"There are two basic approaches to evaluating elections. The first view holds that elections are choices: Voters evaluate the proposals put forward by the candidates, and carefully select the candidate that best lines up with their own views.
The second view, of which I am a longstanding proponent, is that elections are referenda on the party in power. That is to say, people might give some thought to the other party’s proposals, but their ultimate choice focuses almost entirely on their opinion of the performance of the president’s party."
I know a person who claims to have seen a plane flying into The Pentagon.........
Steel does not turn to dust in a fire. It heats up, goes red, bends and finally melts.
The doubters assist the observation that the towers disintegrated to dust without fire, and without planes. If you check out the links I give, you will see that the theories are not of conspiracy, but are purely observations made by analysts over many years.
How can anyone still believe the towers fell according to the media version of events? That is what I find quite extraordinary.
The climate models are indeed calibrated against the existing temperature record. It is how they were devised in the first place.
Richard. In this context I'd understand the calibration you are suggesting to be a process whereby:
(1) The climate model under development is run for the historical period 1860 - 2010. (2) The temperatures produced by the model run are compared with the observations. (3) Parameters in the climate model are adjusted (in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy found in (2). (4) Return to (1).
This process simply does not happen at all in climate model development.
When the global mean temperatures of the model are examined, mostly what the scientists who create the model care about is that the model temperature does not drift, because if it drifts they would have to run the model for at least a few thousand model years to wait for it to reach near equilibrium before starting their experiments.
This works better when the revolutionary leaders aren't people who are already holding v nice MP pensions from their time neglected on the backbenches...
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell Tomorrow is two weeks til polling day in #Rochester. Don't get angry about the people running our country. Come and help us get change #UKIP
Perhaps TSE could tweet Messrs Carswell and Reckless to confirm what their accrued MP gold-plated pensions are that they built up as MPs in the establishment they now protest their hate for and whether they wish to turn their back on those cushy benefits they earnt before seeing the light?
That's not my best argument. My best argument depends on whatever is the crux of your conspiracy theory. It sounds like it's the claim that steel doesn't melt in office fires. Is that correct?
There is no 'crux' of 'my' theory. Here are some of the manifold 'cruxes' -and this is only physical, not circumstantial.
....
There are counter-arguments to all your points, but you miss one fundamental issue of all....
WHY?
Why collapse the buildings? If it all was a conspiracy to get Americans to support a war, then flying the planes into the buildings (witnessed by many) would have been enough.
Why on earth go to the risk of bringing them down as well? The conspiracy makes no sense.
As well as that fairly obvious point; if I were attempting to justify a war with Iraq, I would have the perpertrators traceable there, rather than completely different origins in Saudi...
Salmond's tadger has been causing quite a stir.Scottish politics are very vigorous and robust.BTW How long do you think malcolmg would have been sent down for under this new Tory terrorism law? The poor man could die in prison.
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
However, the BBC chose to report it as a positive for immigration. Notably by not mentioning the bits they didn't like.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
The climate models are indeed calibrated against the existing temperature record. It is how they were devised in the first place.
Richard. In this context I'd understand the calibration you are suggesting to be a process whereby:
(1) The climate model under development is run for the historical period 1860 - 2010. (2) The temperatures produced by the model run are compared with the observations. (3) Parameters in the climate model are adjusted (in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy found in (2). (4) Return to (1).
This process simply does not happen at all in climate model development.
When the global mean temperatures of the model are examined, mostly what the scientists who create the model care about is that the model temperature does not drift, because if it drifts they would have to run the model for at least a few thousand model years to wait for it to reach near equilibrium before starting their experiments.
Actually although the time scale differs in various models that is exactly what they do.
In this case they only calibrated for a 30 year period and then used that for comparison with a further 60 years of historical data and a 100 year prediction. But the principle is the same and is used to a greater or lesser degree by all models.
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
Tory activist reposting stories on PB told by a Tory activist to Tory activist Guido.
This adds to the sum of human knowledge. In some ways.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
However, the BBC chose to report it as a positive for immigration. Notably by not mentioning the bits they didn't like.
I managed to hear the bit about non-EU migrants on the BBC Radio 4 Today program this morning even with an earful of warm water.
The climate models are indeed calibrated against the existing temperature record. It is how they were devised in the first place.
Richard. In this context I'd understand the calibration you are suggesting to be a process whereby:
(1) The climate model under development is run for the historical period 1860 - 2010. (2) The temperatures produced by the model run are compared with the observations. (3) Parameters in the climate model are adjusted (in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy found in (2). (4) Return to (1).
This process simply does not happen at all in climate model development.
When the global mean temperatures of the model are examined, mostly what the scientists who create the model care about is that the model temperature does not drift, because if it drifts they would have to run the model for at least a few thousand model years to wait for it to reach near equilibrium before starting their experiments.
