re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I'll eat my hat if UKIP polls anywhere near 5% in Scotland.
But even if you change the number to 2%, then you only add a few votes in England. Let's assume that 80% of people in Scotland are eligable to vote (i.e. above 18). That's 4.2m people. Now assume 60% turnout. So, that's about 2.5m votes in total. If UKIP were to get 15% in the UK and 0% in Scotland, then that would be 15% of 2.5m votes than need to turn up in England - i.e. 320,000 votes or so. Or, to put it another way, it's only 600 additional votes per seat (c. 2%) in all the non-Scottish constituencies.
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I was basing it on 2% in Scotland and that may be a bit high
We shall see! Who knows what the next couple of years may bring?
We shall indeed: I fear that 2015 will be to UKIP was what 1983 was for the Alliance. An incredible achievement in terms of vote share, but a terrible performance as far as seats. Let's not forget, the Alliance got more than 25% of the vote, and just 23 seats. If you eliminate the seats where the Liberals were already incumbent, then they got just 10 or so. (And most of these were like Plymouth Devonport, where there was an incumbent Labour MP who had defected to the SDP.)
23 seats would be a political earthquake !
Yes, but UKIP is not going get more than 25% of the vote. They will be in the 10 to 20% range. If they manage the top end they will get seats. If they are at the lower end, they will not.
OT A few months ago - many PBers were collectively panning The Newsroom as a TV show for its wooden over-acting amongst other crimes [mainly Sorkinesque liberal propaganda a la West Wing].
I've just noticed it scores 8.5 by 34k viewers at IMDb which is very high praise - I'm going to give it another shot... I ditched it 2 episodes in.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Must have been fun for you. Still, I can't help but be depressed at the extra contact get to our governing elite because of this sort of thing. The cumulative effect must affect the politicians' views of what is mainstream opinion. Not your fault of course.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Must have been fun for you. Still, I can't help but be depressed at the extra contact get to our governing elite because of this sort of thing. The cumulative effect must affect the politicians' views of what is mainstream opinion. Not your fault of course.
Don't worry Socrates, I didn't mention the EU once
I'm afraid this sort of savagery ha been repeated many times in the streets of our cities and towns lately: Oxford, Rotherham, Rochdale, etcetera. Its certainly not confined to Saudi or the Middle East, and we all know where it derives from.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
In 1977 the Conservatives had a huge win in the local elections getting about 50% of the vote. They were in a stronger position than the above data suggests. The Labour performace in 2013 is far weaker in comparison.
There is zero chance of Labour getting an overall majority without a significant PV lead - incumbancy and the fear factor now works to the benefit of the Conservatives. Piling up votes in safe seats will do Labour as little good in 2015 as it did the Conservatives in 2005.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
I'm the technical administrator of this site, and Mike's son.
It's good to know that I'm not wanted in UKIP. It will make choosing who to vote for in 2015 that little bit easier.
Some sense from a Tory and a Lib Dem on immigration
Prime Minister David Cameron has said he wants to see net migration fall to the "tens of thousands" by 2015, but because overseas students were counted as immigrants under international rules, Mr Cable said their number was "easily translated into a flood of immigrants".
He added: "When, last week, the number declines, this is a great triumph for immigration control, which is quite absurd and unfortunately is seriously distorting the debate on sensible university policy and, indeed, sensible immigration policy
Mr Johnson said: "I looked at the recent figures for foreign students coming to this country and I do not regard what seemed to me to be a reduction in those numbers as necessarily a positive economic indicator.
"I think we need to push higher education as a great, great international export and we need to be even more open in our dealings with other HE institutions around the world."
The latest available figures show a rise in the number of university students, not a fall. The distinction lies in a drop in other HE institutions. That doesn't have the same resonance.
Oh I realise that but it still has the same economic impact. Stopping tourists from coming because you don't like where they choose to visit still costs the same in lost revenues as if they go somewhere you approve of. And of course it's benefitting Australia and co, all for a pledge Dave didn't understand when he made it.
