Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I disagree. If you choose to go and live in another country the onus is on you to make the effort to learn about and integrate into that country. And that applies to Britons living abroad.
Both my parents were immigrants. They both felt that they needed to make the effort to become, in part, British, however much they felt proud of their countries of origin. My mother, for instance, made it her business to learn English well and did not expect other taxpayers to pay for her to continue to transact business in Britain in her native language. As a family we co-existed between four countries as my mother herself had two "home" countries but we children learnt to love and treasure Britain and to think of Britishness as a part of us, even with our mixed and (at least in those days) exotic background.
I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home. When living like you did back home involves doing things which are either against the law here or deeply repugnant to or offensive to the British way of doing things or, in some cases, seems to create the breeding ground for terrorism, we have a real problem. Let's face it: the problem is not some elderly lady choosing to eat pasta al pomodoro over bacon and eggs but parents who murder their British-born and educated daughter because she has become "too Western".
Learning to appreciate the former (pace N Palmer) is fine. We should never appreciate the latter.
The failure to make the distinction between the two and between different types of immigrants is the problem.
Twitter Sam Macrory @sammacrory 1m1 minute ago Browne sacked from home office. Baker appointed in his place. Browne retires as MP. Baker quits as minister. As reshuffles go...
If you're suggesting that the pressures of bribery and coercion are such that the MPs can't resist them then they shouldn't be MPs - if they are routinely subjected to these pressures then they should routinely report them.
Why should they report them if they are part of the legal process? Or have you never heard of a 3 line whip?
If a society gives you your life, you should feel a part of it and have an allegiance to it.
Well, quite. Why aren't you proud to be a citizen of the European Union?
That's not just a frivolous point. What I'm getting at is that societies don't have automatic entitlement to allegiance and engagement: they need to earn it (and you clearly don't feel the EU has done so). A citizen of Nazi Germany would have been right to feel actively hostile to the society around him. Do we offer migrants such a splendid life that we can reasonably expect instant allegiance, or shouldn't we rather expect that society and migrants gradually learn to appreciate each other?
I don't expect instant allegiance, but the woman that started this conversation had been here for a decade and a half, been given a council flat, and was provided benefits and education to bring up her five children.
She has since expressed on this program that she doesn't believe Muslim women should marry non-Muslim men. She was shocked when the Indian-descent woman had a white husband. Do you think those are the sorts of British values we should encourage?
But it's our fault. People don't behave a certain way simply because you think they ought to. Successive governments have pursued a policy of multi-culturalism. Had they pursued a policy of maintaining the fabric of society -an adaptable, welcoming, tolerant culture, but one culture nonetheless, we would not be in this situation. America has done this very well.
Twitter Sam Macrory @sammacrory 1m1 minute ago Browne sacked from home office. Baker appointed in his place. Browne retires as MP. Baker quits as minister. As reshuffles go...
15/08/2014 Single To Win No @ 8/15 Current Cabinet To Go All The Way Will the current Cabinet Ministers be in place at the next general election? Pending £37ish
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I disagree. If you choose to go and live in another country the onus is on you to make the effort to learn about and integrate into that country. And that applies to Britons living abroad.
Both my parents were immigrants. They both felt that they needed to make the effort to become, in part, British, however much they felt proud of their countries of origin. My mother, for instance, made it her business to learn English well and did not expect other taxpayers to pay for her to continue to transact business in Britain in her native language. As a family we co-existed between four countries as my mother herself had two "home" countries but we children learnt to love and treasure Britain and to think of Britishness as a part of us, even with our mixed and (at least in those days) exotic background.
I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home. When living like you did back home involves doing things which are either against the law here or deeply repugnant to or offensive to the British way of doing things or, in some cases, seems to create the breeding ground for terrorism, we have a real problem. Let's face it: the problem is not some elderly lady choosing to eat pasta al pomodoro over bacon and eggs but parents who murder their British-born and educated daughter because she has become "too Western".
Learning to appreciate the former (pace N Palmer) is fine. We should never appreciate the latter.
The failure to make the distinction between the two and between different types of immigrants is the problem.
I totally agree! I think we sort of arguing toward the same opinion -see my post above...
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I disagree. If you choose to go and live in another country the onus is on you to make the effort to learn about and integrate into that country. And that applies to Britons living abroad.
Both my parents were immigrants. They both felt that they needed to make the effort to become, in part, British, however much they felt proud of their countries of origin. My mother, for instance, made it her business to learn English well and did not expect other taxpayers to pay for her to continue to transact business in Britain in her native language. As a family we co-existed between four countries as my mother herself had two "home" countries but we children learnt to love and treasure Britain and to think of Britishness as a part of us, even with our mixed and (at least in those days) exotic background.