Actually although the time scale differs in various models that is exactly what they do.
In this case they only calibrated for a 30 year period and then used that for comparison with a further 60 years of historical data and a 100 year prediction. But the principle is the same and is used to a greater or lesser degree by all models.
How much money have you and your company made from fossil fuels, Richard?
Out of interest, what's the record for a bet to come home at on pb?
I have a few pence on with Stan James from earlier in the year on UKIP taking Blackpool North & Cleveleys at 250/1. UKIP are currently 12/1 with Ladbrokes on this seat, having polled 27% today with Lord Ashcroft, only 6% behind the Conservatives in first place.
I tipped Cannock chase at 150/1, mentioned it at 200/1, but didn't back it at either price. Now 7/2
We should combine my list with your blog... Surely massive priced winners will be the outcome?
The climate models are indeed calibrated against the existing temperature record. It is how they were devised in the first place.
Richard. In this context I'd understand the calibration you are suggesting to be a process whereby:
(1) The climate model under development is run for the historical period 1860 - 2010. (2) The temperatures produced by the model run are compared with the observations. (3) Parameters in the climate model are adjusted (in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy found in (2). (4) Return to (1).
This process simply does not happen at all in climate model development.
When the global mean temperatures of the model are examined, mostly what the scientists who create the model care about is that the model temperature does not drift, because if it drifts they would have to run the model for at least a few thousand model years to wait for it to reach near equilibrium before starting their experiments.
Actually although the time scale differs in various models that is exactly what they do.
In this case they only calibrated for a 30 year period and then used that for comparison with a further 60 years of historical data and a 100 year prediction. But the principle is the same and is used to a greater or lesser degree by all models.
No, they are calibrating the *output* from the climate models for a very specific purpose of looking at the Great Lakes region. They aren't calibrating the climate model at all.
This is because the climate models can still have very large biases in specific regions - as you would know if you had read any of the relevant literature. You only have to look at the ranges on the figure colour bars.
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
Tory activist reposting stories on PB told by a Tory activist to Tory activist Guido.
This adds to the sum of human knowledge. In some ways.
It would seem that some of us don't have the human knowledge to know which side of the fence the New Statesmen is on....
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
However, the BBC chose to report it as a positive for immigration. Notably by not mentioning the bits they didn't like.
I managed to hear the bit about non-EU migrants on the BBC Radio 4 Today program this morning even with an earful of warm water.
Can anyone say what's happened to Arnie Graf? Is he still at the heart of Labour's election machine, or has his "lovely, beautiful, inspiring barnacle" ((c) Hopi Sen) been scraped off the boat?
9/11 is thirteen years old. War has always been assisted into occurring by false flag attacks. Pearl Harbour. Gulf Of Tonkin. The 7/7 London bombing. Just a few of the more recent examples. As people get it into their consciousness that most of what they see and hear in the media is tripe, they begin to disengage. This is now happening, and the coming few months will demonstrate that, as described on Telegraph blogs -
At root, this is about the rise of Ukip, anti-politics feeling, looming insurgency, the fragmentation of the old party system, more turmoil in Scotland and the sense that across the UK there is electoral chaos coming. Many of those involved give the impression that they would now rather just get on with it. Then, when they have seen how the pieces fall, the party leaders (who will that be?) can set about making the best of it, or perhaps (unintentionally) the worst of it. What comes next in British politics certainly won't be dull.
You seem to be missing the obvious. UKIP is a false flag operation set up by the EU in order to discredit Euroscepticism and keep the UK under the command of Brussels.
@annemcelvoy: Tories in 2005 were only Opposition to improved poll ratings between conference season and next gen elec. via @hopisen and @georgeeaton .
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
I'm not going to go through several dozen points because it'd take me forever. If you want to choose three at random, so I can show how they don't stand up to scrutiny, I'm happy to do so.
Out of interest, what's the record for a bet to come home at on pb?
I have a few pence on with Stan James from earlier in the year on UKIP taking Blackpool North & Cleveleys at 250/1. UKIP are currently 12/1 with Ladbrokes on this seat, having polled 27% today with Lord Ashcroft, only 6% behind the Conservatives in first place.
I tipped Cannock chase at 150/1, mentioned it at 200/1, but didn't back it at either price. Now 7/2
We should combine my list with your blog... Surely massive priced winners will be the outcome?
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
Tory activist reposting stories on PB told by a Tory activist to Tory activist Guido.
This adds to the sum of human knowledge. In some ways.
You could add to the sum of knowledge by reposting some positive press pieces about Ed Miliband. That such pieces exist would add to the sum of human knowledge...