One of the principal "costs" associated with turning away potential students is the reputational cost as a country and the damage it might do to the reputation of our leading institutions and their ability to continue the very valuable work that they do.
Additionally, I challenge the "same economic impact". Not all immigrants are equal in their earning and spending capacity and how much they can contribute to the country - hence the longstanding rules about migrants including Australia's and now our points systems. That may not correlate exactly with the sort of institution of which they are a student, but there will be a sizable correlation since one of the biggest falls was in the English-language colleges category.
You're confusing students with work visas. And if you want to send students to Australia to preserve our reputation then fine, be honest enough to say which business you don't want, English language schools, Blackpool pleasure beach, whatever.
You'll find illegal immigrants in restaurants, close down restaurants or tackle the issue?
And as has been pointed out before we are now growing the university sector slower than the market,and Dave is reduced to trying to rescue it in Indian visits.
"You're confusing students with work visas." It has long been the assumption that student visas are more important to the economy than the amount of money they spend when they're here. Also students contribute to the reputations of research institutions.
"You'll find illegal immigrants in restaurants, close down restaurants or tackle the issue?" I don't see what you mean. The student visa system may or may not have been open to abuse, I do not consider myself qualified to answer that. But there are certainly some who thing that it was. It is the mechanism for illegal migrants, not the end point like "restaurants". (If there are restaurants being used as channels for illegal immigration, they should be shut down.)
"And as has been pointed out before we are now growing the university sector slower than the market,and Dave is reduced to trying to rescue it in Indian visits." Absolutely, but the absolute number is growing. None of the rhetoric is framed in a way that reflects that nuance.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
I'm the technical administrator of this site, and Mike's son.
It's good to know that I'm not wanted in UKIP. It will make choosing who to vote for in 2015 that little bit easier.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
If I were you I'd stick to revamping 1947 anti semitism for Muslims and bet welching, because you're going to make an even bigger tit of yourself down this route than you have with those performances
Why? Because I made a fair criticism of rcs1000? I would say the same even if I knew he was Mikes son. If this site can't stand critics, then it's time for me to seek another blog.
re UKIP - don't forget only 5.3m people out of 62m live in Scotland. If UKIP polls 5% in Scotland, and 15% overall, then it's only getting 300,000 extra votes in England - i.e. 1.2% or so more
I'll eat my hat if UKIP polls anywhere near 5% in Scotland.
"But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?"
Has anyone ever seen James Dellingpole and our own SeanT in the same room? The writing style is...familiar.
"But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?"
Has anyone ever seen James Dellingpole and our own SeanT in the same room? The writing style is...familiar.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
If I were you I'd stick to revamping 1947 anti semitism for Muslims and bet welching, because you're going to make an even bigger tit of yourself down this route than you have with those performances
Why? Because I made a fair criticism of rcs1000? I would say the same even if I knew he was Mikes son. If this site can't stand critics, then it's time for me to seek another blog.
No need for that just bear in mind that getting into big arguments with site moderators is a lose-lose game.
BTW, I've just met Hilary Clinton. She's looking well, and - while I could be wrong - I think she'll run for the Democratic nomination.
Under what circumstances, may I ask? A fancy banker dinner?
I'm at a (yes, fancy banker) conference in New York, and I got a chance to get a photo with her and have a little chat. It's hard not to find her incredibly impressive in the flesh - much more so than Tony Blair, for instance.
Americans are famously fascinated by the physical health of their Presidents. Your " she's looking well " assessment of Hilary Clinton sounds ominous for her prospects. Like a statement of full confidence in the manager from a football club chairman.
I don't know who you are rcs1000, but you come across as a self satisfied prig; the same sort as heading our government now. You are just the sort of person that UKIP wants to see the back of. We may not get many seats in 2015, but even a few will be enough spoil any Labour or Tory victory. And I shall laugh out loud if we go above 20 seats.
