If you're desperate and living in overcrowded accomodation, David Cameron in on your side. Ed Miliband is on the side of those with spare bedrooms which they don't need, and which are provided at taxpayers' expense.
Less than 5% of households affected by the Bedroom Tax have been able to downsize, whereas 59% of households affected are now in rent arrears (as at December 2013).
Pretending that this was ever about freeing up accommodation for other households is myopic at best.
Nonsense. This is about reversing a problem which has been allowed to build up over decades. Who on earth expected it all to be fixed in the first year or two?
In any case, it's all very well carping. What would you actually do about the scandal that there were a million taxpayer-subsidised spare bedrooms (get your head around that number...it is just mind-boggling), at a time when there are also massive problems of overcrowding for families on the waiting-list?
The answer is.. Labour would do nothing. Not a sausage. Just keep taking the money from the taxpayer, and wasting it.
Labour doesn't care, does it? It just sees the entire issue as one on which it can stir up synthetic outrage and demonise the good faith of those who are actually trying to fix things.
Well done Sporting Index for putting up a market, and a fairly risky one at that.
I can't see any massive value anywhere, but the percentage vote offer seems to have killed Betfair's equivalent stone dead. It was never very active anyway but the liquidity has now dried up, presumably because serious punters can see that SPIN offers better value.
I've bought UKIP for a fiver at 44.5% but I don't expect to win or lose much either way.
An interesting comment that will no doubt leave some here frothing at its outrageous nature and implicit racism,
"“Most people I know here have worked hard their lives, played by the rules and paid their fair share, but we sometimes struggle to access the services we need because of uncontrolled immigration. Others don’t feel safe walking down the high street of our town."
Got your outrage going, Mr. Eagles? The quote is, I am told, from the Conservative candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election. Miss Tolhurst is also it would appear deeply concerned about the effects uncontrolled immigration has had on the Constituency,
“I wanted to bring the prime minister to this constituency to show him that uncontrolled immigration has hurt this area. I told him we need action, not just talk.”
I don't know about you but that such sentiments are being expressed by the Conservative Party candidate does make me wonder.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
And the reason I am still in the Conservative Party is that there are plenty of people I don't like and don't trust in UKIP. That a good proportion of them left the Conservatives makes it it a happier home. No doubt there will be some real losses - and I count you amongst that number - but to be frank, many who have gone to UKIP were those who made me cringe inwardly with their Jurassic period attitudes....
And that echoes Casino Royale's point quite neatly. Too many people on the Right intensely dislike the views of other people on the Right. I don't think that Left wingers (currently) make that mistake.
It's a 'spare' room that has been reinforced and adapted by the police to be secure. This isn't just someone saying they are a bit scared - this is a woman who was raped and beaten by her ex-partner who the police judge to be at substantial risk.
But why is she still living in the same house as someone that has raped and beaten her, and hence apparently often in terror, and why isn't he either in jail or at another location under some sort of restraining order ?
She doesn't live in the same house. However there is still a risk that he can find her and her child. I trust the police's judgement on this, and would suggest you do too.
(And in light of your grim comment down thread about hiding from a frisky husband, you'll forgive me if I don't give your opinion on this much weight.)
The remarks by Miliband are preposterous. And you are a joke for repeating them.
Cameron backs the #bedroomtax but not the #mansiontax. If you’ve got big money you’ve a friend in this PM; if not, he couldn’t care less.
You need to calm down dear - I know it's hard to hear your leader being out-klassed again in the H/C - I suggest you wrap yourself up in a copy of the Guardian, there's normally quite a lot of unsold copies going cheap.
Cameron is crap at answering questions though isnt he?
If you really think he won PMQs you are mad.
Like I said - you really need to chill - The guardian says you won so why are you so uptight with the manic posts - you totally give the game away I'm afraid. You all know your leader is crap with no policies beyond the NHS [minus Wales] and 'we all hate the Tories' - which is why your result tomorrow will be even more embarassing for Labour.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
And the reason I am still in the Conservative Party is that there are plenty of people I don't like and don't trust in UKIP. That a good proportion of them left the Conservatives makes it it a happier home. No doubt there will be some real losses - and I count you amongst that number - but to be frank, many who have gone to UKIP were those who made me cringe inwardly with their Jurassic period attitudes....