It's one of the many cases where I know what each individual word means, but have f'all idea what they all mean when combined.
We need that like button back! Happens to me a lot these days, I thought it was just age but I am now reassured it happens to younger more technically aware chaps too.
One observation from PMQs-the lines of communication are being established for a Conservative-DUP coalition.The Cameron-Paisley meeting arranged is designed for Cameron to bring gifts and trinkets to give to the natives in exchange for Ulster votes.
9/11 is thirteen years old. War has always been assisted into occurring by false flag attacks. Pearl Harbour. Gulf Of Tonkin. The 7/7 London bombing. Just a few of the more recent examples. As people get it into their consciousness that most of what they see and hear in the media is tripe, they begin to disengage. This is now happening, and the coming few months will demonstrate that, as described on Telegraph blogs -
At root, this is about the rise of Ukip, anti-politics feeling, looming insurgency, the fragmentation of the old party system, more turmoil in Scotland and the sense that across the UK there is electoral chaos coming. Many of those involved give the impression that they would now rather just get on with it. Then, when they have seen how the pieces fall, the party leaders (who will that be?) can set about making the best of it, or perhaps (unintentionally) the worst of it. What comes next in British politics certainly won't be dull.
You seem to be missing the obvious. UKIP is a false flag operation set up by the EU in order to discredit Euroscepticism and keep the UK under the command of Brussels.
There will be a huge ukip scandal coming just before the next election, designed to destroy British euroscepticism. The newspapers have already been printed. I could tell you the details, but then they'd have me killed.
World oil refining capacity is growing far faster than world oil production, so it's no great surprise that old refineries, that struggle with heavier blends of oil, are shutting down.
World oil refining capacity might be growing but UK oil refining capacity is reducing.
Yes.
All 'at destination' refining capacity is in decline because there are bigger, specialised refineries near source. Jaipur, in India, is the world's largest refinery. It wasn't built for the Indian market, it was built to take heavy, sour crude from the Gulf and efficiently convert in to middle distallate, petrol, etc.
And so the trade in refined products rises, and the role of local refiners declines. If you are running a chain of petrol stations in the UK, and you have the choice of paying 99p for product refined in Jaipur, or 100p for something refined in Milford Haven, you'll choose the latter.
This is not a trend that's going to be reversed. Refined product demand is stagnant in the UK. Our refineries are old, upgrading them is expensive, and the world has too much refining capacity. Even worse, relentless debottlenecking and increased fuel efficiency means UK refining capacity is greater than UK demand for refined products.
Milford Haven was not economic to run. No government, and no policy could change that.
And another bit of value adding capacity disappears from the UK economy.
Still the magic money tree will continue to support the £90bn balance of payments deficit this country is currently running.
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
They also tend to have lots of kids, who all need to be educated. They also tend to need special teaching assistants more often, as Bangladeshi and Pakistani children have a lot more learning difficulties than other ethnic groups. Quite possibly because of all the inbreeding going on via cousin marriages. This is an open secret in teaching circles.
But if you think the numbers for Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are bad, wait until the data on Somalis comes in.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
So a benefit of EU membership...
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
Given the multiple associated problems with these migrants, from honour killing to cousin marriage to the niqab to jihadism to mass terrorism (and on and on and on and on), we should just stop all and any immigration from these countries. And stop it Now. I do not believe any sentient human could logically think otherwise, if they weren't browbeaten by the bien pensants and scared of the lefty race-card players.
It is fairly well established that female education and participation in the workforce is the key to economic development.
It is very noticeable that parts of the world that take female education seriously develop, but the same is true in this country. That is the real problem of the Burkha. It shackles half the human potential of the community, and requires part of the other half to police and "guard" the secluded women.
World oil refining capacity is growing far faster than world oil production, so it's no great surprise that old refineries, that struggle with heavier blends of oil, are shutting down.
World oil refining capacity might be growing but UK oil refining capacity is reducing.
Yes.
All 'at destination' refining capacity is in decline because there are bigger, specialised refineries near source. Jaipur, in India, is the world's largest refinery. It wasn't built for the Indian market, it was built to take heavy, sour crude from the Gulf and efficiently convert in to middle distallate, petrol, etc.
And so the trade in refined products rises, and the role of local refiners declines. If you are running a chain of petrol stations in the UK, and you have the choice of paying 99p for product refined in Jaipur, or 100p for something refined in Milford Haven, you'll choose the latter.
This is not a trend that's going to be reversed. Refined product demand is stagnant in the UK. Our refineries are old, upgrading them is expensive, and the world has too much refining capacity. Even worse, relentless debottlenecking and increased fuel efficiency means UK refining capacity is greater than UK demand for refined products.
Milford Haven was not economic to run. No government, and no policy could change that.