If I were you I'd stick to revamping 1947 anti semitism for Muslims and bet welching, because you're going to make an even bigger tit of yourself down this route than you have with those performances
Why? Because I made a fair criticism of rcs1000? I would say the same even if I knew he was Mikes son. If this site can't stand critics, then it's time for me to seek another blog.
No need for that just bear in mind that getting into big arguments with site moderators is a lose-lose game.
There is no argument, big or small. I was merely voicing an opinion.
I don't mind being regarded as self-satisfed. Frankly, it's fair comment, and if that's the worst of my sins, I'm doing pretty well.
Where I'm confused, is that I'm trying to work out how I upset MikeK. Was it my contention that UKIP might get 15% and no seats? Was it that I pointed out that even getting zero votes in Scotland would only mean 600 extra votes per seat outside of Scotland? Was it that I've met Hilary Clinton? (Should I hide that fact?)
For the record, I've never abused my moderation rights, have never banned a poster, and have only ever removed posts when they were libellous (about a certain Tory peer, for example).
"But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?"
Has anyone ever seen James Dellingpole and our own SeanT in the same room? The writing style is...familiar.
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
TBH Mike I have no idea what you think. All I am saying is that is an amusing piece of vituperative burlesque, wonderfully over the top and down the other side similar in style to many of Sean's great contributions to this site. I am simply amazed that anyone could call it a reasoned argument.
I think UKIP could eventually do well in Scotland as it would effectively be a reboot of the Scottish Tories. Not likely to happen until after the independence referendum is lost (if it is) and won't matter if it's not.
I think UKIP could eventually do well in Scotland as it would effectively be a reboot of the Scottish Tories. Not likely to happen until after the independence referendum is lost (if it is) and won't matter if it's not.
I don't mind being regarded as self-satisfed. Frankly, it's fair comment, and if that's the worst of my sins, I'm doing pretty well.
Where I'm confused, is that I'm trying to work out how I upset MikeK. Was it my contention that UKIP might get 15% and no seats? Was it that I pointed out that even getting zero votes in Scotland would only mean 600 extra votes per seat outside of Scotland? Was it that I've met Hilary Clinton? (Should I hide that fact?)
For the record, I've never abused my moderation rights, have never banned a poster, and have only ever removed posts when they were libellous (about a certain Tory peer, for example).
"But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?"
Has anyone ever seen James Dellingpole and our own SeanT in the same room? The writing style is...familiar.
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
TBH Mike I have no idea what you think. All I am saying is that is an amusing piece of vituperative burlesque, wonderfully over the top and down the other side similar in style to many of Sean's great contributions to this site. I am simply amazed that anyone could call it a reasoned argument.
One man's reasoned argument is another man's burlesque. And there I think we should leave it.
Is Miliband doing slightly better than Thatcher did two years to a General Election ?
Hard to say really Thatcher was up against the ever popular Jim Callaghan. Miliband is up against Cameron. I suspect 'Gentlemen Jim' was a considerably tougher challenge (despite the economic trials and tribulations of the 70's) in the popularity stakes than Dave currently is.
Is Miliband doing slightly better than Thatcher did two years to a General Election ?
Hard to say really Thatcher was up against the ever popular Jim Callaghan. Miliband is up against Cameron. I suspect 'Gentlemen Jim' was a considerably tougher challenge (despite the economic trials and tribulations of the 70's) in the popularity stakes than Dave currently is.
Callaghan was the recent replacement to the ailing Wilson in 1977. That explains his popularity relative to Thatcher. The " ever popular " Sunny Jim won as many elections as the " ever popular " Sunny Gordon Brown.
Is Miliband doing slightly better than Thatcher did two years to a General Election ?
Hard to say really Thatcher was up against the ever popular Jim Callaghan. Miliband is up against Cameron. I suspect 'Gentlemen Jim' was a considerably tougher challenge (despite the economic trials and tribulations of the 70's) in the popularity stakes than Dave currently is.
Callaghan was the recent replacement to the ailing Wilson in 1977. That explains his popularity relative to Thatcher. The " ever popular " Sunny Jim won as many elections as the " ever popular " Sunny Gordon Brown.
Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher even in May 1979. Thatcher and popularity somehow does not go together outside of PBTory world.
For Kingston & Surbiton, read Surbiton more and Kingston less. K&S, Westminster, the City, Hammersmith, Richmond - juicy income stream for the Mansion Tax.
Mostly paid by foreigners with dodgy money. Someone paying cash of £2m don't mind paying £20k.
And what about the poor sods who bought property years ago when it was rationally priced but can't afford the annual tax based on the (theoretical) value of their property.
I'd have to pay out more than 20% of my gross salary (let's say 35% of my net income) just to stay in the flat that I already own.
Can you explain why that is a just tax? The alternative would be to sell my property, at which point the government would confiscate 7% of the value in stamp duty.
if only the world would do static single data point analysis like you tim the world would be a simpler place.
Yeah, strange after all these "savings" the govt is spending more than Brown did and deficit reduction has stalled isnt it. And yet you fall for every one of them.
Feel free to explain how the £900 million is calculated.
I see your favourite Boris (along with Cable) is attacking the govt over student numbers, now there's a real cost to the economy
I explicitly asked the head of the overseas admissions today about the visa impact.
She said that there is a lot of noise in the press, but in reality there has been b*gger all impact (this is a postgraduate university that takes 200-300 overseas students every year).
Overseas applications up 17% in the first 7 months of our academic year.
Is Miliband doing slightly better than Thatcher did two years to a General Election ?
Hard to say really Thatcher was up against the ever popular Jim Callaghan. Miliband is up against Cameron. I suspect 'Gentlemen Jim' was a considerably tougher challenge (despite the economic trials and tribulations of the 70's) in the popularity stakes than Dave currently is.
Callaghan was the recent replacement to the ailing Wilson in 1977. That explains his popularity relative to Thatcher. The " ever popular " Sunny Jim won as many elections as the " ever popular " Sunny Gordon Brown.
Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher even in May 1979. Thatcher and popularity somehow does not go together outside of PBTory world.
Not true. Callaghan was ahead on Best PM ratings, and behind on net approval ratings. One reason why no one should take Best PM ratings seriously.
For Kingston & Surbiton, read Surbiton more and Kingston less. K&S, Westminster, the City, Hammersmith, Richmond - juicy income stream for the Mansion Tax.
Mostly paid by foreigners with dodgy money. Someone paying cash of £2m don't mind paying £20k.
And what about the poor sods who bought property years ago when it was rationally priced but can't afford the annual tax based on the (theoretical) value of their property.
I'd have to pay out more than 20% of my gross salary (let's say 35% of my net income) just to stay in the flat that I already own.
Can you explain why that is a just tax? The alternative would be to sell my property, at which point the government would confiscate 7% of the value in stamp duty.
Technically, Charles, if your flat has ascended in value that much, then you're not a 'poor sod' in any traditional sense of the word.
Is Miliband doing slightly better than Thatcher did two years to a General Election ?
Hard to say really Thatcher was up against the ever popular Jim Callaghan. Miliband is up against Cameron. I suspect 'Gentlemen Jim' was a considerably tougher challenge (despite the economic trials and tribulations of the 70's) in the popularity stakes than Dave currently is.
Callaghan was the recent replacement to the ailing Wilson in 1977. That explains his popularity relative to Thatcher. The " ever popular " Sunny Jim won as many elections as the " ever popular " Sunny Gordon Brown.
Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher even in May 1979. Thatcher and popularity somehow does not go together outside of PBTory world.
My attitude to Mrs T is that in 1979 she was like ingrown toenail surgery, a painful nessecity rather than anything to be liked. PMs need to worry less about their popularity, and worry more about how to fix the country.