I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home. When living like you did back home involves doing things which are either against the law here or deeply repugnant to or offensive to the British way of doing things or, in some cases, seems to create the breeding ground for terrorism, we have a real problem. Let's face it: the problem is not some elderly lady choosing to eat pasta al pomodoro over bacon and eggs but parents who murder their British-born and educated daughter because she has become "too Western".
Learning to appreciate the former (pace N Palmer) is fine. We should never appreciate the latter.
The failure to make the distinction between the two and between different types of immigrants is the problem.
Twitter Sam Macrory @sammacrory 1m1 minute ago Browne sacked from home office. Baker appointed in his place. Browne retires as MP. Baker quits as minister. As reshuffles go...
15/08/2014 Single To Win No @ 8/15 Current Cabinet To Go All The Way Will the current Cabinet Ministers be in place at the next general election? Pending £37ish
Does this mean this one is now getting paid ?
No, he wasnt in the Cabinet. but it might make that Lib Dem reshuffle (and rumoured Swinson for Carmichael swap or any other change) slightly more likely.
This new poll, with the Tories slightly ahead, the LDs back to double figures and UKIP slightly down is a clear move in the direction of another Tory-LD coalition, something I have long believed to be the most likely election outcome
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
This new poll, with the Tories slightly ahead, the LDs back to double figures and UKIP slightly down is a clear move in the direction of another Tory-LD coalition, something I have long believed to be the most likely election outcome
Well quite but the pointy heads on here won't see the woods for the trees..
Shuffle out Ali Carmichael and bring in Jo Swinson.
Roots out some long forgotten betting slips...
Somebody years ago, who shall remain nameless, meant to back Norman Lamb as next Lib Dem leader and ended up sticking £40 on Norman Lamb.
Long day?
Very long day, nearly as long as the time I tried to back the Tories to win Norfolk North when they were something like 33/1 and thinking William Hill had made a huge rick on Chloe Smith holding on.
It was only after I had placed the bet that I remembered Chloe Smith was MP for Norwich North
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I don't think I've ever disagreed more with a comment written on PB than this. And British people moving to Spain for more than a short time should make an effort to learn the language.
"UKIP has broadened its list of target seats for the forthcoming General Election.
The party will now target a significantly larger number of constituencies, including many in what have previously been regarded safe Conservative and Labour heartlands.
Party Leader Nigel Farage has asked newly elected UKIP MP Douglas Carswell to oversee the project alongside the Party's General Secretary, Roger Bird. The targets seats campaign will be run by Chris Bruni-Lowe who ran the successful by election campaign in Clacton and is currently working alongside Mark Reckless in Rochester."
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.
I have had 26 robocalls today, and also a dozen calls that didn't leave messages.
Voting tomorrow!
It's been an odd campaign, one of the least covered I can recall (except for the 24 hour news stations).
It's difficult for the Democrats - the economy is not feeling good, there is no legislative achievement to run on as Harry Reid won't allow anything on the Senate floor for a vote, Obamacare is toxic as is the president, foreign policy is in ruins, two thirds of the country thinks they are taking the country in the wrong direction, which means it's either assassinate the opposition or throw up this phony 'war on women'. Plus they are now bringing in the race card.
So all the Democrat commercials attack the character of the Republican opponent. That's not a criticism - they have nothing else.
Mark Udall has campaigned exclusively on the alleged 'war on women', so much so that in one of the debates the moderator called him Mark Uterus.
The Republican commercials have all used quotes and video to link the Democratic candiddate to Obama. Although not quite as bad as a personal attack, it's still pretty negative.
The race in North Carolina has cost over $100 million.
This year things have stacked up perfectly for the Republicans, yet other than a couple of races things are on a knife edge. They should be winning going away.
Is there is any evidence there are too many ministers and they have taken a more lack attitude to security checks, Norman Baker as a Home Office minister was it.
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
The Tory talent vacuum in 1997 happened because quite a lot of contenders including the favourite lost his seat, and the second favourite had a heart attack.
Another agonising poll from a Labour perspective -- tiny leads which (obviously) are nowhere near good enough, yet at the same time not quite disastrous enough to shake even the most complacent Labour MPs into the realisation that something drastic needs to happen.
Another agonising poll from a Labour perspective -- tiny leads which (obviously) are nowhere near good enough, yet at the same time not quite disastrous enough to shake even the most complacent Labour MPs into the realisation that something drastic needs to happen.
No polling level would make any difference, think about Gordo in charge...If the Labour Party can't knife Brown, they will never knife anybody.