And another bit of value adding capacity disappears from the UK economy.
Still the magic money tree will continue to support the £90bn balance of payments deficit this country is currently running.
True but it would seem that the French have shut down even more refining capacity than we have. If the Frogs can't make it work we have no chance.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
So a benefit of EU membership...
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
Given the multiple associated problems with these migrants, from honour killing to cousin marriage to the niqab to jihadism to mass terrorism (and on and on and on and on), we should just stop all and any immigration from these countries. And stop it Now. I do not believe any sentient human could logically think otherwise, if they weren't browbeaten by the bien pensants and scared of the lefty race-card players.
9/11 is thirteen years old. War has always been assisted into occurring by false flag attacks. Pearl Harbour. Gulf Of Tonkin. The 7/7 London bombing. Just a few of the more recent examples. As people get it into their consciousness that most of what they see and hear in the media is tripe, they begin to disengage. This is now happening, and the coming few months will demonstrate that, as described on Telegraph blogs -
At root, this is about the rise of Ukip, anti-politics feeling, looming insurgency, the fragmentation of the old party system, more turmoil in Scotland and the sense that across the UK there is electoral chaos coming. Many of those involved give the impression that they would now rather just get on with it. Then, when they have seen how the pieces fall, the party leaders (who will that be?) can set about making the best of it, or perhaps (unintentionally) the worst of it. What comes next in British politics certainly won't be dull.
You seem to be missing the obvious. UKIP is a false flag operation set up by the EU in order to discredit Euroscepticism and keep the UK under the command of Brussels.
There will be a huge ukip scandal coming just before the next election, designed to destroy British euroscepticism. The newspapers have already been printed. I could tell you the details, but then they'd have me killed.
Farage and Juncker are bridge partners. It's not the sort of story you can expect to keep a lid on until the general election campaign.
Thanks. Another little bit of data stored in my brain, which sadly has probably pushed out another bit of data. Now, how do I measure Adjacent Channel Rejection? :-)
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
So a benefit of EU membership...
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
Given the multiple associated problems with these migrants, from honour killing to cousin marriage to the niqab to jihadism to mass terrorism (and on and on and on and on), we should just stop all and any immigration from these countries. And stop it Now. I do not believe any sentient human could logically think otherwise, if they weren't browbeaten by the bien pensants and scared of the lefty race-card players.
Do you have any opinions on why the government has chosen to pretend the Rotherham report doesn't exist ?
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
So a benefit of EU membership...
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
Given the multiple associated problems with these migrants, from honour killing to cousin marriage to the niqab to jihadism to mass terrorism (and on and on and on and on), we should just stop all and any immigration from these countries. And stop it Now. I do not believe any sentient human could logically think otherwise, if they weren't browbeaten by the bien pensants and scared of the lefty race-card players.
Or TSE
Didn't you once mention the EDL or something to that beacon of purity who likes to make sexually explicit jokes about dead white women
.... Quite possibly because of all the inbreeding going on via cousin marriages. This is an open secret in teaching circles. ...
Not really even an open secret. The BBC did a radio documentary on the number and type of birth defects arising in cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
One observation from PMQs-the lines of communication are being established for a Conservative-DUP coalition.The Cameron-Paisley meeting arranged is designed for Cameron to bring gifts and trinkets to give to the natives in exchange for Ulster votes.
A Con-DUP understanding, perhaps, but never a coalition.
If the DUP become part of the UK government, by extension Sinn Fein are then in coalition with the UK government in Northern Ireland...
And Republicans just won't wear that, leading to potentially disastrous consequences.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
All very pleasant.
Have you actually got a point to make, and to prove, or are you just frothing at your laptop in your personal Emirate of Idiocy?
.... Quite possibly because of all the inbreeding going on via cousin marriages. This is an open secret in teaching circles. ...
Not really even an open secret. The BBC did a radio documentary on the number and type of birth defects arising in cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
Cousanguinous marriages are actually getting more common with each generation.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
All very pleasant.
Have you actually got a point to make, and to prove, or are you just frothing at your laptop in your personal Emirate of Idiocy?
It's OK for you posh metropolitan Establishment types, some of are actually at the sharp end of the increasing racism, xenophobia and fearmongering that some quarters are stoking.
I'm dating a young policewoman in Camden. She is a Lib Dem voter, amazingly (to my mind)
Her serious, ongoing accounts of Somali crime in my borough leave me in no doubt that there is a very significant problem with that community.
Essentially, if you took Somalis out of the equation, petty crime, robbery, gang violence and sex offences might halve in Camden overnight.
However, the same could have been said - indeed WAS said - about London Irish over generations. And it would also have been true. Now the Irish are entirely integrated, and no more criminal than the average Anglo Brit.
What worries me about Muslim Asians - Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc - is that they believe in a very tenacious form of Islam which is NOT going to go away, and which actually leads to a mutated and more extreme forms of non-assimilation. As we have seen.
Entirely correct. People on the left thought for a very long time that no immigrant groups were any more problematic than any other immigrant groups. They thought that any difference between them was just prejudice on the behalf of the observer. Thankfully, they have now been mugged by reality due to the sheer overwhelming evidence and have dropped this fallacy.
But they still hold on to the fallacy that immigrant groups naturally integrate, and all these problems shall pass with no effort needed as long as we just wait a couple decades. What they fail to account for is the role of religion. As a second (or third or fourth) generation migrant, if you are irreligious or follow an open Eastern religion, you don't really see religion as dividing line, so you blend in. However, if you follow an Abrahamic faiths, and are religious, you are much more likely to see people from other faiths as "the other". Now, because this is a Christian nation, we don't have a problem from this with Christianity.
With Jews and Muslims from devout families, however, they see themselves as unique and special and they do their best to maintain their uniqueness from the rest of British society. This isn't too much of an issue with Jews because they came in such small numbers, and only a small share of them were devout Orthodox. With Muslims, however, huge numbers have come here are and a huge swathe of them are religious conservatives. This means the lack of integration won't happen among such families for generations, if it happens at all.
World oil refining capacity is growing far faster than world oil production, so it's no great surprise that old refineries, that struggle with heavier blends of oil, are shutting down.
World oil refining capacity might be growing but UK oil refining capacity is reducing.
Yes.
All 'at destination' refining capacity is in decline because there are bigger, specialised refineries near source. Jaipur, in India, is the world's largest refinery. It wasn't built for the Indian market, it was built to take heavy, sour crude from the Gulf and efficiently convert in to middle distallate, petrol, etc.
And so the trade in refined products rises, and the role of local refiners declines. If you are running a chain of petrol stations in the UK, and you have the choice of paying 99p for product refined in Jaipur, or 100p for something refined in Milford Haven, you'll choose the latter.
This is not a trend that's going to be reversed. Refined product demand is stagnant in the UK. Our refineries are old, upgrading them is expensive, and the world has too much refining capacity. Even worse, relentless debottlenecking and increased fuel efficiency means UK refining capacity is greater than UK demand for refined products.
Milford Haven was not economic to run. No government, and no policy could change that.
And another bit of value adding capacity disappears from the UK economy.
Still the magic money tree will continue to support the £90bn balance of payments deficit this country is currently running.
True but it would seem that the French have shut down even more refining capacity than we have. If the Frogs can't make it work we have no chance.
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
Tory activist reposting stories on PB told by a Tory activist to Tory activist Guido.
This adds to the sum of human knowledge. In some ways.
New PB activist posting as/like old PB activist, in denial of what a mess Ed is in.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
@tnewtondunn: EXCL: Tories will stay in power at the general election six months from tomorrow, Brits now think - YouGov/Sun poll http://t.co/Uy3Zi3yAnz
Do you have any opinions on why the government has chosen to pretend the Rotherham report doesn't exist ?
Because if they point it out they are accused of setting back race relations by left-wing thickos? I mean that's clearly what's causing racial tension: people mentioning this stuff a lot. Not, you know HUNDREDS of Muslims raping THOUSANDS of white kids, and then walking around the town Scot-free.
.... Quite possibly because of all the inbreeding going on via cousin marriages. This is an open secret in teaching circles. ...
Not really even an open secret. The BBC did a radio documentary on the number and type of birth defects arising in cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
Cousanguinous marriages are actually getting more common with each generation.
Then you and your colleagues can look forward to an increasing number of children with congenital and genetic disorders and the NHS can pick up the bill.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
I think you should cool down a bit, he didn't mention you by name. Wait until he does, then you can request for that.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
Was he referring to you as a far right bigot?
Thanks for pointing that out I hadnt seen it that way
.... Quite possibly because of all the inbreeding going on via cousin marriages. This is an open secret in teaching circles. ...
Not really even an open secret. The BBC did a radio documentary on the number and type of birth defects arising in cousin marriages in the Pakistani community.
Cousanguinous marriages are actually getting more common with each generation.
Then you and your colleagues can look forward to an increasing number of children with congenital and genetic disorders and the NHS can pick up the bill.
And that's just in one town. Across the country there are probably THOUSANDS of Muslims that have got a huge kick out of gang-raping white children, torturing them through things like petrol-dousing and branding irons, and threatening to kill their parents if they tell anyone. And they're all walking around laughing at the rest of us that our government won't look into the matter properly, because they're scared of being called racist.
Medical experts who've kept quiet about issues like the dangers of cousin marriages for fear of upsetting people ought to hang their heads in shame IMO.
And that's just in one town. Across the country there are probably THOUSANDS of Muslims that have got a huge kick out of gang-raping white children, torturing them through things like petrol-dousing and branding irons, and threatening to kill their parents if they tell anyone. And they're all walking around laughing at the rest of us that our government won't look into the matter properly, because they're scared of being called racist.
Where have you picked up the TENS OF THOUSANDS thing?
Can anyone say what's happened to Arnie Graf? Is he still at the heart of Labour's election machine, or has his "lovely, beautiful, inspiring barnacle" ((c) Hopi Sen) been scraped off the boat?
Didn't he leave due to his not having the right visa to work in this country?
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
I think you should cool down a bit, he didn't mention you by name. Wait until he does, then you can request for that.
We were both told not to engage with each other at all, and I have avoided the temptation to respond to his nasty attacks on a range of decent-minded posters on here, for this reason. Now he is saying libellous things about Migration Watch when I mention them, and, in direct response to me, attacking unnamed individuals in exactly the same terms he attacked me in previously.
@PBModerator should either take action or let me respond. The usual approach when it is a leftwinger is to give warnings again and again, and then a very short ban.
And that's just in one town. Across the country there are probably THOUSANDS of Muslims that have got a huge kick out of gang-raping white children, torturing them through things like petrol-dousing and branding irons, and threatening to kill their parents if they tell anyone. And they're all walking around laughing at the rest of us that our government won't look into the matter properly, because they're scared of being called racist.
Where have you picked up the TENS OF THOUSANDS thing?
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
So a benefit of EU membership...
If you read the report, it's fairly clear which countries we don't want immigration from: overwhelmingly they are Muslim - i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they TAKE from the public purse, partly because they have the lowest labour participation rates - only 32% of adult Pakistanis are in work, in the UK, compared with 78% adult Poles, etc, and this is because Muslim women don't get jobs, they are shrouded at home, and so on.
Given the multiple associated problems with these migrants, from honour killing to cousin marriage to the niqab to jihadism to mass terrorism (and on and on and on and on), we should just stop all and any immigration from these countries. And stop it Now. I do not believe any sentient human could logically think otherwise, if they weren't browbeaten by the bien pensants and scared of the lefty race-card players.
Do you have any opinions on why the government has chosen to pretend the Rotherham report doesn't exist ?
We all know why. Because they are vile, spineless cowards.
That is the Occam's Razor answer.
The changing repsonses of the PB Tories has been fascinating.
For the first week they gleefully expected the government to use it to attack Labour.
Then they claimed the government was actually doing something but were unable to provide any details - culminating IIRC in Charles suggesting that the government's actions were 'all behind the scenes'.
Now they either say nothing or insinuate anyone who mentions it is a 'waassist'.
This is interesting: Liverpool Echo @LivEchonews 2h2 hours ago Ukip's Paul Nuttall says party has set its sights on Southport win
I've been to Southport many times, it's a lovely coastal town in the summer, much cleaner and with more open spaces than Blackpool. It's demographics are old, very old, and very white, and relatively wealthy. Although a Liberal stronghold since I don't know when, UKIP did do well locally there last May.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
All very pleasant.
Have you actually got a point to make, and to prove, or are you just frothing at your laptop in your personal Emirate of Idiocy?
It's OK for you posh metropolitan Establishment types, some of are actually at the sharp end of the increasing racism, xenophobia and fearmongering that some quarters are stoking.
Of course you are, ducky. I believe you. And about that 100/1accumulator.
And that's just in one town. Across the country there are probably THOUSANDS of Muslims that have got a huge kick out of gang-raping white children, torturing them through things like petrol-dousing and branding irons, and threatening to kill their parents if they tell anyone. And they're all walking around laughing at the rest of us that our government won't look into the matter properly, because they're scared of being called racist.
Where have you picked up the TENS OF THOUSANDS thing?
You have edited your post I see
I took it out because it probably can't be sustained, but I still think a five figure number is very possible. There were 250 rapists named by one girl in Rotherham. Let's say there were perhaps 100 more that raped her and she didn't know/remember, or that raped other girls (out of the 1400) but not this one. So 350 in Rotherham.
We know of about 25 towns where this model of abuse has happened through convictions so far. If we say there's another 5 where a conviction hasn't happened yet (highly possible given the number of Pakistani communities around the country), then that's 30 tows. 30 times 350 is more than ten thousand.
That UCL analysis, much lauded by let-em-all-in-liberals, identifying the *benefits* of immigration, also, rather quietly, says this:
"Immigrants from outside the EU cost Britain almost £120 BILLION over 17 years"
What's more, there was no year in this period when Britain benefited, financially, from non-EU immigration. Not one single year. "Non-EU migrants took more from the public purse, than they contributed, in each of the 17 years".
Still, we get all that free childcare from Rotherham taxi drivers, so maybe there are uncosted benefits to native Brits.
Migration Watch have also pointed out that they cut off the analysis to exclude EU immigrants from 2001. Unsurprisingly, the ones that got here earlier are older than the post-2001 group, and as a result claim more pensions and healthcare. The numbers look very different when you include all EU migrants.
Ahh, MigrationWatch. A thoroughly nasty and grubby anti-immigration pressure group, who along with UKIP and other far-right bigots, for example those who obsess about Muslims and immigrants on message boards, particularly when there are crimes involved, are setting race relations back 60 years.
All very pleasant.
Have you actually got a point to make, and to prove, or are you just frothing at your laptop in your personal Emirate of Idiocy?
It's OK for you posh metropolitan Establishment types, some of are actually at the sharp end of the increasing racism, xenophobia and fearmongering that some quarters are stoking.
It's ok for you white middleclass lefty types,living well away from our new Britain,of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Telling people like me that we should have more and more,while two faced propagandist like you pal live in the past of the old Britain,of mainly indigenous white area's.
I've got a feeling about you Hughie,if the area you lived in started to increase in immigration,I imagine you to be joining the growing numbers of what we call now white flight..
Comments
"There are two basic approaches to evaluating elections. The first view holds that elections are choices: Voters evaluate the proposals put forward by the candidates, and carefully select the candidate that best lines up with their own views.
The second view, of which I am a longstanding proponent, is that elections are referenda on the party in power. That is to say, people might give some thought to the other party’s proposals, but their ultimate choice focuses almost entirely on their opinion of the performance of the president’s party."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/05/a_referendum_on_the_president_124577.html
Numbers for this government seem to be ambiguous.
"Do you think this coalition government is good or bad for people like you?"
+22 / -49
"Do you think the coalition government is managing the economy well or badly?"
+44 / -48
"Do you think that David Cameron is doing well or badly as Prime Minister?"
+43 / -52
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n965i9mzb8/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-311014.pdf
Tap old son, you are out of your fuckern tree.
(1) The climate model under development is run for the historical period 1860 - 2010.
(2) The temperatures produced by the model run are compared with the observations.
(3) Parameters in the climate model are adjusted (in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy found in (2).
(4) Return to (1).
This process simply does not happen at all in climate model development.
When the global mean temperatures of the model are examined, mostly what the scientists who create the model care about is that the model temperature does not drift, because if it drifts they would have to run the model for at least a few thousand model years to wait for it to reach near equilibrium before starting their experiments.
Douglas Carswell MP ✔ @DouglasCarswell
Tomorrow is two weeks til polling day in #Rochester. Don't get angry about the people running our country. Come and help us get change #UKIP
Perhaps TSE could tweet Messrs Carswell and Reckless to confirm what their accrued MP gold-plated pensions are that they built up as MPs in the establishment they now protest their hate for and whether they wish to turn their back on those cushy benefits they earnt before seeing the light?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29921797
http://order-order.com/2014/11/05/pmqs-sketch-how-have-labour-got-themselves-here/
http://order-order.com/2014/11/05/new-statesman-turns-on-ed/
“Morale has never been lower,” one shadow cabinet minister told me [ . . . ] No MP I have spoken to has argued that the Labour leader’s parlous ratings aren’t a problem or dismissed them as a “Westminster bubble issue”. “We’re all very, very concerned. The reality is that whilst we don’t have a presidential system, people are thinking increasingly about who they want to be the prime minister,” one shadow minister said. He went on to describe a “sobering moment” in which a voter told him: “You’ve been a fantastic MP, but I’m not going to vote for you. Because Ed’s not prime ministerial… "
However, the BBC chose to report it as a positive for immigration. Notably by not mentioning the bits they didn't like.
I simply get tea and kittens when I try to read the Daily Mail website...
This is a good example.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/historical_data.pdf
In this case they only calibrated for a 30 year period and then used that for comparison with a further 60 years of historical data and a 100 year prediction. But the principle is the same and is used to a greater or lesser degree by all models.
This adds to the sum of human knowledge. In some ways.
We should combine my list with your blog... Surely massive priced winners will be the outcome?
This is because the climate models can still have very large biases in specific regions - as you would know if you had read any of the relevant literature. You only have to look at the ranges on the figure colour bars.
Won't somebody join me?
Yes, refineries are very complex.
And probably needed indexes or you couldn't find anything.
Spurs better representatives of England in Europe than Man City, Liverpool and UKIP. Discuss?
I'm not going to go through several dozen points because it'd take me forever. If you want to choose three at random, so I can show how they don't stand up to scrutiny, I'm happy to do so.
Still the magic money tree will continue to support the £90bn balance of payments deficit this country is currently running.
But if you think the numbers for Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are bad, wait until the data on Somalis comes in.
It is very noticeable that parts of the world that take female education seriously develop, but the same is true in this country. That is the real problem of the Burkha. It shackles half the human potential of the community, and requires part of the other half to police and "guard" the secluded women.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/paris/feature-european-refining-faces-new-wave-of-refinery-26820986
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/05/miliband-reshuffles-election-team-response-to-questioning-of-his-leadership?CMP=share_btn_tw
Well that's a good track record! Britain in Europe has been a notably successful campaign in changing British public opinion.
You bad man
All very pleasant.
If the DUP become part of the UK government, by extension Sinn Fein are then in coalition with the UK government in Northern Ireland...
And Republicans just won't wear that, leading to potentially disastrous consequences.
Of course tapestry, of course.... slowly backs away........
I remember when the claim was KC135's with laser pods.... happy days......
The irony
http://youtu.be/P3NtaDC_ZEo
http://youtu.be/M5-xcvv_fRQ
I don't think there's any explicit data on who these voters are switching to.
Tonight: L 33 C 32 UK 17 LD 7 G 7
http://youtu.be/eI8u-I0GWs4
But they still hold on to the fallacy that immigrant groups naturally integrate, and all these problems shall pass with no effort needed as long as we just wait a couple decades. What they fail to account for is the role of religion. As a second (or third or fourth) generation migrant, if you are irreligious or follow an open Eastern religion, you don't really see religion as dividing line, so you blend in. However, if you follow an Abrahamic faiths, and are religious, you are much more likely to see people from other faiths as "the other". Now, because this is a Christian nation, we don't have a problem from this with Christianity.
With Jews and Muslims from devout families, however, they see themselves as unique and special and they do their best to maintain their uniqueness from the rest of British society. This isn't too much of an issue with Jews because they came in such small numbers, and only a small share of them were devout Orthodox. With Muslims, however, huge numbers have come here are and a huge swathe of them are religious conservatives. This means the lack of integration won't happen among such families for generations, if it happens at all.
The UK however, where refineries have been closing at a steady rate for two decades ...
You should do a column on this by the way:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11211018/You-dont-frighten-me-Jean-Claude-Juncker-taunts-David-Cameron.html
It hasn't got as much news attention as it clearly should.
Am I allowed to respond to Hugh, or is this another case where a left-wing poster is allowed to attack me again and again and again before getting a slap on the wrist with a small ban?
Number Cruncher @NCruncherUK 3m3 minutes ago
YouGov/Sun continues to show a very close race for 1st and 4th places:
CON 32%
LAB 33%
LIB 7%
LD 17%
GRN 7%
I didn't even mention you.
Wait until he does, then you can request for that.
Thanks for pointing that out I hadnt seen it that way
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6063219/poll-tories-win-general-election.html
You're never more than 6 foot from one of THEM, I heard. Stock up and barricade!
@PBModerator should either take action or let me respond. The usual approach when it is a leftwinger is to give warnings again and again, and then a very short ban.
The changing repsonses of the PB Tories has been fascinating.
For the first week they gleefully expected the government to use it to attack Labour.
Then they claimed the government was actually doing something but were unable to provide any details - culminating IIRC in Charles suggesting that the government's actions were 'all behind the scenes'.
Now they either say nothing or insinuate anyone who mentions it is a 'waassist'.
Liverpool Echo @LivEchonews 2h2 hours ago
Ukip's Paul Nuttall says party has set its sights on Southport win
I've been to Southport many times, it's a lovely coastal town in the summer, much cleaner and with more open spaces than Blackpool.
It's demographics are old, very old, and very white, and relatively wealthy.
Although a Liberal stronghold since I don't know when, UKIP did do well locally there last May.
UKIP's candidate is also a local Mike Smithson lookalike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA6jI6MYvQ0
We know of about 25 towns where this model of abuse has happened through convictions so far. If we say there's another 5 where a conviction hasn't happened yet (highly possible given the number of Pakistani communities around the country), then that's 30 tows. 30 times 350 is more than ten thousand.
Telling people like me that we should have more and more,while two faced propagandist like you pal live in the past of the old Britain,of mainly indigenous white area's.
I've got a feeling about you Hughie,if the area you lived in started to increase in immigration,I imagine you to be joining the growing numbers of what we call now white flight..
Con: Gordon Henderson.
Lab: Guy Nicholson.
LD: Keith Nevols.
UKIP: Richard Palmer.
Greens: Gary Miller.