have 1/12 about Labour, how much you after?
And laws against playing loud music at 3am in the morning are also totally wrong as well.
*If* the UKIP vote unwinds, it would be interesting to see if both Conservatives or Labour see equally-proportioned returns. Not that I expect any unwinding in the polls before the GE, sadly.
The sun also causes cancer. Shall we ban sunbathing?
If all the well-off people who think they are substantially undertaxed actually gave the notional difference away to charity, rather than a few £50-100 donations to ease their consciences, they'd collectively have a huge sum [which they could target as they chose].
I have to conclude that, in the main, they actually think people with more income/wealth than them are the ones who are substantially undertaxed.
Am I reading Private Eye now?
He's supported the EU referendum bill and Dominic Raab's amendment on immigrant felon's. He wasn't afraid to be the first to speak out and call for Gordon Brown to resign as Labour leader. There was a 9.8% vote for UKIP+BNP in his seat at the 2010 GE.
While another defection from the Conservatives is probably more likely, a defection from Labour would be a massive coup for UKIP.
Apologies, I am not being sarcastic/ironic I don't get what you are saying
Speaking of art installations: http://pocketmoneyloans.com/store.htm
That relies on a consensus of what is a "good cause". Would you for example have funded the Goma refugee camp? Plenty of starving people there. Plenty of Tutsi also.
Of course that is a flagship example of an egregious charity decision but each has its own flavour.
Best off as the suggestion was, to do your own research and give your own wealth.
Early Adopters give something a very skewed profile - they're full of noisy advocates and change lovers/mavericks. When a product gets into the Considered phase group - it really gets traction. That Labourites are falling heavily into this segment is a worry for them. These voters aren't faddish or protesters against The Establishment [whatever one you choose] - they're buying in to something they think is safe.
You could look at Survation (who are the only firm to be even handed with their prompting.) They typically have the Conservatives in the high 20s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
Other than that you'd need a good supplemental question from one of the other pollsters.
"That's why a proposal to ban smoking in public places is disgraceful."
It's not disgraceful, Morris.
Governments impose all sorts of restrictions on 'in the public interest' and by and large we accept, sometimes with good grace, sometimes not. The principle is established, but where to draw the line is subject to continual review.
The problem here is the practicality of the proposal. How do you impose it? What's a public space? Does it apply to visitors to the UK? What sanctions would be appropriate?
I run regularly in public parks and it is unpleasant when you get a lungful of somebody's second hand smoke, but I just shrug and accept it as one of life's little tribulations. There are far worse hazards I can think of - like those monstrous great prams that take up the entire width of the pavement and force you out into the road.
Now they really should be banned.
The r***t believes that the individual should decide for themselves what to spend money on (aside from evident (and even that can be troubling) common "goods"); the l**t believes that not enough individuals have the correct thinking and therefore want to spend money on their behalf.
But you have answered the question yourself. If people don't agree with you you would "lose". But on each individual example, with people either donating or not donating they are essentially voting. As you suggest and recommend. So you are agreeing with the r***t wing view?
Unless your scenario involves some coercion.
If you sunbathe and catch cancer those people around you will be funding your medical care.
And if we're discussing affecting others, alcohol has a far higher cost than smoking. If everybody stopped smoking today then the NHS would face billions more in shortfall. If everybody stopped drinking today then the NHS would be miles better off.