Ironically the reason I am a CON/UKIP waverer is because the two Tories I have most time for are Hannan and Carswell, one's in, one's out. If Hannan jumped ship that would pretty much seal the deal for me.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
An interesting comment that will no doubt leave some here frothing at its outrageous nature and implicit racism,
"“Most people I know here have worked hard their lives, played by the rules and paid their fair share, but we sometimes struggle to access the services we need because of uncontrolled immigration. Others don’t feel safe walking down the high street of our town."
Got your outrage going, Mr. Eagles? The quote is, I am told, from the Conservative candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election. Miss Tolhurst is also it would appear deeply concerned about the effects uncontrolled immigration has had on the Constituency,
“I wanted to bring the prime minister to this constituency to show him that uncontrolled immigration has hurt this area. I told him we need action, not just talk.”
I don't know about you but that such sentiments are being expressed by the Conservative Party candidate does make me wonder.
Have the Tory party had to issue a clarification to say she wasn't in favour of repatriation like UKIP had to do with the pig dog traitor?
The REAL pig-dog traitors are those wot signed away our great nation's sovereignty in 1973 and 1992!
I used to quite admire TSE but I am afraid his bitterness as a result of the defection of two MPs from his beloved party has driven him to such extremes of smear and dishonesty that I generally view him these days as a bit of a nutter.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
And that echoes Casino Royale's point quite neatly. Too many people on the Right intensely dislike the views of other people on the Right. I don't think that Left wingers (currently) make that mistake.
Not so sure about that, Sean. Labour seems full of people who hate Blairites, for example.
The whole thing seems very odd to me. I don't regard the Conservative Party as a social club. Amongst the party members I know are some I like a lot and some I don't so much, and some whose views are close to mine and some less so, just as there are in any organization I might be involved in. So what? The object of a political party is to get into government and run the country better than the alternatives on offer, and that involves working with people with a range of views.
At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about
You can thank Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell for that. EVERYTHING became about spin, messaging, politics. It's difficult to have a reasoned debate abput anything much these days - you'll get swamped by spin merchants and those who live to be offended or score points. Our political culture moved very much away from content towards perception during the New Labour years.
At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about
You can thank Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell for that. EVERYTHING became about spin, messaging, politics. It's difficult to have a reasoned debate abput anything much these days - you'll get swamped by spin merchants and those who live to be offended or score points. Our political culture moved very much away from content towards perception during the New Labour years.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Agreed you have a better chance of a one legged man winning an Arse Kicking competition than getting an actual answer
And that echoes Casino Royale's point quite neatly. Too many people on the Right intensely dislike the views of other people on the Right. I don't think that Left wingers (currently) make that mistake.
... I don't regard the Conservative Party as a socialdating club.
It certainly was around 35 years ago. I am living proof of that.
And that echoes Casino Royale's point quite neatly. Too many people on the Right intensely dislike the views of other people on the Right. I don't think that Left wingers (currently) make that mistake.
... I don't regard the Conservative Party as a socialdating club.
It certainly was around 35 years ago. I am living proof of that.
If you're desperate and living in overcrowded accomodation, David Cameron in on your side. Ed Miliband is on the side of those with spare bedrooms which they don't need, and which are provided at taxpayers' expense.
Less than 5% of households affected by the Bedroom Tax have been able to downsize, whereas 59% of households affected are now in rent arrears (as at December 2013).
Pretending that this was ever about freeing up accommodation for other households is myopic at best.
Nonsense. This is about reversing a problem which has been allowed to build up over decades. Who on earth expected it all to be fixed in the first year or two?
In any case, it's all very well carping. What would you actually do about the scandal that there were a million taxpayer-subsidised spare bedrooms (get your head around that number...it is just mind-boggling), at a time when there are also massive problems of overcrowding for families on the waiting-list?
The answer is.. Labour would do nothing. Not a sausage. Just keep taking the money from the taxpayer, and wasting it.
Labour doesn't care, does it? It just sees the entire issue as one on which it can stir up synthetic outrage and demonise the good faith of those who are actually trying to fix things.
Nonsense? Those figures from the DWPs own paper I'm afraid.
And yes, you are right, this will change over time... because eventually those 59% with arrears will be evicted, what an excellent result for all involved and wider society.
I don't speak for Labour (having never voted for them) but a fairer way to approach this would have been to impose it on new tenancies rather than existing ones.
If this really was about the practical outcomes for homeless/overcrowded families it would have been extended to pensioners, who make up the vast bulk of under-occupied properties in the social rented sector.
And in any event, even if the policy had been imposed in good faith, the amounts saved would have been a rounding error in the DWP budget (and in many cases just leading to increased costs elsewhere, by people moving into the more expensive private-rented sector or having to be accepted as homeless with all the costs associated with that).
I have lurked here for a long time, and usually take the time to read your comments Richard, but on this issue your position bears no relation to the real world.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
Well, it looks like Cameron has concentrated the toxin, not expelled it, judging by you.
Driving Christians out of the Conservative Party was hardly likely to improve the quality, was it?
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
An interesting comment that will no doubt leave some here frothing at its outrageous nature and implicit racism,
"“Most people I know here have worked hard their lives, played by the rules and paid their fair share, but we sometimes struggle to access the services we need because of uncontrolled immigration. Others don’t feel safe walking down the high street of our town."
Got your outrage going, Mr. Eagles? The quote is, I am told, from the Conservative candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election. Miss Tolhurst is also it would appear deeply concerned about the effects uncontrolled immigration has had on the Constituency,
“I wanted to bring the prime minister to this constituency to show him that uncontrolled immigration has hurt this area. I told him we need action, not just talk.”
I don't know about you but that such sentiments are being expressed by the Conservative Party candidate does make me wonder.
Have the Tory party had to issue a clarification to say she wasn't in favour of repatriation like UKIP had to do with the pig dog traitor?
The REAL pig-dog traitors are those wot signed away our great nation's sovereignty in 1973 and 1992!
I used to quite admire TSE but I am afraid his bitterness as a result of the defection of two MPs from his beloved party has driven him to such extremes of smear and dishonesty that I generally view him these days as a bit of a nutter.
For the final time, defections have happened in the past, and they will happen again in the future.
What irked me about Mark Reckless' defector, apart from the fact, he ruined my planned quiet Saturday afternoon in September, was his defection, was timed to caused maximum damage to the Tory party (which was ironic, considering the whining and moaning Kippers about Cameron recalling parliament during their conference)
When Carswell defected, I praised him when others condemned him for the timing of his defection, I said, he had to defect now, otherwise if he waited until after the the Indyref, his defection would have dominated the conference season.
I still give praise to Carswell and Reckless for putting themselves up for re-election, hopefully it will be a custom for all future defectors, whatever their parties.
When a relative of mine had a problem with an abusive and violent boyfriend the police came and provided additional security to her front door including bolts and other supports that made it much more difficult to kick in.
Maybe the policy has changed but having security inside the flat seems very odd to me. For houses I have again heard of additional security being added to windows etc. But nothing inside.
This may be a truly exceptional case but as a basis for challenging a national tax which has substantial discretional payments built into it it looks like a contrived nonsense. Remember how many people supposedly needed an extra room for their dialysis machines until Mr Sox (I think) posted a picture of something that would fit in the average drawer?
The problems with this extra charge are obvious. There is not enough suitably sized accommodation available for people to move to. The massive increase in rent arrears of those living near the breadline who simply can't pay it. The disruption caused when houses have been adapted for disability.
There are lots of problems with this policy. "Panic rooms" are just silly.
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
Why isn't the mansion tax fair? It's not a question of fairness or not. It's just a badly constructed tax.
Cancer targets - who know, but targets are not necessarily the best way to manage the NHS
Panic room - need more details. But seems dubious that they need a spare room to hide in: why not the kitchen or bathroom or bedroom if you need a room with a lockable door.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
I don't speak for Labour (having never voted for them) but a fairer way to approach this would have been to impose it on new tenancies rather than existing ones.
Bit unfair that - the fellow who applies for HB the day before the rule's enacted gets the subsidy, the one who does it a day later gets zilch.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
I hardly think that any Labour supporter at the moment is in a position to criticise other parties for lack of policy, to all intents Labour only has two policy at the moment, the mansion tax, and not being the Tories.
3 Tory MPs follow the Carswell-Reckless tenplate.Hollobone is 2-1 fav with Lads and John Baron,previously mentioned,at 3-1 2nd fav as next Tory MP to jump ship.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Agreed you have a better chance of a one legged man winning an Arse Kicking competition than getting an actual answer
You wouldn't subscribe to the theory that the quality of the answer one gets is inextricably linked to the quality of the question one asks?
Very good piece, and a sad indictment on how the intolerant can set the political agenda with impunity. Sadly LibLabCon will have learnt the lesson of Ted Heath. He fired Enoch of course - in accordance with his principles of tolerance and egalitarianism - but unleashed a maelstrom, got roundly shafted and received little but vilification for his pains.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Yes, I'm finding it very hard to stay. It's been made quite clear to me by several top Conservatives (both politicians and journalists) that I'm just not very welcome anymore.