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
Concerns are rarely really addressed. Unemployment for example hasn't been dealt with in any sense that reflected the publics concern. People mainly just got used to it.
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
I don't remember being rude to you the other day? It's not like me to be rude about someone's betting skills -I rarely bet myself! However, I'm often guilty of posting before I think, so I'm sure I could have given offence without intending to, so I apologise if I did.
Nov 1st 12:09
"This post demonstrates no understanding of the market. "
Now I don't really mind at all, but what truly baffled me was why you said that!
Apology completely accepted, and I'm guilty of many daft posts. I just couldn't see what I'd said that deserved such damning criticism.
Ah, I see!
Apology still offered in terms of saying something rude and (as I now see) confusing, but I wasn't referring to the betting market! I was referring to 'the market' -the movement of goods and services -Adam Smith's invisible hand! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
I believe your post was something like 'we all know about free market economics but we need something more'. To me, that demonstrates no real understanding of what the market is -namely life. The jungle we all live in; the oxygen in the lungs of the world. All politics is about how we interact with the market and the benign or malign affect we can have on its workings. To see the market as merely an old tarnished horse brass on a belt with a bunch of other 'ideas' to me demonstrated no understanding of its significance. But I think I was probably tired and should not have posted it without being prepared to enlarge upon it.
Norman Baker was I suspect kept out of department meetings, as the Tories didn't trust him. Hence him saying that the Home Office run by the Tories was like walking through mud.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
Quite the most moronic statement of the evening given that I am one of the most strident critics of Farage on this site. If you are going to try and be sarcastic it is worth at least getting your facts straight in the first place or you just come over as sad.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
And if they are profoundly ideologically opposed to the benefactor, they may choose to use their largesse and turn it against them. UKIP in the European Parliament being one example. A sharia supporting Muslim wanting to establish a caliphate in the UK being another. Whether this is right or wrong depends entirely on your point of view. The onus is on the benefactor to tolerate it or not.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demand
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
There are several figures who I'd take seriously if Ed fell under a bus, but I'd rather not open the discussion as it would be misunderstood: as you say, there is a reasonable chance that it won't arise for a long time. I'd expect the main figures to emerge in office.
That said, our system doesn't really encourage potential leaders to develop. The Tories don't have a really obvious successor either. As soon as they reach a certain point, they are universally portrayed by the media as dangerous challengers who need to be cut down to size - David Davis, Theresa May, Boris Johnson...
If you're suggesting that the pressures of bribery and coercion are such that the MPs can't resist them then they shouldn't be MPs - if they are routinely subjected to these pressures then they should routinely report them.
Why should they report them if they are part of the legal process? Or have you never heard of a 3 line whip?
They should report them because bribery and coercion are not part of the legitimate process of government. The fact that pressure is exerted by the whips so that MPs vote in a certain way is entirely above board. A balance of risks and rewards (by which I do not mean peerages!) makes sense. Under no circumstances should any personal matters become part of that equation though.
I'd be quite happy to see prosecutions based on the now available historical testimony which locked up a few (if not many) ex whips.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to be free.
And who says they have too much power? People who worship the State as a god and regard anyone else as apostates or unbelievers?
Another illiberal liberal. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.
I am quite happy for them to be free. They are free to succeed or fail on their own without taking money from the government to do it. And for the record dis-establishment is a thoroughly Libertarian position. The Church in the UK is part of the State and greatly benefits from it. That is something that should end.
Are you deliberately being stupid? All my references to Italian mothers and my username and you prattle on about Anglicanism, which has been disestablished in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, BTW.
I am, of course, a Roman Catholic.
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
You have to admire Baker sticking to his guns on drugs when the Tories were never going to tolerate any movement on the issue with 6 months to go before the election.
@DAaronovitch: I don't think Norman Baker resigned himself. I think he was resigned.
He said in his letter that May was unable to accept that "Nick Clegg had given me wide range of responsibilities across tags Home Office"
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. The senior minister in a department allocates responsibilities. Obviously there are more constraints in a Coalition, but it sounds like Baker was an interfering tossed andMay got sick f him
Have none of our MP's worked in the private sector and kept company records for 7 years? Mr Bercow hasn't judging by his dreadful conduct here.
And in recent days, the conduct of the BBC reporting the latest IPCC report nearly at the top of all its bulletins was enough to make the blood boil, when it admitted less than a month ago that there had been no warming at all for the past 17 years. Then the latest Met Office computer costing the taxpayer £97million is yet more wasted taxpayers money, when it is rubbish in rubbish out based on all the failed AGW nonsense.
And then we wonder why the establishment parties are faring so poorly. On the evidence of all of the above, it is more than richly deserved!
Probably already posted, but just noticed for the first time since 2010 Anthony's latest UNS projection has moved into "Hung Parliament" with Labour short by 1;
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I don't think I've ever disagreed more with a comment written on PB than this. And British people moving to Spain for more than a short time should make an effort to learn the language.
Cyclefree disagreed too, but the content of his post actually came to the same conclusion I did. I'm just trying to be realistic. With regard to British expats in the Costas, it is for Spain to decide if their non integration is dangerous to the fabric of Spanish society, or whether their economic contribution outweighs the negative. You cannot just turn around to a non-integrated immigrant after years of actively encouraging cultural separateness and blame them for sticking to the tried and tested. Yes its wrong they haven't integrated, it's terrible, but it's the fault of our own government.
Probably already posted, but just noticed for the first time since 2010 Anthony's latest UNS projection has moved into "Hung Parliament" with Labour short by 1;
If you're suggesting that the pressures of bribery and coercion are such that the MPs can't resist them then they shouldn't be MPs - if they are routinely subjected to these pressures then they should routinely report them.
Why should they report them if they are part of the legal process? Or have you never heard of a 3 line whip?
They should report them because bribery and coercion are not part of the legitimate process of government. The fact that pressure is exerted by the whips so that MPs vote in a certain way is entirely above board. A balance of risks and rewards (by which I do not mean peerages!) makes sense. Under no circumstances should any personal matters become part of that equation though.
I'd be quite happy to see prosecutions based on the now available historical testimony which locked up a few (if not many) ex whips.
And yet the reward of peerages and the threat of deselection is regularly used as direct coercion to get MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents or their own beliefs. This is exactly why the whips system is so insidious and should be scrapped in its current form.
It is ironic that we are allowing a system introduced by the Nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party to so dominate our democratic systems.
Norman Baker was I suspect kept out of department meetings, as the Tories didn't trust him. Hence him saying that the Home Office run by the Tories was like walking through mud.
I am no fan of the Lib Dems but give credit to Norman Baker for getting the evidence based drugs report last week published. That was the best report on drugs coming from the government for many a long year, and in the face of Tory opposition by the sounds of it. Many countries have or are thinking about legalising marijuana now as they realise they've got better things for law enforcement to be doing, it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually do the same at some point over the next 5 years.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
And if they are profoundly ideologically opposed to the benefactor, they may choose to use their largesse and turn it against them. UKIP in the European Parliament being one example. A sharia supporting Muslim wanting to establish a caliphate in the UK being another. Whether this is right or wrong depends entirely on your point of view. The onus is on the benefactor to tolerate it or not.
I don't think it is a question of tolerance but of survival. No country can long survive if a significant body of its population shuns its laws for a competing system of law which is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of that country's beliefs and values. Sharia law is such a system and the growth of sharia courts covering family, divorce and, in some reported cases, criminal matters is a significant challenge to the sovereignty of English law. History shows us that this is untenable in the long term.
When in Rome ..... and all that.
Tolerance of an aggressive challenge to the very basis of our civilization and culture is not toleration but moral weakness and cowardice and will harm us. And I have no hesitation in saying - as I did at the time - that I thought the former of Archbishop of Canterbury was talking utter balls when he said that we ought to permit and welcome sharia law into our country. The idea that we ought to have different legal systems for British citizens based purely on their religion is hokum and dangerous with it.
Probably already posted, but just noticed for the first time since 2010 Anthony's latest UNS projection has moved into "Hung Parliament" with Labour short by 1;
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
There are several figures who I'd take seriously if Ed fell under a bus, but I'd rather not open the discussion as it would be misunderstood: as you say, there is a reasonable chance that it won't arise for a long time. I'd expect the main figures to emerge in office.
That said, our system doesn't really encourage potential leaders to develop. The Tories don't have a really obvious successor either. As soon as they reach a certain point, they are universally portrayed by the media as dangerous challengers who need to be cut down to size - David Davis, Theresa May, Boris Johnson...
@DAaronovitch: I don't think Norman Baker resigned himself. I think he was resigned.
He said in his letter that May was unable to accept that "Nick Clegg had given me wide range of responsibilities across tags Home Office"
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. The senior minister in a department allocates responsibilities. Obviously there are more constraints in a Coalition, but it sounds like Baker was an interfering tossed andMay got sick f him
If I were a senior LibDem in government, with leasdership ambitions, I eould fly a populist policy such as decriminalising drugs, then resign over a clash with a babyeating Home Secretary.
I see Shadsy has 34/1 on Baker, who has an 8000 majority over second placed Tories in Lewes.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some aand vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they d like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easanisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to bral. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.
I am quite happy for end.
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
.
And from those who are not. If people of religious conviction want the government to spend more on or offer relief to their particular faith they can vote accordingly if they think that isn't being done I guess, and if other people want no tax money being spent or relief offered to religious institutions they can vote accordingly as well, but the government has no obligation to spend a lot on things religious people of X would like just because that's where the money partly came from. They're free to do it, but they can choose to review that or be lobbied by others to review that with no problem, it's a free country.
It's be nice if our specific tax money only went on things we personally wanted though, though I'll grant a bit difficult for the government to allocate funds received from specific segments of the population only on the things that segment likes I guess. As a single man with no children the amount I spend on child welfare appalls me! Parents are nothing but moochers I say!
Warning:some statements contained herein may not be 100% serious. Impossible to say which.
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
The Tory talent vacuum in 1997 happened because quite a lot of contenders including the favourite lost his seat, and the second favourite had a heart attack.
Can't see that happening for Labour next year
I think both Mr and Mrs Balls' seats have a big chunk of UKIP demographics. That might help their opponent.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demand
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
Numbers are important but what they believe - in the widest sense - does matter, if it is so very different to and hostile to what we believe.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
And if they are profoundly ideologically opposed to the benefactor, they may choose to use their largesse and turn it against them. UKIP in the European Parliament being one example. A sharia supporting Muslim wanting to establish a caliphate in the UK being another. Whether this is right or wrong depends entirely on your point of view. The onus is on the benefactor to tolerate it or not.
I don't think it is a question of tolerance but of survival. No country can long survive if a significant body of its population shuns its laws for a competing system of law which is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of that country's beliefs and values. Sharia law is such a system and the growth of sharia courts covering family, divorce and, in some reported cases, criminal matters is a significant challenge to the sovereignty of English law. History shows us that this is untenable in the long term.
When in Rome ..... and all that.
Tolerance of an aggressive challenge to the very basis of our civilization and culture is not toleration but moral weakness and cowardice and will harm us. And I have no hesitation in saying - as I did at the time - that I thought the former of Archbishop of Canterbury was talking utter balls when he said that we ought to permit and welcome sharia law into our country. The idea that we ought to have different legal systems for British citizens based purely on their religion is hokum and dangerous with it.
Oh, I quite agree. But tolerate it we have. And continue to do so.
Probably already posted, but just noticed for the first time since 2010 Anthony's latest UNS projection has moved into "Hung Parliament" with Labour short by 1;
Took a look at all the odds on Ladbrokes for the GE. Lots of great opportunities to get on SNP seats priced in the range 6/4 - 4/1. Lots around the 2/1 - 3/1 mark, and you can lay SNP seats under 20 as a hedge at 6/5 or 5/6 IIRC. I think Antifrank mentioned this possibility a couple of days ago.
Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine stood out for me:
SNP evens Lib Dem 7/4 Tory 3/1
Relying on Tory / LibDem split vote, and in rural Scotland - think this is one of the few places where the SNP are too short.
Inverclyde 15/8 SNP looks value to me given the almost 50/50 vote there in the referendum.
Glasgow East 9/4 SNP also looks good value to me given its history with the by-election in the previous parliament.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Up to a point. Being treated charitably sets up an obligation. Some will embrace that obligation, and contribute back. Others resent that feeling of obligation and prefer to hate their benefactor.
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
And if they are profoundly ideologically opposed to the benefactor, they may choose to use their largesse and turn it against them. UKIP in the European Parliament being one example. A sharia supporting Muslim wanting to establish a caliphate in the UK being another. Whether this is right or wrong depends entirely on your point of view. The onus is on the benefactor to tolerate it or not.
I don't think it is a question of tolerance but of survival. No country can long survive if a significant body of its population shuns its laws for a competing system of law which is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of that country's beliefs and values. Sharia law is such a system and the growth of sharia courts covering family, divorce and, in some reported cases, criminal matters is a significant challenge to the sovereignty of English law. History shows us that this is untenable in the long term.
When in Rome ..... and all that.
Tolerance of an aggressive challenge to the very basis of our civilization and culture is not toleration but moral weakness and cowardice and will harm us. And I have no hesitation in saying - as I did at the time - that I thought the former of Archbishop of Canterbury was talking utter balls when he said that we ought to permit and welcome sharia law into our country. The idea that we ought to have different legal systems for British citizens based purely on their religion is hokum and dangerous with it.
Oh, I quite agree. But tolerate it we have. And continue to do so.
I think this is changing. I hope so, for my childrens' sake!
Norman Baker has made me eat my words.In the next to leave the cabinet thread I said they enjoyed their perks too much.Norman Baker has I'm pleased to say proved me wrong.To go on evidence-based policy grounds is a superb bonus-must make him nailed-on to win Lewes as local hero.The man's got the street cred to know what's been happening on the mean streets of Lewes. Well done Mr Baker.
''I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home.''
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
That's precisely the point: we have allowed people to live here and break our laws e.g. taking girls out of education, forcing them to marry, so-called honour killings etc. That kind of clinging to the values of the home country is quite quite wrong.
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
I think you are right, but really we could stop all this fuss about immigration by admitting what is blatantly obvious to any one who understands free markets and supply & demand
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
Numbers are important but what they believe - in the widest sense - does matter, if it is so very different to and hostile to what we believe.
It is easier to integrate 100 Polish hotel staff than 10 Jihadis.
Twitter iain watson @iainjwatson 10m10 minutes ago Norman Baker's resignation letter to Nick Clegg 'being the only Libdem in Home office was like being only hippy at an Iron Maiden concert'
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight 2m2 minutes ago @BBCAllegra "the Lib Dems have a few issues that they have to get through to their voters, Norman Baker was central to that" #newsnight
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
And some gays...
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
Should the orthodox religious be upset at their tax money being given to LGBT groups?
If they want. They can vote for whoever promises to stop it if it means so much to them. Governments do a lot of things even the people who voted for them don't like, it's a balancing act, and surely the time has never been better for smaller issue groups and parties to have an impact and get even the larger parties to follow their agenda. If ti doesn't work, well, we don't always get what we want, so they can moan quietly between elections.
Gedling 1/10 Labour pretty much free money provided Coaker doesn't do anything unexpected between now and the GE if you ask me. Gedling demographics have been moving towards Labour for quite a while now.
Harrow East is a toss up between Labour and Tory. Think that represents good value for Labour although I'd need to have a look at local results of recent times to check it out. Can't believe anything other than demographics continuing to favour Labour there over the past 5 years plus London factor as well where I expect Labour to do best next May. Thoughts?
I'd like to draw your attention to the 'next Labour leader' market on betfair - I'm not recommending a bet though.
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
There are several figures who I'd take seriously if Ed fell under a bus, but I'd rather not open the discussion as it would be misunderstood: as you say, there is a reasonable chance that it won't arise for a long time. I'd expect the main figures to emerge in office.
That said, our system doesn't really encourage potential leaders to develop. The Tories don't have a really obvious successor either. As soon as they reach a certain point, they are universally portrayed by the media as dangerous challengers who need to be cut down to size - David Davis, Theresa May, Boris Johnson...
Yep, but I was thinking about if Ed doesn't fall under a bus. If he did succumb early then there are some candidates clearly. If though he wins the GE, and stays a full term (or two) then many of the front-runners are clearly not going to feature. Perhaps leaving Tristram Hunt, Rachael Reeves, and Chuka Umunna as the 'new wave' - what struck me though is that that list is quite short, and a bit unconvincing.
I wonder if 'Blair's babes' and similar themes have produced some very short-term politicians.
Nick - do you occasionally meet people who might be tomorrow's Tony Benn?
Quite the most moronic statement of the evening given that I am one of the most strident critics of Farage on this site. If you are going to try and be sarcastic it is worth at least getting your facts straight in the first place or you just come over as sad.
Sadly it would seem even in this modern time, day and age that for some, u kippers all look the same.
Comments
Both my parents were immigrants. They both felt that they needed to make the effort to become, in part, British, however much they felt proud of their countries of origin. My mother, for instance, made it her business to learn English well and did not expect other taxpayers to pay for her to continue to transact business in Britain in her native language. As a family we co-existed between four countries as my mother herself had two "home" countries but we children learnt to love and treasure Britain and to think of Britishness as a part of us, even with our mixed and (at least in those days) exotic background.
I think that a big mistake was made in seeking to make it easy for people from different countries to come here and continue living here as if they were still back home. When living like you did back home involves doing things which are either against the law here or deeply repugnant to or offensive to the British way of doing things or, in some cases, seems to create the breeding ground for terrorism, we have a real problem. Let's face it: the problem is not some elderly lady choosing to eat pasta al pomodoro over bacon and eggs but parents who murder their British-born and educated daughter because she has become "too Western".
Learning to appreciate the former (pace N Palmer) is fine. We should never appreciate the latter.
The failure to make the distinction between the two and between different types of immigrants is the problem.
Sam Macrory @sammacrory 1m1 minute ago
Browne sacked from home office. Baker appointed in his place. Browne retires as MP. Baker quits as minister. As reshuffles go...
Current Cabinet To Go All The Way
Will the current Cabinet Ministers be in place at the next general election? Pending £37ish
Does this mean this one is now getting paid ?
Ah hmm hes not in the cabinet...
Shuffle please Mr Clegg !
Long day?
@DAaronovitch: I don't think Norman Baker resigned himself. I think he was resigned.
Even that doesn;t really worry me that much if they support themselves and don;'t break our laws.
It's when the people involved take from the state in some way that it starts to rankle.
If I was the beneficiary of largesse from an alien country and culture I might very reasonably conclude they were doing something right and deserved my respect and support.
Long day?
Very long day, nearly as long as the time I tried to back the Tories to win Norfolk North when they were something like 33/1 and thinking William Hill had made a huge rick on Chloe Smith holding on.
It was only after I had placed the bet that I remembered Chloe Smith was MP for Norwich North
"UKIP has broadened its list of target seats for the forthcoming General Election.
The party will now target a significantly larger number of constituencies, including many in what have previously been regarded safe Conservative and Labour heartlands.
Party Leader Nigel Farage has asked newly elected UKIP MP Douglas Carswell to oversee the project alongside the Party's General Secretary, Roger Bird. The targets seats campaign will be run by Chris Bruni-Lowe who ran the successful by election campaign in Clacton and is currently working alongside Mark Reckless in Rochester."
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_increases_number_of_target_seats_in_thrilling_election_campaign
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
What I think is interesting is that this could be a market which persists for many years. If Ed is elected he's hardly going to disappear. The interesting thing both politically and from a betting point of view is how narrow the apparent field is. There are 20 possible future leaders listed - Darling and Purnell are tow of those - so probably really just 18. If you exclude Liam Byrne and Hilary Benn too (which seems reasonable) then just 14.
I think this is a problem for Labour - no one's really talking about any of their next generation - there doesn't seem to be one. Of course betfair just add people to the list when requested, or when that person hits their radar, but nevertheless it's interesting that the list is so short.
I'm a tory, so politically I don't care, but I'd be quite interested to hear a Labour perspective on this phenomenon. Something perhaps quite similar happened in 1997 when there was a Tory talent vacuum - Is that what's going on?
An excellent post by Cyclefree!
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
There are some striking anomalies in the official Baker "I resigned" version of events. #justsaying
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
EICIPM
Voting tomorrow!
It's been an odd campaign, one of the least covered I can recall (except for the 24 hour news stations).
It's difficult for the Democrats - the economy is not feeling good, there is no legislative achievement to run on as Harry Reid won't allow anything on the Senate floor for a vote, Obamacare is toxic as is the president, foreign policy is in ruins, two thirds of the country thinks they are taking the country in the wrong direction, which means it's either assassinate the opposition or throw up this phony 'war on women'. Plus they are now bringing in the race card.
So all the Democrat commercials attack the character of the Republican opponent. That's not a criticism - they have nothing else.
Mark Udall has campaigned exclusively on the alleged 'war on women', so much so that in one of the debates the moderator called him Mark Uterus.
The Republican commercials have all used quotes and video to link the Democratic candiddate to Obama. Although not quite as bad as a personal attack, it's still pretty negative.
The race in North Carolina has cost over $100 million.
This year things have stacked up perfectly for the Republicans, yet other than a couple of races things are on a knife edge. They should be winning going away.
Can't see that happening for Labour next year
You can't get my level of insightful comments and gold standard trolling anywhere else.
Apology still offered in terms of saying something rude and (as I now see) confusing, but I wasn't referring to the betting market! I was referring to 'the market' -the movement of goods and services -Adam Smith's invisible hand! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
I believe your post was something like 'we all know about free market economics but we need something more'. To me, that demonstrates no real understanding of what the market is -namely life. The jungle we all live in; the oxygen in the lungs of the world. All politics is about how we interact with the market and the benign or malign affect we can have on its workings. To see the market as merely an old tarnished horse brass on a belt with a bunch of other 'ideas' to me demonstrated no understanding of its significance. But I think I was probably tired and should not have posted it without being prepared to enlarge upon it.
A curious argument for denying people aid from the British taxpayer when they arrive.
'They might resent it...'
Whereas someone who, for instance, celebrates Christmas by eating panettone and hot chocolate on Xmas Eve and having a Neapolitan crib offends no law or custom, even if it is not a particularly British thing to do.
But too many people who should know better have tried to pretend that multiculturalism is all about exotic festivals and foods and ignored the dark side e.g. serious violence against women.
The last 8 Yougovs in September had an average Labour lead of just under 5.
The only way for people to integrate successfully is to limit the numbers, it doesn't really matter where they are from or what they believe
That said, our system doesn't really encourage potential leaders to develop. The Tories don't have a really obvious successor either. As soon as they reach a certain point, they are universally portrayed by the media as dangerous challengers who need to be cut down to size - David Davis, Theresa May, Boris Johnson...
Was Boy George, in the speakers chair, with the mace.
Any takers?
I'd be quite happy to see prosecutions based on the now available historical testimony which locked up a few (if not many) ex whips.
Scotland (sub sample)
SNP 56%
LABOUR 15%
CONSERVATIVES 12%
LIBDEMS 7%
GREENS 5%
UKIP 3%
OTHERS 2%
'He comes over as a pompous arse in that article.'
Makes a change though, he usually comes over as a complete nutter. .
I am, of course, a Roman Catholic.
And this taking money from the Government. Where did the Government get it from? Partially from adherents of those religions.
A very poor reply from you.
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. The senior minister in a department allocates responsibilities. Obviously there are more constraints in a Coalition, but it sounds like Baker was an interfering tossed andMay got sick f him
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11206221/Expenses-watchdog-MPs-should-not-have-destroyed-records.html
Have none of our MP's worked in the private sector and kept company records for 7 years? Mr Bercow hasn't judging by his dreadful conduct here.
And in recent days, the conduct of the BBC reporting the latest IPCC report nearly at the top of all its bulletins was enough to make the blood boil, when it admitted less than a month ago that there had been no warming at all for the past 17 years. Then the latest Met Office computer costing the taxpayer £97million is yet more wasted taxpayers money, when it is rubbish in rubbish out based on all the failed AGW nonsense.
And then we wonder why the establishment parties are faring so poorly. On the evidence of all of the above, it is more than richly deserved!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Should the gays demand some of their money back to fund efforts to convert straights to homosexuality?
It is ironic that we are allowing a system introduced by the Nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party to so dominate our democratic systems.
I don't think it is a question of tolerance but of survival. No country can long survive if a significant body of its population shuns its laws for a competing system of law which is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of that country's beliefs and values. Sharia law is such a system and the growth of sharia courts covering family, divorce and, in some reported cases, criminal matters is a significant challenge to the sovereignty of English law. History shows us that this is untenable in the long term.
When in Rome ..... and all that.
Tolerance of an aggressive challenge to the very basis of our civilization and culture is not toleration but moral weakness and cowardice and will harm us. And I have no hesitation in saying - as I did at the time - that I thought the former of Archbishop of Canterbury was talking utter balls when he said that we ought to permit and welcome sharia law into our country. The idea that we ought to have different legal systems for British citizens based purely on their religion is hokum and dangerous with it.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
I see Shadsy has 34/1 on Baker, who has an 8000 majority over second placed Tories in Lewes.
It's be nice if our specific tax money only went on things we personally wanted though, though I'll grant a bit difficult for the government to allocate funds received from specific segments of the population only on the things that segment likes I guess. As a single man with no children the amount I spend on child welfare appalls me! Parents are nothing but moochers I say!
Warning:some statements contained herein may not be 100% serious. Impossible to say which.
Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine stood out for me:
SNP evens
Lib Dem 7/4
Tory 3/1
Relying on Tory / LibDem split vote, and in rural Scotland - think this is one of the few places where the SNP are too short.
Inverclyde 15/8 SNP looks value to me given the almost 50/50 vote there in the referendum.
Glasgow East 9/4 SNP also looks good value to me given its history with the by-election in the previous parliament.
Well done Mr Baker.
It is schools and hospitals I am concerned with.
As for preaching, it should be treated as political activity or campaigning and receive the same tax treatment. And funding.
BTW, can we have back the £50,000 spent on the Birmingham Pride parade by the Environment Agency. We need it for dredging on the Somerset Levels.
iain watson @iainjwatson 10m10 minutes ago
Norman Baker's resignation letter to Nick Clegg 'being the only Libdem in Home office was like being only hippy at an Iron Maiden concert'
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight 2m2 minutes ago
@BBCAllegra "the Lib Dems have a few issues that they have to get through to their voters, Norman Baker was central to that" #newsnight
Harrow East is a toss up between Labour and Tory. Think that represents good value for Labour although I'd need to have a look at local results of recent times to check it out. Can't believe anything other than demographics continuing to favour Labour there over the past 5 years plus London factor as well where I expect Labour to do best next May. Thoughts?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Strange-Death-David-Kelly/dp/1842752170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415056611&sr=8-1&keywords=norman+baker
I wonder if 'Blair's babes' and similar themes have produced some very short-term politicians.
Nick - do you occasionally meet people who might be tomorrow's Tony Benn?