At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
@MrTimDunn: *Perfect* statistic: "Were you offended by the plan to burn an effigy of Alex Salmond in Sussex: YES: 45% NO: 55% http://t.co/tg56p5Houp
I was at a Sportsman's dinner in the People's republic of Jockistan on Friday. After several barbed comments about the great chieftain of the Pudding race the Speaker said: "But I have no doubt that despite all this Alex is looking down on us benevolently. Not because he has any God like attributes but more because he is a condescending b******."
Given we were in Dundee this went down remarkably well.
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
If both you and Isam are going to Dirty Dicks, I might make a special effort to come and watch. Both of you will be bringing your special battle-handbags, I presume?
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
I would say but apparently that would make me as bad as the person who said it originally
It's TSE's joke, he said it and wont apologise so obviously thinks its really funny, so I'll let him do the honours
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
The Tap got into the top 40 political blogs a few times, then it was chopped from the list. Anyone who really takes on the system is made invisible in the rankings. I wondered how long our rankings presence would last. Once you blog that 9/11 is false flag, you become invisible. I wonder if comments on here can be made invisible other than to the commenter. There is software like that around.....
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
Three builders are at work, sitting high up on scaffolding, eating their packed lunches. The first, a chap with black hair, sighs.
"Tuna sandwiches. Again! I must've complained about tuna sodding sandwiches a hundred times. If I get them one more bloody day I'll throw myself off this building!"
The second, a redhead, opens his lunchbox and finds tuna sandwiches. "Christ on his cross, I'll join you if I end up with these damned things again!"
The third, a blonde, open his lunchbox. Sure enough, it's tuna. "Tuna for me as well! One more damned time and *I'll* jump as well!"
The next day, they're back there. The brunette opens his lunchbox, angrily flings the tuna sandwiches away and then leaps from the building to his death. The redhead also finds he has tuna sandwiches, and jumps to his doom. And then the blonde, crying with rage, kills himself the same way.
The three men are buried on the same day, and their wives (who happen to have corresponding hair colour) are there. The brunette and redhead are weeping uncontrollably and blaming themselves, asking why they never listened to their husbands' complaints. The blonde looks sad but isn't beating herself up.
"What's wrong with you? Don't you feel guilty?" the other two wives ask.
The blonde sighs. "I'm sad he's gone, but he made his own sandwiches."
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
If both you and Isam are going to Dirty Dicks, I might make a special effort to come and watch. Both of you will be bringing your special battle-handbags, I presume?
I'll be bringing my 600 quid Louis Vuitton man bag to Dirty Dicks.
Nothing says I'm a flaming member of the multicultural metropolitan elite than that.
Do you mean to say that only one husband objected? Heavens what are we coming too.
The joke was amusing though.
A Conservative supporter was walking along the banks of the Thames in East London deep in prayer. All of a sudden he said out loud, "God, grant me one wish." Suddenly the sky clouded above his head and in a booming voice the God said, "Because you have had the faith to ask, I will grant you one wish." The man said, "Wow. That's amazing; what I would love is a bridge from Rotherhithe to Wapping, so as to ease the awful congestion."
God said, "Your request is very materialistic. Think of the logistics of that kind of undertaking. The concrete and steel it would take! I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of another wish, a wish you think would honor and glorify me."
The Conservative supporter thought for a long time. Finally he said, "God, all my friends are voting UKIP. Just let me know: what does David Cameron need to do to be loved by these Kippers?"
After a few minutes God said, "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"
Agence France-Presse @AFP 2m2 minutes ago #UPDATE Ukraine says anyone crossing in or out of areas controlled by separatists will have to show a passport http://u.afp.com/6Ru
The partitioning of Ukraine continues apace and it's Kiev thats hardening the fault lines.
Three builders are at work, sitting high up on scaffolding, eating their packed lunches. The first, a chap with black hair, sighs.
"Tuna sandwiches. Again! I must've complained about tuna sodding sandwiches a hundred times. If I get them one more bloody day I'll throw myself off this building!"
The second, a redhead, opens his lunchbox and finds tuna sandwiches. "Christ on his cross, I'll join you if I end up with these damned things again!"
The third, a blonde, open his lunchbox. Sure enough, it's tuna. "Tuna for me as well! One more damned time and *I'll* jump as well!"
The next day, they're back there. The brunette opens his lunchbox, angrily flings the tuna sandwiches away and then leaps from the building to his death. The redhead also finds he has tuna sandwiches, and jumps to his doom. And then the blonde, crying with rage, kills himself the same way.
The three men are buried on the same day, and their wives (who happen to have corresponding hair colour) are there. The brunette and redhead are weeping uncontrollably and blaming themselves, asking why they never listened to their husbands' complaints. The blonde looks sad but isn't beating herself up.
"What's wrong with you? Don't you feel guilty?" the other two wives ask.
The blonde sighs. "I'm sad he's gone, but he made his own sandwiches."
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
The Tap got into the top 40 political blogs a few times, then it was chopped from the list. Anyone who really takes on the system is made invisible in the rankings. I wondered how long our rankings presence would last. Once you blog that 9/11 is false flag, you become invisible. I wonder if comments on here can be made invisible other than to the commenter. There is software like that around.....
@Ishmael_X "Dear old Kelly does sound a teeny bit vacuous there"
Possibly, but as there is at the moment a Sikh festival, where it is incumbent on them to feed all the poor ( including non Sikh's), perhaps she could be forgiven for being inclusive?
The Sikh (and indeed the Indian) community has been in the Medway towns and in North West Kent for a long time. The original comment from Ukiper "Laurence" is highly offensive. I'm no social liberal myself but his remark is blatantly racist and sadly indicative of some of the Ukip hangers-on. Kelly is actually doing well and I'll be interested to see the next R & S poll.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
But there's going to be a degree of variability even within that European number that's being hidden by that headline figure. I'm sure the engineers are net contributors and the minimum wage cleaners are net drains. Isn't the sensible thing to do to filter both?
Agence France-Presse @AFP 2m2 minutes ago #UPDATE Ukraine says anyone crossing in or out of areas controlled by separatists will have to show a passport http://u.afp.com/6Ru
The partitioning of Ukraine continues apace and it's Kiev thats hardening the fault lines.
TBF, an official partition would probably be in everyone's interests.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
But there's going to be a degree of variability even within that European number that's being hidden by that headline figure. I'm sure the engineers are net contributors and the minimum wage cleaners are net drains. Isn't the sensible thing to do to filter both?
Yes, the question is which is more damaging the UK economic: allowing a few cleaners into the country, or imposing a bureaucracy.
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
If both you and Isam are going to Dirty Dicks, I might make a special effort to come and watch. Both of you will be bringing your special battle-handbags, I presume?
I'll be bringing my 600 quid Louis Vuitton man bag to Dirty Dicks.
Nothing says I'm a flaming member of the multicultural metropolitan elite than that.
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
If both you and Isam are going to Dirty Dicks, I might make a special effort to come and watch. Both of you will be bringing your special battle-handbags, I presume?
I'll be bringing my 600 quid Louis Vuitton man bag to Dirty Dicks.
Nothing says I'm a flaming member of the multicultural metropolitan elite than that.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
I don't think it's even saying that. In the period since 1995 non-British born have been a net drain on the exchequer - because many who arrived in the 50s, 60s and 70s are now retired and are net withdrawers - but no account has been made of their contribution over the previous decades - just the net cost since 1995. In contrast when we look at the EU arrivals they are net contributers - tho of course, if they retire here that may balance out.....
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
Yes, the question is which is more damaging the UK economic: allowing a few cleaners into the country, or imposing a bureaucracy.
I suspect that depends on the value of "a few", if its thousands probably not, if its hundreds of thousands there might be room for concern. If its Big Issue sellers with 9 kids and a 14 year old niece begging then, pulling in £26k+ a year in benefits...
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
But there's going to be a degree of variability even within that European number that's being hidden by that headline figure. I'm sure the engineers are net contributors and the minimum wage cleaners are net drains. Isn't the sensible thing to do to filter both?
Yes, the question is which is more damaging the UK economic: allowing a few cleaners into the country, or imposing a bureaucracy.
I think it's more a case of allowing a huge number of unskilled migrants or extending the existing bureaucracy to cover EU migrants. It's not just cleaners: it's minimum wage retail workers, minimum wage builders, minimum wage agricultural workers etc, etc.
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
The Tap got into the top 40 political blogs a few times, then it was chopped from the list. Anyone who really takes on the system is made invisible in the rankings. I wondered how long our rankings presence would last. Once you blog that 9/11 is false flag, you become invisible. I wonder if comments on here can be made invisible other than to the commenter. There is software like that around.....
Tapestry, why are all your posts blank?
Who?
Quiet minion, and bow down to your lizard overlord, or else the secret weather weapon will be aimed in your general direction.
@GeorgeMonbiot: Here's my prediction. Unless @UKLabour swerves sharply away from austerity and neoliberalism, by 2025 it'll have less than 10 seats.
And if they do swerve sharply away they will still have 10 seats, because the economy will have imploded before 2025 and it will be 1979 for Labour all over again.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
What about illiterate third worlders who've been allowed into the EU and therefore have the right to settle in Britain? It's not all hardworking Polish plumbers you know.
The bottom line is we need control. There is no other sensible way forward.
The parameters of the study are mostly narrow, the calculations full of broad unsubstantiated assumptions and the conclusions mostly bollocks, and presented over the timeframe needed to give the biggest headline impact they can to suit the agenda of the study sponsors.
That sounds like the climate change debate in a nutshell
I'll get my coat
I have a scientific and engineering background. There is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real and happening, but the global warming lobby have alienated huge numbers of those on the centre-right by (a) trying to link it intrinsicably to an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist agenda, one they couldn't otherwise get away with advocating seriously. And (b) claiming there's no economic alternative to trying to totally stop it in its tracks *now* (unrealistic) rather than gradually shifting our energy use and production, and invest in human adaption to it to mitigate its effects in the meantime.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
You realise the economy is broader than taxes and benefits right? I know that might be hard for left wing "the state = society" people.
At the British Women's Conference, the first speaker from Bristol stood up: "At last year's conference we spoke about being more assertive with our husbands. Well after the conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer cook for him and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had cooked a wonderful roast lamb."
The crowd cheered.
The second speaker from Hammersmith stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his laundry and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I saw that he had done not only his own washing but my washing as well."
The crowd cheered.
The third speaker from Rochester stood up: "After last year's conference I went home and told my husband that I would no longer do his shopping and that he would have to do it himself. After the first day I saw nothing. After the second day I saw nothing. But after the third day I could see a little bit out of my left eye."
The Oscar Pistorious shooting your load over your girlfriend one.
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
If both you and Isam are going to Dirty Dicks, I might make a special effort to come and watch. Both of you will be bringing your special battle-handbags, I presume?
I'll be bringing my 600 quid Louis Vuitton man bag to Dirty Dicks.
Nothing says I'm a flaming member of the multicultural metropolitan elite than that.
I'm sure kippers will love it.
Eyes will be swivelling, as they assume Chuka has arrived at the party.
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
Of course he isn't a candidate... just a random on twitter
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
Do you mean to say that only one husband objected? Heavens what are we coming too.
The joke was amusing though.
A Conservative supporter was walking along the banks of the Thames in East London deep in prayer. All of a sudden he said out loud, "God, grant me one wish." Suddenly the sky clouded above his head and in a booming voice the God said, "Because you have had the faith to ask, I will grant you one wish." The man said, "Wow. That's amazing; what I would love is a bridge from Rotherhithe to Wapping, so as to ease the awful congestion."
God said, "Your request is very materialistic. Think of the logistics of that kind of undertaking. The concrete and steel it would take! I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of another wish, a wish you think would honor and glorify me."
The Conservative supporter thought for a long time. Finally he said, "God, all my friends are voting UKIP. Just let me know: what does David Cameron need to do to be loved by these Kippers?"
After a few minutes God said, "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"
The parameters of the study are mostly narrow, the calculations full of broad unsubstantiated assumptions and the conclusions mostly bollocks, and presented over the timeframe needed to give the biggest headline impact they can to suit the agenda of the study sponsors.
That sounds like the climate change debate in a nutshell
I'll get my coat
I have a scientific and engineering background. There is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real and happening, but the global warming lobby have alienated huge numbers of those on the centre-right by (a) trying to link it intrinsicably to an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist agenda, one they couldn't otherwise get away with advocating seriously. And (b) claiming there's no economic alternative to trying to totally stop it in its tracks *now* (unrealistic) rather than gradually shifting our energy use and production, and invest in human adaption to it to mitigate its effects in the meantime.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
The Tap got into the top 40 political blogs a few times, then it was chopped from the list. Anyone who really takes on the system is made invisible in the rankings. I wondered how long our rankings presence would last. Once you blog that 9/11 is false flag, you become invisible. I wonder if comments on here can be made invisible other than to the commenter. There is software like that around.....
Tapestry, why are all your posts blank?
Who?
Quiet minion, and bow down to your lizard overlord, or else the secret weather weapon will be aimed in your general direction.
Looking outside that may have happened already. Remarkable.
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
The Tap got into the top 40 political blogs a few times, then it was chopped from the list. Anyone who really takes on the system is made invisible in the rankings. I wondered how long our rankings presence would last. Once you blog that 9/11 is false flag, you become invisible. I wonder if comments on here can be made invisible other than to the commenter. There is software like that around.....
Tapestry, why are all your posts blank?
He's been actively censored by the Government and the Free Masons.
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
Of course he isn't a candidate... just a random on twitter
The parameters of the study are mostly narrow, the calculations full of broad unsubstantiated assumptions and the conclusions mostly bollocks, and presented over the timeframe needed to give the biggest headline impact they can to suit the agenda of the study sponsors.
That sounds like the climate change debate in a nutshell
I'll get my coat
I have a scientific and engineering background. There is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real and happening, but the global warming lobby have alienated huge numbers of those on the centre-right by (a) trying to link it intrinsicably to an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist agenda, one they couldn't otherwise get away with advocating seriously. And (b) claiming there's no economic alternative to trying to totally stop it in its tracks *now* (unrealistic) rather than gradually shifting our energy use and production, and invest in human adaption to it to mitigate its effects in the meantime.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
What an excellent post.
Yes that sums up the AGW situation quite handily. It is happening, but the needs of people to keep their heating on at a reasonable price are a very important consideration too.
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
Of course he isn't a candidate... just a random on twitter
Looks to me like a troll trying to make UKIP look bad then.
"But if Mr Miliband was PM in a minority Labour government, Mr Farage would use his MPs’ votes to keep him there."
Hardly a shock when he is trying to pull in Labour waverers. It also doesn't say what he would ask for in return, presumably a straight in/out referendum on a short timescale, which Mili wouldn't give him, leaving him free to walk away anytime he feels like it, and attracts Labour waverers in the mean time.
The parameters of the study are mostly narrow, the calculations full of broad unsubstantiated assumptions and the conclusions mostly bollocks, and presented over the timeframe needed to give the biggest headline impact they can to suit the agenda of the study sponsors.
That sounds like the climate change debate in a nutshell
I'll get my coat
I have a scientific and engineering background. There is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real and happening, but the global warming lobby have alienated huge numbers of those on the centre-right by (a) trying to link it intrinsicably to an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist agenda, one they couldn't otherwise get away with advocating seriously. And (b) claiming there's no economic alternative to trying to totally stop it in its tracks *now* (unrealistic) rather than gradually shifting our energy use and production, and invest in human adaption to it to mitigate its effects in the meantime.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
Most of the no betting posts are partisan handbag slinging or vacuous retweets - rarely does a post so concisely sum up a contentious situation in an even handed and excellent manner such as this:
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
What about illiterate third worlders who've been allowed into the EU and therefore have the right to settle in Britain? It's not all hardworking Polish plumbers you know.
The bottom line is we need control. There is no other sensible way forward.
Talk about picking out niff naff and trivia. The facts don't support the hysterical anti-immigration case regardless of consituent elements.
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
You realise the economy is broader than taxes and benefits right? I know that might be hard for left wing "the state = society" people.
You do realise that taxes and benefits reflect the state of the underlying economy right?
The parameters of the study are mostly narrow, the calculations full of broad unsubstantiated assumptions and the conclusions mostly bollocks, and presented over the timeframe needed to give the biggest headline impact they can to suit the agenda of the study sponsors.
That sounds like the climate change debate in a nutshell
I'll get my coat
I have a scientific and engineering background. There is no doubt in my mind that AGW is real and happening, but the global warming lobby have alienated huge numbers of those on the centre-right by (a) trying to link it intrinsicably to an anti-capitalist and eco-socialist agenda, one they couldn't otherwise get away with advocating seriously. And (b) claiming there's no economic alternative to trying to totally stop it in its tracks *now* (unrealistic) rather than gradually shifting our energy use and production, and invest in human adaption to it to mitigate its effects in the meantime.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
Oh please.
There's this massive issue, ie. AGW, but let's ignore it or tiptoe around it so as not to upset the emotionally fragile right wing!
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
Ben,
When I started my history degree my tutor hammered home the lesson that when looking at a source document one must always consider:
1. When it was written - in relation the events it relates to?
2. Who wrote it- what do we know about the author, their standpoint in relation to the subject in hand?
3. Who was it written for - who was the intended audience?
4. Why was it written - what was the author hoping to achieve?
unless one considers at least those four questions then one can easily be misled as to the value of a document in describing an event or, worse mistake, political polemic for history.
I mention this as you may find applying the lesson beneficial. All the best.
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also benefical to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
You are referring to the immigration report right?
If so you do realise that it was written by the same bloke that proclaimed in 2004 that immigration from Eastern European countries would be very low, maybe 13,000 a year?
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14% Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30% Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22% Lab Maj 9% Something else 7% DK 16%
@Ishmael_X "Dear old Kelly does sound a teeny bit vacuous there"
Possibly, but as there is at the moment a Sikh festival, where it is incumbent on them to feed all the poor ( including non Sikh's), perhaps she could be forgiven for being inclusive?
The Sikh (and indeed the Indian) community has been in the Medway towns and in North West Kent for a long time. The original comment from Ukiper "Laurence" is highly offensive. I'm no social liberal myself but his remark is blatantly racist and sadly indicative of some of the Ukip hangers-on. Kelly is actually doing well and I'll be interested to see the next R & S poll.
I agree, but what is to stop someone who wishes either to use UKIPs popularity as a vehicle for popularising their own racist views, or someone who wants to make UKIP look bad, from tweeting things like this?
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
Of course he isn't a candidate... just a random on twitter
He appears to live in Belfast, and according to his tweets he doesn't like the DUP because they are not right wing enough...
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
What about illiterate third worlders who've been allowed into the EU and therefore have the right to settle in Britain? It's not all hardworking Polish plumbers you know.
The bottom line is we need control. There is no other sensible way forward.
Talk about picking out niff naff and trivia. The facts don't support the hysterical anti-immigration case regardless of consituent elements.
It's really important for Ed to keep pushing the proEU/immigration line - We're with you all the way there BenM.
Is this Laurence person really a UKIP candidate? If so, time he was chopped -his comment was nasty and not constructive. I don't mind someone breaking the rules of PC, but only in the cause of truth, not to be mean-spirited.
Of course he isn't a candidate... just a random on twitter
He appears to live in Belfast, and according to his tweets he doesn't like the DUP because they are not right wing enough...
Quite invested in 'vote Reckless' for someone not even on the same landmass.
And he delivers a special side order of misery for Scottish Labour as well:
"The answer for Labour, you might think, is obvious: break with the New Labour timidity that created the space for the SNP, put the interests of working-class voters who backed independence centre stage, and embrace the progressive mood in the country. One of the candidates standing to lead Labour in Scotland, the Edinburgh parliamentarian Neil Findlay, wants to do just that – and put “clear red water” between Labour and the SNP. But the establishment and media favourite Jim Murphy – the austerity and Iraq war enthusiast who championed campaigning for a no vote in harness with the Tories – wants a return to tried-and-failed Blairite formulas.
That would seal Labour’s fate in Scotland – and possibly the rest of Britain, for that matter. Ed Miliband won Labour’s leadership making clear he understood the failure of the economic model and public revulsion at the elites. When he’s turned that into popular policy, as he did last autumn by promising to crack down on the energy cartels, Labour support has surged. But when Labour’s leaders cling to Treasury orthodoxy and drift back towards New Labour tinkering, the numbers slide and Miliband’s media-inflated quirks take centre stage. The lesson from across Europe is there are no political prizes for embracing austerity – it spells failure in opposition and disintegration in government."
Dr. Spyn, sad to see both that the effigies of Salmond were withdrawn due to shrieking protest, and that the police are investigating.
The police, of course, who routinely don't have the resources to investigate actual crime.
Mr. Isam, I'd beg to differ. Nothing wrong with having a joke about blonde men, inverting the usual dumb blonde joke by swapping genders. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a whacking off joke about women rather than men.
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14% Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30% Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22% Lab Maj 9% Something else 7% DK 16%
The most extraordinary pair of results in that poll for me concern Nigel Farage:
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55 TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15 Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61 Not sure 24
Dr. Spyn, sad to see both that the effigies of Salmond were withdrawn due to shrieking protest, and that the police are investigating.
The police, of course, who routinely don't have the resources to investigate actual crime.
Mr. Isam, I'd beg to differ. Nothing wrong with having a joke about blonde men, inverting the usual dumb blonde joke by swapping genders. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a whacking off joke about women rather than men.
Doesn't work for me but as we have seen this morning, humour is subjective
19% of people now think that Ed is up to the job of being PM. 54% of current Labour voters. If that is not a soft vote liable to crumbing in the election campaign I really don't know what is.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
You realise the economy is broader than taxes and benefits right? I know that might be hard for left wing "the state = society" people.
You do realise that taxes and benefits reflect the state of the underlying economy right?
Agreed. Crippling taxes and as many people as possible on benefits is a sign the economy is booming.
So Labour's 2004 decision to not impose restrictions on citizens from the A8 countries was enormously beneficial to the country economically with few social issues. End of story in that regard.
On the politics however it was also benefical to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
You are referring to the immigration report right?
If so you do realise that it was written by the same bloke that proclaimed in 2004 that immigration from Eastern European countries would be very low, maybe 13,000 a year?
Not very bright is he?
You understand the qualitative difference between a 'prediction' and an analysis of historical data right?
Not understanding this fundamental difference rather calls your own intelligence into question does it not?
And not forgetting that 13k forecast was based on assumption ALL countries would open their borders. In the event only the UK, Ireland and Sweden did.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
What about illiterate third worlders who've been allowed into the EU and therefore have the right to settle in Britain? It's not all hardworking Polish plumbers you know.
The bottom line is we need control. There is no other sensible way forward.
Talk about picking out niff naff and trivia. The facts don't support the hysterical anti-immigration case regardless of consituent elements.
I quite agree, we don't need hysteria, we need control. That way if it turns out we need more immigration, we can get it. If we need less we can get it. You can huff and puff but the bottom line is whether pro or anti, having control is the only sensible way forward.
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14% Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30% Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22% Lab Maj 9% Something else 7% DK 16%
The most extraordinary pair of results in that poll for me concern Nigel Farage:
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55 TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15 Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61 Not sure 24
Make of that pair of answers what you will.
My partner's mother thinks Farage is doing an excellent job but would never ever vote for him, and would certainly not like to see him as Prime Minister.
OTOH I think Ed Miliband is doing a poor job as Labour Leader but would probably do a passable job as PM.
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14% Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30% Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22% Lab Maj 9% Something else 7% DK 16%
The most extraordinary pair of results in that poll for me concern Nigel Farage:
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55 TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15 Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61 Not sure 24
Make of that pair of answers what you will.
Maybe that being the leader of a protest party requires a different skill set to being PM and that Nigel is rather good at the former and not particularly interested in the latter? I think I would be with the majority in both cases here.
One of my favourites from the PB archive of jokes. A frog goes into a bank and approaches the teller. He can see from her nameplate that her name is Patricia Whack. 'Miss Whack, I'd like to get a £30,000 loan to take a holiday.' Patty looks at the frog in disbelief and asks his name. The frog says his name is Kermit Jagger, his dad is Mick Jagger, and that it's okay, he knows the bank manager. Patty explains that he will need to secure the loan with some collateral. The frog says, 'Sure. I have this' and produces a tiny porcelain elephant, about an inch tall, bright pink and perfectly formed. Very confused, Patty explains that she'll have to consult with the bank manager and disappears into a back office. She finds the manager and says 'There's a frog called Kermit Jagger out there who claims to know you and wants to borrow £30,000 and he wants to use this as collateral.' She holds up the tiny pink elephant. 'I mean, what in the world is this?' The bank manager looks back at her and says... .....'It's a knickknack, Patty Whack. Give the frog a loan. His old man's a Rolling Stone.'
... and embrace the progressive mood in the country....
What is he smoking. The progressive consensus always was fantasyland, and when people are tightening their belts and worrying about the economic realities, they tend to become even more (small c) conservative than usual. I think most people are less concerned that things get better than they are that things dont get any worse, and those are tough times to sell a radical policy program. The reason Farage is winning hearts and minds is because he is proposing a program of (small c) conservatism, which appeals to fearful WWC and elderly voters, and disaffected Conservatives that feel their party is too liberal and to detached from their everyday life. Its the whole "understands people like us" issue.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
Shadow cabinet ministers admitted fears that backbenchers were circulating a letter asking the Labour leader to stand aside for the good of the party. Challenging Mr Miliband’s critics to “put up or shut up”, a loyalist said: “Let’s see if they’ve got the names or not.”
One Labour insider suggested that Douglas Alexander, who is in charge of the manifesto, had been “whacked”, though last night he remained in charge of the campaign’s strategy.
BenM - I asked Polish carers I know if a restriction of benefits for 3 years would hurt them. They said the early entrants came to work, as they did, but the later Poles come for the benefits and the UK is mad to allow it. Perhaps you are not up to date.
"But if Mr Miliband was PM in a minority Labour government, Mr Farage would use his MPs’ votes to keep him there."
Hardly a shock when he is trying to pull in Labour waverers. It also doesn't say what he would ask for in return, presumably a straight in/out referendum on a short timescale, which Mili wouldn't give him, leaving him free to walk away anytime he feels like it, and attracts Labour waverers in the mean time.
UKIP had better hope that they DONT hold the balance of power as they don't really want to have power at this time.
19% of people now think that Ed is up to the job of being PM. 54% of current Labour voters. If that is not a soft vote liable to crumbing in the election campaign I really don't know what is.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
That is of course the received wisdom but I notice plotters against Ed within his own election team have recently been reshuffled out. There must be a point where dumping Ed becomes a better option than carrying on regardless even if the GE is only 6 months away.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
Shadow cabinet ministers admitted fears that backbenchers were circulating a letter asking the Labour leader to stand aside for the good of the party. Challenging Mr Miliband’s critics to “put up or shut up”, a loyalist said: “Let’s see if they’ve got the names or not.”
One Labour insider suggested that Douglas Alexander, who is in charge of the manifesto, had been “whacked”, though last night he remained in charge of the campaign’s strategy.
I think Wee Dougie might be quite happy now he is no longer the only name in the frame for Labours crushing defeat
That consideration doesn't seem to have weighed too heavily with him in the past, considering his existing record of involvement with less-than-successful campaigns.
Have seen 'amusing' tweets about car registrations, detective work with SNP hashtag etc - there are some with brain cells in mint condition out there.
Salmond is just another bumptious prick whose bubble has burst.
The second effigy of a kilted Salmond at stool is excellent. In the tradition of Spitting Image. Only the most boring elements could object to this joyous expression of popular sentiment.
19% of people now think that Ed is up to the job of being PM. 54% of current Labour voters. If that is not a soft vote liable to crumbing in the election campaign I really don't know what is.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
I suspect now that Lucy Powell is in charge of Ed’s election campaign, things will change drastically for him – didn’t she tweet her plans to get Ed out and meet the people cause he’s an asset to the party?
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14% Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30% Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22% Lab Maj 9% Something else 7% DK 16%
The most extraordinary pair of results in that poll for me concern Nigel Farage:
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55 TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15 Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61 Not sure 24
Make of that pair of answers what you will.
Reminds me of that ComRes poll from a few years ago when the public were concurrently in favour and opposed to state regulation of the media.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
Does the report look at the situation overall or on a year-by-year basis?
It is just that the demographics of which Europeans migrated to the UK over the years has changed substantially.
Reminds me of that ComRes poll from a few years ago when the public were concurrently in favour and opposed to state regulation of the media.
Or indeed almost any budget issues, where the public will simultaneously be in favour of a new spending initiative, but not raising the taxes necessary to pay for it.
The most extraordinary pair of results in that poll for me concern Nigel Farage:
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55 TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15 Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61 Not sure 24
Make of that pair of answers what you will.
Not that extraordinary - the public agree he is doing ok at raising the profile of his fruitcake fringe party but obviously they don't want him anywhere near no 10.
The BBC of course headlines with the +£4bn line on EU migrants (ignoring those from pre-2001) rather than the -£95bn for all immigrants for the whole period.
The BBC headlined with the relevant recent migrants figure.
The floundering anti-imigration frothers have gone for the other figure without realising it's talking about the impact from all non UK born in the specified period regardless when they immigrated (and hence their initial contribution which may have been made in the 60s, 70s or 80s)!
The Telegraph got caught out with its pants down on this point yesterday when trying to link that passage to migration under Labour - although those migrants may have come here decades before.
BenM: if you remove the link with immigration during the post-1997 period, isn't the point the same i.e. that the report shows that the economic impact of all immigrants is a minus figure?
A genuine question btw. I haven't had the time to read the report.
I think the point it made was that immigration from the EU has been generally very good for the country, and immigration from outside the EU had not been. Given the extreme variability of non-EU immigration (American hedge fund managers plus illiterate third world'ers), it would suggest the correct thing to do would be clamp down on third world immigration, but leave the doors open to our European breatheren.
Does the report look at the situation overall or on a year-by-year basis?
It is just that the demographics of which Europeans migrated to the UK over the years has changed substantially.
Just wondering.
I think it does. Will be able to dig it out later.
Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg Gordon Brown/Alex Salmond/Nigel Farage - insert name of detested jumped up humourless party leader of choice.
David Cameron falls into the sea. He is being dragged out to sea by a rip tide. A young boy dives in to the sea without hesitation, swims out and rescues the drowning man..
The grateful politician says 'what do you want as a reward for saving my life?'
The kid answers, 'A state funeral, because when I tell my father about who I have just rescued'...
19% of people now think that Ed is up to the job of being PM. 54% of current Labour voters. If that is not a soft vote liable to crumbing in the election campaign I really don't know what is.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
I suspect now that Lucy Powell is in charge of Ed’s election campaign, things will change drastically for him – didn’t she tweet her plans to get Ed out and meet the people cause he’s an asset to the party?
It doesn't affect me as I have a Freedom Pass, as guaranteed by those kindly mayors Boris and Ken, but I'm baffled by TfL's decision to encourage people to move away from their "house" Oyster card to the contactless cards, which presumably charge TfL for the privilege. If there was some huge demand from customers to switch it might be different, but everyone seemed perfectly happy with Oyster.
It's the second odd TfL decision - the other is the actively anti-tourist policy of refusing to take cash. If you're a tourist arriving late in the evening and finding that the bus driver turns you off and tells you to find a Tube station to buy a card, it must be really tough (I've seen this happen to a poor soul with two big suitcases). Perhaps the two things are linked and tourists have contactless cards, but I don't think so?
Comments
Not quite as bad as The Kipper Tie joke...
I liked it.
But PB's Mary Whitehouse is a bit upset over it
Given we were in Dundee this went down remarkably well.
'I'm thor too, I can hardly thit down.
Unfortunately, all the best jokes are in bad taste.
Do you mean to say that only one husband objected? Heavens what are we coming too.
The joke was amusing though.
It's TSE's joke, he said it and wont apologise so obviously thinks its really funny, so I'll let him do the honours
Three builders are at work, sitting high up on scaffolding, eating their packed lunches. The first, a chap with black hair, sighs.
"Tuna sandwiches. Again! I must've complained about tuna sodding sandwiches a hundred times. If I get them one more bloody day I'll throw myself off this building!"
The second, a redhead, opens his lunchbox and finds tuna sandwiches. "Christ on his cross, I'll join you if I end up with these damned things again!"
The third, a blonde, open his lunchbox. Sure enough, it's tuna. "Tuna for me as well! One more damned time and *I'll* jump as well!"
The next day, they're back there. The brunette opens his lunchbox, angrily flings the tuna sandwiches away and then leaps from the building to his death. The redhead also finds he has tuna sandwiches, and jumps to his doom. And then the blonde, crying with rage, kills himself the same way.
The three men are buried on the same day, and their wives (who happen to have corresponding hair colour) are there. The brunette and redhead are weeping uncontrollably and blaming themselves, asking why they never listened to their husbands' complaints. The blonde looks sad but isn't beating herself up.
"What's wrong with you? Don't you feel guilty?" the other two wives ask.
The blonde sighs. "I'm sad he's gone, but he made his own sandwiches."
Nothing says I'm a flaming member of the multicultural metropolitan elite than that.
I'm sure kippers will love it.
God said, "Your request is very materialistic. Think of the logistics of that kind of undertaking. The concrete and steel it would take! I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of another wish, a wish you think would honor and glorify me."
The Conservative supporter thought for a long time. Finally he said, "God, all my friends are voting UKIP. Just let me know: what does David Cameron need to do to be loved by these Kippers?"
After a few minutes God said, "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"
#UPDATE Ukraine says anyone crossing in or out of areas controlled by separatists will have to show a passport http://u.afp.com/6Ru
The partitioning of Ukraine continues apace and it's Kiev thats hardening the fault lines.
Time to buy Russian equities?
The worst thing was, she didn't have an inheritance for me.
*Aunty is the Pakistan close family friend sense
**She called me a "Zalaam Bacha" which is Urdu for Cruel child, which made me think of Lady Whiteadder as she slapped me (note I was 25 at the time)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2708965/Worried-Apples-new-iPhone-6-wont-bling-Diamond-encrusted-platinum-version-goes-sale-8800-yellow-pink-gold-versions.html
On the politics however it was also beneficial to the non thinking Right, which has used immigration to spread unwarranted fear and bash Labour ever since. Labour did not help themselves in that regard, basically dancing to the same tune under a spineless Tony Blair.
The facts are on Labour's side.
The screaming fact free hysteria benefits the Tories and UKIP though.
"But if Mr Miliband was PM in a minority Labour government, Mr Farage would use his MPs’ votes to keep him there."
The bottom line is we need control. There is no other sensible way forward.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that they invite an entire wing of the political spectrum to disagree with them when they adopt that approach.
*innocent face*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29921797
Have seen 'amusing' tweets about car registrations, detective work with SNP hashtag etc - there are some with brain cells in mint condition out there.
Salmond is just another bumptious prick whose bubble has burst.
Post of the Year in my opinion.
Three football supporters go into a church and God appears to them.
"Gosh," says the Arsenal supporter (as they do). "If you're God," he asks. "You know everything. When will Arsenal next win the Premiership?"
"In the year, 2067." says God.
"That's no good," says the Gooner. "I'll be dead by then."
The Liverpool supporter asks the same question about Liverpool.
"In the year, 2088," says God.
""That's no good," says the Scouser. "I'll be dead by then."
The Tottenham supporter asks the same question about Spurs.
"I don't know," says God. "I'll be dead by then."
Ed Miliband is doing worse now, than Gordon Brown was in 2009?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fkwiozqgyy/SunResults_141105_leaders_and_next_election_Website.pdf
There's this massive issue, ie. AGW, but let's ignore it or tiptoe around it so as not to upset the emotionally fragile right wing!
The economic facts of life are somewhat Darwinian.
When I started my history degree my tutor hammered home the lesson that when looking at a source document one must always consider:
1. When it was written - in relation the events it relates to?
2. Who wrote it- what do we know about the author, their standpoint in relation to the subject in hand?
3. Who was it written for - who was the intended audience?
4. Why was it written - what was the author hoping to achieve?
unless one considers at least those four questions then one can easily be misled as to the value of a document in describing an event or, worse mistake, political polemic for history.
I mention this as you may find applying the lesson beneficial. All the best.
If so you do realise that it was written by the same bloke that proclaimed in 2004 that immigration from Eastern European countries would be very low, maybe 13,000 a year?
Not very bright is he?
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you think is the most LIKELY result of the general election next year?
Con Maj 14%
Hung Parliament, with the Tories as the biggest Party 30%
Hung Parliament, with Lab as the biggest Party 22%
Lab Maj 9%
Something else 7%
DK 16%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29919075
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/06/centre-austerity-britain-europe-ireland-spain-eu
And he delivers a special side order of misery for Scottish Labour as well:
"The answer for Labour, you might think, is obvious: break with the New Labour timidity that created the space for the SNP, put the interests of working-class voters who backed independence centre stage, and embrace the progressive mood in the country. One of the candidates standing to lead Labour in Scotland, the Edinburgh parliamentarian Neil Findlay, wants to do just that – and put “clear red water” between Labour and the SNP. But the establishment and media favourite Jim Murphy – the austerity and Iraq war enthusiast who championed campaigning for a no vote in harness with the Tories – wants a return to tried-and-failed Blairite formulas.
That would seal Labour’s fate in Scotland – and possibly the rest of Britain, for that matter. Ed Miliband won Labour’s leadership making clear he understood the failure of the economic model and public revulsion at the elites. When he’s turned that into popular policy, as he did last autumn by promising to crack down on the energy cartels, Labour support has surged. But when Labour’s leaders cling to Treasury orthodoxy and drift back towards New Labour tinkering, the numbers slide and Miliband’s media-inflated quirks take centre stage. The lesson from across Europe is there are no political prizes for embracing austerity – it spells failure in opposition and disintegration in government."
The police, of course, who routinely don't have the resources to investigate actual crime.
Mr. Isam, I'd beg to differ. Nothing wrong with having a joke about blonde men, inverting the usual dumb blonde joke by swapping genders. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a whacking off joke about women rather than men.
Doubt that is the pejorative adjective I would use to describe Mr Blair.
Shameless, evil, mendacious, conniving, narcissistic perhaps... but definitely not spineless.
Do you think that Nigel Farage is doing well or badly as leader of the UK Independence Party?
TOTAL WELL 55
TOTAL BADLY 25
And regardless of what you think the most likely result is, do you think the following would or would not be up to job of Prime Minister?
Nigel Farage
Would be up to the job of Prime Minister 15
Would not be up to the job of Prime Minister 61
Not sure 24
Make of that pair of answers what you will.
Either his numbers get a lot better or Labour will lose. Its too late to get someone else now.
Not understanding this fundamental difference rather calls your own intelligence into question does it not?
And not forgetting that 13k forecast was based on assumption ALL countries would open their borders. In the event only the UK, Ireland and Sweden did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21682810
OTOH I think Ed Miliband is doing a poor job as Labour Leader but would probably do a passable job as PM.
A frog goes into a bank and approaches the teller. He can see from her nameplate that her name is Patricia Whack.
'Miss Whack, I'd like to get a £30,000 loan to take a holiday.'
Patty looks at the frog in disbelief and asks his name. The frog says his name is Kermit Jagger, his dad is Mick Jagger, and that it's okay, he knows the bank manager.
Patty explains that he will need to secure the loan with some collateral.
The frog says, 'Sure. I have this' and produces a tiny porcelain elephant, about an inch tall, bright pink and perfectly formed.
Very confused, Patty explains that she'll have to consult with the bank manager and disappears into a back office.
She finds the manager and says 'There's a frog called Kermit Jagger out there who claims to know you and wants to borrow £30,000 and he wants to use this as collateral.'
She holds up the tiny pink elephant. 'I mean, what in the world is this?'
The bank manager looks back at her and says...
.....'It's a knickknack, Patty Whack. Give the frog a loan. His old man's a Rolling Stone.'
I think Wee Dougie might be quite happy now he is no longer the only name in the frame for Labours crushing defeat
I think Wee Dougie might be quite happy now he is no longer the only name in the frame for Labours crushing defeat
That consideration doesn't seem to have weighed too heavily with him in the past, considering his existing record of involvement with less-than-successful campaigns.
It is just that the demographics of which Europeans migrated to the UK over the years has changed substantially.
Just wondering.
Three pregnant women at an ante-natal clinic are sitting together and knitting.
The first one stops knitting and leans over to take a tablet from a bag next to her.
“What’s that?” the others ask.
“It’s an iron tablet,” she says. “Stops the baby being born with anaemia.”
The second one stops knitting and leans over to take a tablet from a bag next to her.
“What’s that?” the others ask.
“It’s folic acid,” she says. “Helps prevent NTDs in the baby.”
The third one stops knitting and leans over to take a tablet from a bag next to her.
“What’s that?” the others ask.
“Thalidomide,” she says. “I could never do sleeves.”
David Cameron falls into the sea. He is being dragged out to sea by a rip tide. A young boy dives in to the sea without hesitation, swims out and rescues the drowning man..
The grateful politician says 'what do you want as a reward for saving my life?'
The kid answers, 'A state funeral, because when I tell my father about who I have just rescued'...
It's the second odd TfL decision - the other is the actively anti-tourist policy of refusing to take cash. If you're a tourist arriving late in the evening and finding that the bus driver turns you off and tells you to find a Tube station to buy a card, it must be really tough (I've seen this happen to a poor soul with two big suitcases). Perhaps the two things are linked and tourists have contactless cards, but I don't think so?