Cameron backs the #bedroomtax but not the #mansiontax. If you’ve got big money you’ve a friend in this PM; if not, he couldn’t care less.
You need to calm down dear - I know it's hard to hear your leader being out-klassed again in the H/C - I suggest you wrap yourself up in a copy of the Guardian, there's normally quite a lot of unsold copies going cheap.
Cameron is crap at answering questions though isnt he?
If you really think he won PMQs you are mad.
Like I said - you really need to chill - The guardian says you won so why are you so uptight with the manic posts - you totally give the game away I'm afraid. You all know your leader is crap with no policies beyond the NHS [minus Wales] and 'we all hate the Tories' - which is why your result tomorrow will be even more embarassing for Labour.
If this really was about the practical outcomes for homeless/overcrowded families it would have been extended to pensioners, who make up the vast bulk of under-occupied properties in the social rented sector.
That's not really an argument. Saying 'this is a dreadful policy, it would be better if we had more of it' doesn't make any sense.
Maybe in time the point you raise might have to be considered, although older people are more likely to be badly hit by change. That's no reason not to do what can be done in respect of people of working age; after all, in the private sector they don't get the privileged treatment that Ed wants to bring back for the social sector.
But my apologies for categorising you as a Labour supporter! That was bad on my part.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
I think the word "incentivize" rather than "force" might save a lot of unpleasantness all around ;-)
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
Well, it looks like Cameron has concentrated the toxin, not expelled it, judging by you.
Driving Christians out of the Conservative Party was hardly likely to improve the quality, was it?
He didn't "drive Christians out" of the party.
Some people who don't believe in equality of all citizens and have taken it on themselves to judge their fellow men chose to leave. Personally, as a Christian, I don't believe that God will get too exercised about it - but if He does, that's His right. I wouldn't presume to know his mind.
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
If you are in favour of the SRS/BT then you have to be. Sauce for the goose and gander and all that good stuff.
My position is very similiar to DavidL's on this one.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
And that echoes Casino Royale's point quite neatly. Too many people on the Right intensely dislike the views of other people on the Right. I don't think that Left wingers (currently) make that mistake.
Not so sure about that, Sean. Labour seems full of people who hate Blairites, for example.
The whole thing seems very odd to me. I don't regard the Conservative Party as a social club. Amongst the party members I know are some I like a lot and some I don't so much, and some whose views are close to mine and some less so, just as there are in any organization I might be involved in. So what? The object of a political party is to get into government and run the country better than the alternatives on offer, and that involves working with people with a range of views.
But we've lost the concept of a broad church in amongst an orgy of micro-targeting of particular voter segments, and an increasingly ideological bent since at least the late 1980s.
It is that (together with the irrevocably damaged Tory brand) which dooms the current party, and its chances of sustaining itself under FPTP.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
Thanks. My bet is still that UKIP are hoping for defections, but won't actually get them as the Tory MPs have got cold feet and are calling an unofficial truce for 5 months.
An interesting comment that will no doubt leave some here frothing at its outrageous nature and implicit racism,
"“Most people I know here have worked hard their lives, played by the rules and paid their fair share, but we sometimes struggle to access the services we need because of uncontrolled immigration. Others don’t feel safe walking down the high street of our town."
Got your outrage going, Mr. Eagles? The quote is, I am told, from the Conservative candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election. Miss Tolhurst is also it would appear deeply concerned about the effects uncontrolled immigration has had on the Constituency,
“I wanted to bring the prime minister to this constituency to show him that uncontrolled immigration has hurt this area. I told him we need action, not just talk.”
I don't know about you but that such sentiments are being expressed by the Conservative Party candidate does make me wonder.
Have the Tory party had to issue a clarification to say she wasn't in favour of repatriation like UKIP had to do with the pig dog traitor?
The REAL pig-dog traitors are those wot signed away our great nation's sovereignty in 1973 and 1992!
I used to quite admire TSE but I am afraid his bitterness as a result of the defection of two MPs from his beloved party has driven him to such extremes of smear and dishonesty that I generally view him these days as a bit of a nutter.
For the final time, defections have happened in the past, and they will happen again in the future.