Comments
I've just noticed it scores 8.5 by 34k viewers at IMDb which is very high praise - I'm going to give it another shot... I ditched it 2 episodes in.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1870479/?ref_=tt_rec_tt
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/working-women-should-be-molested-saudi-writer-1.1189861
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/
Delingpole is one of my favourite writers. So entertaining.
the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam
cuckoo
""It's news to me," says Mike Hancock in response to stories he's about to lose Lib Dem whip after Carmichael inquiry into sex allegations".
"I asked Mike Hancock if he'd stand down as an MP if Lib Dems withdraw the whip. "Am I the type?" he replied, before confirming he wouldn't".
"Lib Dems to issue statement on Mike Hancock within next few minutes".
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick
In 1977 the Conservatives had a huge win in the local elections getting about 50% of the vote. They were in a stronger position than the above data suggests. The Labour performace in 2013 is far weaker in comparison.
There is zero chance of Labour getting an overall majority without a significant PV lead - incumbancy and the fear factor now works to the benefit of the Conservatives. Piling up votes in safe seats will do Labour as little good in 2015 as it did the Conservatives in 2005.
It's good to know that I'm not wanted in UKIP. It will make choosing who to vote for in 2015 that little bit easier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1177274/Ed-Milibands-global-warming-law-cost-20-000-family.html
Is there any issue of substance that EdM hasn't been on the wrong side of ?
Frightful man , that Ed Miliband.
"You're confusing students with work visas." It has long been the assumption that student visas are more important to the economy than the amount of money they spend when they're here. Also students contribute to the reputations of research institutions.
"You'll find illegal immigrants in restaurants, close down restaurants or tackle the issue?" I don't see what you mean. The student visa system may or may not have been open to abuse, I do not consider myself qualified to answer that. But there are certainly some who thing that it was. It is the mechanism for illegal migrants, not the end point like "restaurants". (If there are restaurants being used as channels for illegal immigration, they should be shut down.)
"And as has been pointed out before we are now growing the university sector slower than the market,and Dave is reduced to trying to rescue it in Indian visits." Absolutely, but the absolute number is growing. None of the rhetoric is framed in a way that reflects that nuance.
"But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?"
Has anyone ever seen James Dellingpole and our own SeanT in the same room? The writing style is...familiar.
Do the lighting guys have better eyesight than the rest of us!?
I don't mind being regarded as self-satisfed. Frankly, it's fair comment, and if that's the worst of my sins, I'm doing pretty well.
Where I'm confused, is that I'm trying to work out how I upset MikeK. Was it my contention that UKIP might get 15% and no seats? Was it that I pointed out that even getting zero votes in Scotland would only mean 600 extra votes per seat outside of Scotland? Was it that I've met Hilary Clinton? (Should I hide that fact?)
For the record, I've never abused my moderation rights, have never banned a poster, and have only ever removed posts when they were libellous (about a certain Tory peer, for example).
I still laugh quietly when recalling you outing your dad over his many degrees...
I have Cash Out turned on on Betfair. But it keeps disappearing.
Sometimes it's there. Then suddenly it disappears for no reason.
What on earth is going on? It's a nightmare.
Well done, Leeds !
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHlMV3BUNy1uVV9hSUdMZlJPUW13cEE#gid=0
Changes in share of vote since 2010 general election:
Con -9.71%
Lab +0.35%
UKIP +6.51%
LD -7.46%
Green +7.22%
Ind +3.03%
Others +0.07%
Swing, Con to Lab: 5.03%
If this site can't stand critics, then it's time for me to seek another blog.
And you call other posters "self satisfied"!
I'm sure PB would survive without your input, honestly.
I'd have to pay out more than 20% of my gross salary (let's say 35% of my net income) just to stay in the flat that I already own.
Can you explain why that is a just tax? The alternative would be to sell my property, at which point the government would confiscate 7% of the value in stamp duty.
She said that there is a lot of noise in the press, but in reality there has been b*gger all impact (this is a postgraduate university that takes 200-300 overseas students every year).
Overseas applications up 17% in the first 7 months of our academic year.
Finally sense is beginning to prevail. From bloody-minded austerity to growth.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3778004.ece?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter