Am I the only one that is fed up with the bully boy tactics used against Ed Milband? Could it be that those denigrating him are doing it out of envy in that he could be the next occupant of number 10? Popularity is no measure of intrinsic worth, junk food is popular and so is cultural junk.My advice would be to continue being sincere and strong and to also not respond in kind.
A net rating of -55% speaks for itself. Almost certainly, he has cost Labour the next election.
I still think Labour are the likely winners in 2015.
"Do you think this coalition government is good or bad for people like you?"
Have seen a few tweets implying that Elle Magazine mixed up their Milibands, likewise The Guardian. Unless of course mashable.com has a fake screen grab. This is what embarrassingly silly feminists look like stuff. http://mashable.com/2014/10/27/david-cameron-feminism-tshirt-elle/
I want to wear a T-shirt that says "This is what a sweatshop looks like"
Or 'This is what a T-shirt manufactured in the UK to ethical standards looks like'.
Have seen a few tweets implying that Elle Magazine mixed up their Milibands, likewise The Guardian. Unless of course mashable.com has a fake screen grab. This is what embarrassingly silly feminists look like stuff. http://mashable.com/2014/10/27/david-cameron-feminism-tshirt-elle/
I want to wear a T-shirt that says "This is what a sweatshop looks like"
Or 'This is what a T-shirt manufactured in the UK to ethical standards looks like'.
I like the labels you get on kit in the US: "Union made". The last bastion of socialism within the capitalist monolith.
A clear shift in today's ST yougov on the EU, last week it was 41-40% for In, after the budget row it is 43-37% for out. However, the regional trends are the same, the North, South, the Midlands and Wales are for Out, London and Scotland for In http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Thanks Charles. Sadly I'll need a handset as my current one is broken. I have always been loyal to Samsung due to a perhaps false belief it is more compatible with my tablet. I guess if a phone has a good camera and android aps that is less of a problem? I am noticing that smart phone contracts seems to be 24m minimum, but I don't like being locked in so much.
Don't mind paying something up front if the complete package is cheaper.
Buy a moto G from amazon for £140-odd and get a sim-only, monthly contract which for your requirements should be under a tenner a month on a rolling month-only contract (which renews itself until you stop it) from a major network.
Thanks Charles. Sadly I'll need a handset as my current one is broken. I have always been loyal to Samsung due to a perhaps false belief it is more compatible with my tablet. I guess if a phone has a good camera and android aps that is less of a problem? I am noticing that smart phone contracts seems to be 24m minimum, but I don't like being locked in so much.
Don't mind paying something up front if the complete package is cheaper.
Buy a moto G from amazon for £140-odd and get a sim-only, monthly contract which for your requirements should be under a tenner a month on a rolling month-only contract (which renews itself until you stop it) from a major network.
Good advice. The Moto G is my backup phone and, as you note you can buy it SIM free for £140, and then get a SIM only contract for £10 a month or not much more. Which has just rated it ther best budget phone.
Thanks Charles. Sadly I'll need a handset as my current one is broken. I have always been loyal to Samsung due to a perhaps false belief it is more compatible with my tablet. I guess if a phone has a good camera and android aps that is less of a problem? I am noticing that smart phone contracts seems to be 24m minimum, but I don't like being locked in so much.
Don't mind paying something up front if the complete package is cheaper.
Buy a moto G from amazon for £140-odd and get a sim-only, monthly contract which for your requirements should be under a tenner a month on a rolling month-only contract (which renews itself until you stop it) from a major network.
They really are tremendous value. My wife got one on a 12.50 per month contract a while back, she's a a low user of minutes and data. There are a few types to choose from now as well.
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
In Scotland a Murphy v Findlay contest could be close, with Findlay winning union backing and Murphy members, Murphy as leader and Findlay as deputy may be the end result
Findlay is not in for deputy so he cannot possibly end up there , he is leader or nothing
Thanks Charles. Sadly I'll need a handset as my current one is broken. I have always been loyal to Samsung due to a perhaps false belief it is more compatible with my tablet. I guess if a phone has a good camera and android aps that is less of a problem? I am noticing that smart phone contracts seems to be 24m minimum, but I don't like being locked in so much.
Don't mind paying something up front if the complete package is cheaper.
You'd need to do the math, but the general rule is that if a profit-making organisation gives you something up front it's because they believe they will make a profit out of it!
Thanks for the suggestions so far. Yes, I realised it may actually be better for me to buy the phone and then get a PAYG sim deal. As noted, the camera side of things is useful for me and if it can play music bonus; but I have had 2GB data for the last two years and never used more than 100 MB a month!
Afternoon all. Off topic but I wonder if the wise souls of pb.com can assist. It is that time again when my mobile contract is expired. I have been with Orange for years and years but I never use the allocations I get for minutes and data.
I am looking for about 250 minutes, 300 texts, 15 photo texts and say, 500 mb of data a month. I have had Samsung Galaxy phones recently and like smart phones, but don't care much about being modern here; hardly use it beyond the photo capacity. Would prefer 18 mth contracts. Would anyone do this for like £15 a month?
I am wary of being teased with little offers I don't really need!
If you don't buy a handset as part of the contract, you can get great deals.
Vodafone charges me about £9 per month for a month to month contract.
Giffgaff are worth a look https://giffgaff.com/goodybags No contract, you can get more than you want for £10/mo or less for £7.50 using Goodybags. Or you can do what I do and buy top ups.
Thanks for the suggestions so far. Yes, I realised it may actually be better for me to buy the phone and then get a PAYG sim deal. As noted, the camera side of things is useful for me and if it can play music bonus; but I have had 2GB data for the last two years and never used more than 100 MB a month!
Slightly surprised that there haven't been more complaints from our Kipper friends about this. Especially if the Spectator is right that C4 plans to broadcast it in the run up to general election (of course I am making the assumption that it will not paint UKIP in a favourable light)
On this occasion, I think they might have a point. I'm not sure that C4 should be doing something like this, at least without offering UKIP a right to respond.
A clear shift in today's ST yougov on the EU, last week it was 41-40% for In, after the budget row it is 43-37% for out. However, the regional trends are the same, the North, South, the Midlands and Wales are for Out, London and Scotland for In http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
How many of those being asked in London are actually EU citizens that can't vote?
It's that time of the week again! The Sunil on Sunday's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for 2nd November. 9 polls with a total weighted sample of 10,880 (inc. today's YouGov).
Hardened terrorists/beheaders 'helped' because of their 'good intentions'. How on earth did we get here?
Was wondering that myself.
not sure that a Jihadi's definition of "good intent" would match the mainstream view.
I'm also sure the Home Office, with its proven record of competency in passports, airport control, tracking down illegal immigrants, overseeing examination systems, and bringing sham marriage cases to trial, will be highly capable of distinguishing between the honourable ex-terrorists, and those lying to get back in.
I believe there were some who were outraged by the way Survation posed one of the questions in their recent Rochester poll about the TTIP negotiations and the NHS. Now here is how Yougov (whose founder is a Tory MP, whose CEO is a Tory donor and whose President is the husband of the departing Labour High Foreign Representative of the EU) address the issue of the EAW for the Sunday Times (The Times being possibly the most pro government newspaper there is):
The EU introduced the European arrest warrant in 2004. This allows member states to require other countries to hand over people they want to put on trial for criminal offences that attract prison sentences of at least a year. Britain recently opted out of a number of EU justice measures, including the arrest warrant.
Now Mr Cameron and Theresa May, the Home secretary, want Britain to opt back into the arrest warrant. They argue that it will help Britain to bring to trial suspected criminals who flee to other EU countries. Their critics say the arrest warrant system could mean Britons being sent abroad for trial for relatively minor offences.On balance, do you think Britain should or should not opt back in to the European arrest warrant?
No mention that it can mean British citizens can be deported to European countries and held in custody on the flimsiest of reasons for years without trial only to be released subsequently as detailed here by Dan Hannan.
Needless to say it provided a majority of the sample wishing to keep the EAW. Such questions really should be taken with a pinch of salt. Pollsters can make them produce any result they want....
While you are right that the imprisonment without bail for an extended period prior to prosecution is one of the most important issues from an UK perspective (I understand that it is normal in the continental system), the introductory statements can't cover every eventuality.
I think the phrase their critics say the arrest warrant system could mean Britons being sent abroad for trial for relatively minor offences is reasonable in the way it highlights the fact that there is an opposing view on the matter.
So now you impersonate OGH from yesterday do you and no demands from you for Peter Kellner to come on here and explain his company's actions Thought not. What a lot of cods........
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
Slightly surprised that there haven't been more complaints from our Kipper friends about this. Especially if the Spectator is right that C4 plans to broadcast it in the run up to general election (of course I am making the assumption that it will not paint UKIP in a favourable light)
On this occasion, I think they might have a point. I'm not sure that C4 should be doing something like this, at least without offering UKIP a right to respond.
Don't worry I moaned about it instantly when I saw it earlier in the week!
Spoke to kippers about it Thursday night at the London meet and they seemed to think the public see through the medias obvious bias and it actually motivates them to vote ukip
While you are right that the imprisonment without bail for an extended period prior to prosecution is one of the most important issues from an UK perspective (I understand that it is normal in the continental system), the introductory statements can't cover every eventuality.
I think the phrase their critics say the arrest warrant system could mean Britons being sent abroad for trial for relatively minor offences is reasonable in the way it highlights the fact that there is an opposing view on the matter.
So now you impersonate OGH from yesterday do you and no demands from you for Peter Kellner to come on here and explain his company's actions Thought not. What a lot of cods........
Bravo more more! [applauds loudly]
Not at all.
The quote yesterday referred to "American corporations" "suing the government" and "reversing privatisation of the NHS". A very one sided and loaded interpretation of TTIP.
This statement highlights one issue with the EAW (the triviality of offences). It doesn't highlight all of the potential objections to it, that is true, but it is far more balanced in its description.
Slightly surprised that there haven't been more complaints from our Kipper friends about this. Especially if the Spectator is right that C4 plans to broadcast it in the run up to general election (of course I am making the assumption that it will not paint UKIP in a favourable light)
On this occasion, I think they might have a point. I'm not sure that C4 should be doing something like this, at least without offering UKIP a right to respond.
Don't worry I moaned about it instantly when I saw it earlier in the week!
Spoke to kippers about it Thursday night at the London meet and they seemed to think the public see through the liberals obvious bias and it actually motivates them to vote ukip
I agree. It will doubtless portray society disintegrating into race riot lynch mob meltdown -the more dire and extreme the predictions, the more it will get up people's noses, and be open to parody.
It's that time of the week again! The Sunil on Sunday's ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for 2nd November. 9 polls with a total weighted sample of 10,880 (inc. today's YouGov).
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
MalcolmG Of course not, but if he lost narrowly and was offered deputy leader I am sure he would take it
How is it possible when they are picking a deputy leader at the same time and have completely different candidates, do they ask the winner of that to F Off. It is impossible.
Those buying a phone outright and using PAYG - what do you do for phone insurance should the thing break in a month or if you sit on it?!
You might find your household insurance covers it, or you can add to your insurance far cheaper than specific mobile insurance that the phone companies offer
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
If he rules out a coalition with the Tories, he is in Labour's pocket.
Am I the only one that is fed up with the bully boy tactics used against Ed Milband? Could it be that those denigrating him are doing it out of envy in that he could be the next occupant of number 10? Popularity is no measure of intrinsic worth, junk food is popular and so is cultural junk.My advice would be to continue being sincere and strong and to also not respond in kind.
A net rating of -55% speaks for itself. Almost certainly, he has cost Labour the next election.
I still think Labour are the likely winners in 2015.
"Do you think this coalition government is good or bad for people like you?"
There no enthusiasm for any of them. Turnout down again in 2015.
I think if Labour win, then the Tories will shift right, abandon political correctness, advocate Brexit, and UKIP's goose will be cooked. But, if the Tories really mean what they say, I won't complain.
From UKIP's point of view, a continuation of wet Conservative government after 2015 would be ideal, in terms of growing the party.
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
If he rules out a coalition with the Tories, he is in Labour's pocket.
I thought the old failure had resigned. Salmond PFO.
Hardened terrorists/beheaders 'helped' because of their 'good intentions'. How on earth did we get here?
Was wondering that myself.
not sure that a Jihadi's definition of "good intent" would match the mainstream view.
I'm also sure the Home Office, with its proven record of competency in passports, airport control, tracking down illegal immigrants, overseeing examination systems, and bringing sham marriage cases to trial, will be highly capable of distinguishing between the honourable ex-terrorists, and those lying to get back in.
Wouldn't it be more likely they would work for the security services?
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
If he rules out a coalition with the Tories, he is in Labour's pocket.
very few in Scotland would vote for anybody that would join the Tories, he would stiff Labour as well for sure. But saying you would partner the Tories in Scotland is suicide as Labour are finding.
While you are right that the imprisonment without bail for an extended period prior to prosecution is one of the most important issues from an UK perspective (I understand that it is normal in the continental system), the introductory statements can't cover every eventuality.
I think the phrase their critics say the arrest warrant system could mean Britons being sent abroad for trial for relatively minor offences is reasonable in the way it highlights the fact that there is an opposing view on the matter.
So now you impersonate OGH from yesterday do you and no demands from you for Peter Kellner to come on here and explain his company's actions Thought not. What a lot of cods........
Bravo more more! [applauds loudly]
Not at all.
The quote yesterday referred to "American corporations" "suing the government" and "reversing privatisation of the NHS". A very one sided and loaded interpretation of TTIP.
This statement highlights one issue with the EAW (the triviality of offences). It doesn't highlight all of the potential objections to it, that is true, but it is far more balanced in its description.
It does exactly what the Survation question did but this one funnily enough is acceptable to you because it serves Tory purposes. Now you can blather on about it as much as you like but it will not change the reality of the matter.
PS And given TTIP is an agreement with the USA amongst others referring to 'American corporations' would seem perfectly valid.
NOA/Fraggles Salmond was happy for the Tories to prop up the SNP from 2007-2011, there may be no Coalition, but he could do the same at Westminster in reverse
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
If he rules out a coalition with the Tories, he is in Labour's pocket.
I thought the old failure had resigned. Salmond PFO.
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
If people are identifying as Irish only, then why do they want to vote in UK elections?
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
We'd have to make an exception for Irish citizens.
The principle that you only get to vote in an election if you're a citizen seems sound to me.
Socrates/Neil In Scotland expats were included, will be interesting to see what the position is in the EU referendum
The Bill didnt specifically exclude expat Scottish voters living in the rest of the UK. It set it at the electorate for local elections. Realistically the EU Bill will set the franchise as that for another set of elections, most likely that for general elections. The degree to which expats are excluded will depend on whether Tory plans to lift restrictions on these voters are implemented by then, otherwise the vote will be lost after 15 years.
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
We'd have to make an exception for Irish citizens.
The principle that you only get to vote in an election if you're a citizen seems sound to me.
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
If people are identifying as Irish only, then why do they want to vote in UK elections?
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
If people are identifying as Irish only, then why do they want to vote in UK elections?
Because they happen to live in a part of the UK where a significant proportion (40-45%) identify as Irish?
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
We'd have to make an exception for Irish citizens.
The principle that you only get to vote in an election if you're a citizen seems sound to me.
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
I wouldn't dream of voting in a foreign country's election, unless I'd made the commitment to become a citizen. To vote here, I think Commonwealth citizens should apply for naturalisation.
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.
Socrates They would be able to vote, in Scotland you could vote if you resided in Scotland, if you are a resident of London from the continent presumably you can vote too? They certainly can in European and London elections
The franchise would surely be set in the Bill establishing the referendum. The private member Bill set the electorate to be the same as that for general elections (so excluding EU citizens unless they were also Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens). I imagine any Government Bill would use the same definition but they might prefer to narrow it to UK citizens (but there could be problems with that in Northern Ireland).
All elections should be limited to UK citizens. If you want to become part of this nation's democracy, you can join this nation by going through the naturalisation process. It would certainly be absurd if British citizens voted to leave the EU, but we had to stay in because of the views of the Indians and the Irish.
That argument runs up against the commitment made by the British Government in the Belfast Agreement to:
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
We'd have to make an exception for Irish citizens.
I would have thought so.
But in the end I think coming up with a new electorate for a one-off referendum will prove more trouble than its worth and the definition in the private member Bill is the most likely one to be used.
It's perfectly possible for a wider, longer-term debate on voting rights though. Maybe UKIP should start one next March
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.
How can you pursue national and political aspirations (or indeed constitutional change by peaceful means) without a vote?
How do you fight for a state, without fighting against a state? There are no grounds at all for the distinction you seek to make. The answer to the Foreign Legion question is that it isn't terrorism as defined by TA 2000.
IS isn't a state anyway, it's a proscribed organisation.
Of course you can fight for a state without fighting against a state. Consider the position of soldiers of a legitimate government putting down an insurrection. I should, however, have been clearer that fighting against a state is obviously not terrorism if it is done under the colour of public authority. Nowhere did I assert that ISIS were a state.
The law is what I stated it to be. A person who uses firearms or explosives, whose actions involve a serious threat to life or property, and whose act is done for the purposes of a political, religious or ideological cause is a terrorist under the law. A person who advances the aims of a proscribed organisation is also a terrorist. That includes 99.9% of British subjects who have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. The First Secretary of State's remarks evidently extend to such persons.
The Irish have always been allowed to vote here (and stand as MPs)
"It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act..." Ireland Act, 1949
I believe there is reciprocal legislation in the Republic.
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.
How can you pursue national and political aspirations (or indeed constitutional change by peaceful means) without a vote?
If you're identifying as Irish only, then you can pursue your national and political aspirations in the Republic of Ireland. If you want to play a role in the national politics and constitutional change of the UK, then surely you're identifying as part of the British nation?
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote rather than British people who move abroad. they should lose the right after say 5 years.
EU citizens are not really "foreigners", not in the same way as a Somali or a Mexican, to use two random examples. If we extend the right to Commonwealth citizens, why not citizens of EU countries with which we have a closer economic and political association?
EU freedom of movement should IMO include the right to vote in national elections after say 5 years' residence.
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote, British people who move abroad should lose the right after say 5 years.
The French can still vote in their own country's elections.
Anyway, you can make a case that all foreigners should vote. To select some and not others is pretty unjustifiable.
So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
If he rules out a coalition with the Tories, he is in Labour's pocket.
very few in Scotland would vote for anybody that would join the Tories, he would stiff Labour as well for sure. But saying you would partner the Tories in Scotland is suicide as Labour are finding.
I am looking forward to this scenario after May: Labour second largest party in Scotland and in England, but largest party in UK parliament thanks to the vast majority of Welsh MPs, of whom only the SoS for Wales in the cabinet.
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote, British people who move abroad should lose the right after say 5 years.
Foreigners are eligible to vote in local elections.
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.
How can you pursue national and political aspirations (or indeed constitutional change by peaceful means) without a vote?
If you want to play a role in the national politics and constitutional change of the UK, then surely you're identifying as part of the British nation?
By pursuing, for example, Irish unity, you are pursuing constitutional change in part of the UK without identifying as British. Which the Good Friday Agreement specifically provides for. To grant parity of esteem to people choosing either nationality but then limiting the franchise to only one of those groups would not only be illogical it would go against the agreement that people voted on (if the agreement had provided for that it would obviously have been defeated).
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote, British people who move abroad should lose the right after say 5 years.
Foreigners are eligible to vote in local elections.
Not sure when they qualify for general elections.
Only British, Commonwealth and Irish citizens can vote in national elections.
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote rather than British people who move abroad. they should lose the right after say 5 years.
EU citizens are not really "foreigners", not in the same way as a Somali or a Mexican, to use two random examples. If we extend the right to Commonwealth citizens, why not citizens of EU countries with which we have a closer economic and political association?
EU freedom of movement should IMO include the right to vote in national elections after say 5 years' residence.
And by extension if you don't pay taxes you can't vote. Wonder if Labour would then still be so interested in importing third world voters?
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote, British people who move abroad should lose the right after say 5 years.
Foreigners are eligible to vote in local elections.
Not sure when they qualify for general elections.
Only British, Commonwealth and Irish citizens can vote in national elections.
Why? This should have been removed unless there are reciprocal rights. Is there something somewhere grandfathering voting rights? Back in 1832 some boroughs with broad electoral roll qualification grandfathered these is.
Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote, British people who move abroad should lose the right after say 5 years.
The French can still vote in their own country's elections.
Anyway, you can make a case that all foreigners should vote. To select some and not others is pretty unjustifiable.
You could select (a) foreigners who have lived here for X amount of time and (b) foreigners where we have a particularly close relationship with their country (maybe such as the EU).
I think the EU rule should be that you vote where you live and pay taxes.
Last week while on holiday there I had a hare-brained idea to retire to Belgium. Property is cheap and if you buy a camper van Europe is your oyster. The only problem is learning West Flemish. But if I moved to Belgium I would want to vote there, and would presumably pay taxes. (I guess if I did permanently move to another country I would apply for citizenship as soon as I was able).
Just back from a canvsassing trip to Rochester. Canvassed a mixed area in Strood - small houses, some private some social housing. The whole area had a rather downbeat feel - poorly maintained streets, quite a large proportion of houses run down and rather unkempt. Lot of UKIP leaflets in evidence, also a few posters. Some Tory leaflets also, but fewer in number. The general view on the ground seems to be that UKIP have it in the bag.
Just back from a canvsassing trip to Rochester. Canvassed a mixed area in Strood... The whole area had a rather downbeat feel - poorly maintained streets, quite a large proportion of houses run down and rather unkempt.
Strood is all like that, or so say my friends in Rochester.
How do you fight for a state, without fighting against a state? There are no grounds at all for the distinction you seek to make. The answer to the Foreign Legion question is that it isn't terrorism as defined by TA 2000.
IS isn't a state anyway, it's a proscribed organisation.
Of course you can fight for a state without fighting against a state. Consider the position of soldiers of a legitimate government putting down an insurrection. I should, however, have been clearer that fighting against a state is obviously not terrorism if it is done under the colour of public authority. Nowhere did I assert that ISIS were a state.
The law is what I stated it to be. A person who uses firearms or explosives, whose actions involve a serious threat to life or property, and whose act is done for the purposes of a political, religious or ideological cause is a terrorist under the law. A person who advances the aims of a proscribed organisation is also a terrorist. That includes 99.9% of British subjects who have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. The First Secretary of State's remarks evidently extend to such persons.
What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.
@patrickwintour: Darling, standing down as MP, endorses Jim Murphy for Scots leadership. "Jim has the enthusiasm, the energy and above all he’s a fighter".
Just back from a canvsassing trip to Rochester. Canvassed a mixed area in Strood - small houses, some private some social housing. The whole area had a rather downbeat feel - poorly maintained streets, quite a large proportion of houses run down and rather unkempt. Lot of UKIP leaflets in evidence, also a few posters. Some Tory leaflets also, but fewer in number. The general view on the ground seems to be that UKIP have it in the bag.
Thanks for the field report Nick. Which party were you canvassing for?
Re people having the right to vote here in national elections.
1. Citizens 2. A very small number of other people where we have reciprocal agreements with their governments (i.e Ireland)
If there is no reciprocal agreement (India, Pakistan, etc.) then there should be no voting rights.
I wouldn't be in favour of stripping voting rights from - say - Dominican Republic citizens, where they have a similar set-up with UK citizens in their country because: (a) it's simply not worth the diplomatic fuss of snubbing an ally, particularly given (b) UK citizens resident in their country are likely to have a far greater impact on their elections than the other way round.
There is a case to be made that somewhat who is a citizen in the UK, but has chosen not to be tax resident for a significant period of time (say 5+ years), should lose the right to vote in the UK unless they (a) live here or (b) pay taxes here.
How do you fight for a state, without fighting against a state? There are no grounds at all for the distinction you seek to make. The answer to the Foreign Legion question is that it isn't terrorism as defined by TA 2000.
IS isn't a state anyway, it's a proscribed organisation.
Of course you can fight for a state without fighting against a state. Consider the position of soldiers of a legitimate government putting down an insurrection. I should, however, have been clearer that fighting against a state is obviously not terrorism if it is done under the colour of public authority. Nowhere did I assert that ISIS were a state.
The law is what I stated it to be. A person who uses firearms or explosives, whose actions involve a serious threat to life or property, and whose act is done for the purposes of a political, religious or ideological cause is a terrorist under the law. A person who advances the aims of a proscribed organisation is also a terrorist. That includes 99.9% of British subjects who have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. The First Secretary of State's remarks evidently extend to such persons.
What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.
Re people having the right to vote here in national elections.
1. Citizens 2. A very small number of other people where we have reciprocal agreements with their governments (i.e Ireland)
If there is no reciprocal agreement (India, Pakistan, etc.) then there should be no voting rights.
I wouldn't be in favour of stripping voting rights from - say - Dominican Republic citizens, where they have a similar set-up with UK citizens in their country because: (a) it's simply not worth the diplomatic fuss of snubbing an ally, particularly given (b) UK citizens resident in their country are likely to have a far greater impact on their elections than the other way round.
There is a case to be made that somewhat who is a citizen in the UK, but has chosen not to be tax resident for a significant period of time (say 5+ years), should lose the right to vote in the UK unless they (a) live here or (b) pay taxes here.
I think I could accept your position, although I would question how much "reciprocity" there is in situations like Jamaica, when there are many, many, many times more Jamaicans here than there are Brits resident there.
Comments
"Do you think this coalition government is good or bad for people like you?"
+22 /-49
p.3
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n965i9mzb8/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-311014.pdf
There no enthusiasm for any of them. Turnout down again in 2015.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
Odd having a race so late. It'll finish, most likely, between half nine and ten o'clock. My pre-race piece is up here, including a tip (gosh):
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/america-pre-race.html
!!
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/channel-4-commissions-fictional-documentary-100-days-of-ukip
On this occasion, I think they might have a point. I'm not sure that C4 should be doing something like this, at least without offering UKIP a right to respond.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11203818/Army-Cadet-suffers-burns-in-attack-after-selling-poppies.html
You may well out do our famous but missing, JackW. (who must be 110 by now, surely.)
Bravo more more! [applauds loudly]
Spoke to kippers about it Thursday night at the London meet and they seemed to think the public see through the medias obvious bias and it actually motivates them to vote ukip
The quote yesterday referred to "American corporations" "suing the government" and "reversing privatisation of the NHS". A very one sided and loaded interpretation of TTIP.
This statement highlights one issue with the EAW (the triviality of offences). It doesn't highlight all of the potential objections to it, that is true, but it is far more balanced in its description.
@MrHarryCole: You've gone a bit quiet about the t-shirt campaign @GloriaDePieroMP.
@MrHarryCole: "This article was amended as it initially referred to David rather than Ed Miliband." http://t.co/6WDTbyGCyr
@MrHarryCole: "This came from a quote on the Elle website, which it has now amended". http://t.co/6WDTbyGCyr This has gone really well.
Oh, I've got some spreadsheet calculations in Excel to help out LOL! I'll tweet the "progress" graph in a little while
From UKIP's point of view, a continuation of wet Conservative government after 2015 would be ideal, in terms of growing the party.
PS And given TTIP is an agreement with the USA amongst others referring to 'American corporations' would seem perfectly valid.
"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"
How can you recognise the birthright of Northern Irish people to identify as Irish only (and hold only Irish citizenship) and then make voting in such a referendum (or elections in general) dependent on British citizenship?
Oh, wait...
The principle that you only get to vote in an election if you're a citizen seems sound to me.
But in the end I think coming up with a new electorate for a one-off referendum will prove more trouble than its worth and the definition in the private member Bill is the most likely one to be used.
It's perfectly possible for a wider, longer-term debate on voting rights though. Maybe UKIP should start one next March
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115925336#id=1.115707446
The law is what I stated it to be. A person who uses firearms or explosives, whose actions involve a serious threat to life or property, and whose act is done for the purposes of a political, religious or ideological cause is a terrorist under the law. A person who advances the aims of a proscribed organisation is also a terrorist. That includes 99.9% of British subjects who have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. The First Secretary of State's remarks evidently extend to such persons.
"It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act..." Ireland Act, 1949
I believe there is reciprocal legislation in the Republic.
EU citizens are not really "foreigners", not in the same way as a Somali or a Mexican, to use two random examples. If we extend the right to Commonwealth citizens, why not citizens of EU countries with which we have a closer economic and political association?
EU freedom of movement should IMO include the right to vote in national elections after say 5 years' residence.
Anyway, you can make a case that all foreigners should vote. To select some and not others is pretty unjustifiable.
Labour second largest party in Scotland and in England, but largest party in UK parliament thanks to the vast majority of Welsh MPs, of whom only the SoS for Wales in the cabinet.
Not sure when they qualify for general elections.
Wonder if Labour would then still be so interested in importing third world voters?
http://t.co/dP51DU1iEv
This should have been removed unless there are reciprocal rights.
Is there something somewhere grandfathering voting rights? Back in 1832 some boroughs with broad electoral roll qualification grandfathered these is.
I think the EU rule should be that you vote where you live and pay taxes.
Last week while on holiday there I had a hare-brained idea to retire to Belgium. Property is cheap and if you buy a camper van Europe is your oyster. The only problem is learning West Flemish. But if I moved to Belgium I would want to vote there, and would presumably pay taxes. (I guess if I did permanently move to another country I would apply for citizenship as soon as I was able).
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
It's like the old days and the new days wrapped up in one!
The second Labour candidate to stand down today, following Sue Birtles in Cambridgeshire South.
1. Citizens
2. A very small number of other people where we have reciprocal agreements with their governments (i.e Ireland)
If there is no reciprocal agreement (India, Pakistan, etc.) then there should be no voting rights.
I wouldn't be in favour of stripping voting rights from - say - Dominican Republic citizens, where they have a similar set-up with UK citizens in their country because: (a) it's simply not worth the diplomatic fuss of snubbing an ally, particularly given (b) UK citizens resident in their country are likely to have a far greater impact on their elections than the other way round.
There is a case to be made that somewhat who is a citizen in the UK, but has chosen not to be tax resident for a significant period of time (say 5+ years), should lose the right to vote in the UK unless they (a) live here or (b) pay taxes here.