What irked me about Mark Reckless' defector, apart from the fact, he ruined my planned quiet Saturday afternoon in September, was his defection, was timed to caused maximum damage to the Tory party (which was ironic, considering the whining and moaning Kippers about Cameron recalling parliament during their conference)
When Carswell defected, I praised him when others condemned him for the timing of his defection, I said, he had to defect now, otherwise if he waited until after the the Indyref, his defection would have dominated the conference season.
I still give praise to Carswell and Reckless for putting themselves up for re-election, hopefully it will be a custom for all future defectors, whatever their parties.
Yes, it shows that they were confident and if it comes off it's good publicity for the party they are defecting to. It's not quite the same as taking a seat from scratch though as they are/were the sitting MP.
It's the modern equivalent of the view expressed by the Labour Left in the 1980s that "on no account must you be prepared to compromise with the voters."
I feel myself separating more and more from people who I'd always assumed to be my political allies and comrades my whole life.
I find it actually makes me quite sad.
It's a pity isn't it? Leaving the Conservative Party was a wrench. There are still plenty of people I like and trust in the Conservative Party, but they aren't at the top.
Welcome to the world of socialism and its your fault. Oh yes and welcome you the ting tong world of nasty bigoted kippers. Has your skin started to crawl yet?
Well, it looks like Cameron has concentrated the toxin, not expelled it, judging by you.
Driving Christians out of the Conservative Party was hardly likely to improve the quality, was it?
He didn't "drive Christians out" of the party.
Some people who don't believe in equality of all citizens and have taken it on themselves to judge their fellow men chose to leave. Personally, as a Christian, I don't believe that God will get too exercised about it - but if He does, that's His right. I wouldn't presume to know his mind.
And yet, people dont have any choice as to who they makes cakes for, or who they provide adoptions services for, but still have the choice about whether they assist at an abortion for someone, all on religious grounds, funny old world.
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
Pensioner loneliness and alienation is a significant cost. But I haven't done a full analysis of the pros and cons. Not opposed in principle, however.
Cameron backs the #bedroomtax but not the #mansiontax. If you’ve got big money you’ve a friend in this PM; if not, he couldn’t care less.
You need to calm down dear - I know it's hard to hear your leader being out-klassed again in the H/C - I suggest you wrap yourself up in a copy of the Guardian, there's normally quite a lot of unsold copies going cheap.
Cameron is crap at answering questions though isnt he?
If you really think he won PMQs you are mad.
Like I said - you really need to chill - The guardian says you won so why are you so uptight with the manic posts - you totally give the game away I'm afraid. You all know your leader is crap with no policies beyond the NHS [minus Wales] and 'we all hate the Tories' - which is why your result tomorrow will be even more embarassing for Labour.
Oh and btw Dave won pmqs today!
Even the Sun doesn't agree so perhaps you are mad
I may be mad but I'm sure not thick. How to miss the point in umpteen posts.
It was a reminder of how sharp the dividing lines will be at this election and a demonstration of Labour's belief that its best hope lies in framing the Tories as the friends of the rich and themselves as the friends of the poor. It is a strategy antithetical to that of New Labour, which sought partnership, rather than confrontation, with the elite. But defying the dissenters within and without of his party, it is one that Miliband has doubled-down on. Should he achieve victory on these terms, decades-long assumptions about the "centre ground" of British politics will be blown apart.
Just heard the news leading with Recklass suggesting repatriating those he doesn't want. I wonder whether this will win him votes in Rochester or lose them?
Having heard Cameron proposing taking citizenship away from those fighting in Syria I suspect it's been researched and found to be a winner
But Cameron's policy is certainly more dangerous because it's so arbitrary. At least Recklass could work out some rules that might apply accross the board.
What would Cameron's plan involve? What would he do about UK citizens fighting for Israel or for the official Syrian opposition or in Africa and does it make a difference whether you are on the side of the government or for the rebels? Is a medic for ISIS better or worse than a fighter for the Free Syrian Army.......Who decides who loses their citizenship?
In other words like so much that Cameron suggests a load of ill thought out 'populist' bollocks....
My back of a fag packet solution to the SRS/BT is as follows:
Identify the social housing NEED in the town/borough or whatever. Identify the social housing AVAILABILITY in the town/borough or whatever.
Create a program to match the need and availability - the parameters being to move about as few people as possible. Reduce benefits for people for who need a smaller property, but who currently reside in a larger one has been identified but refuse to move.
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
It's well beyond the point at which it can be swept under the carpet, Antifrank.
It isn't just Rotherham, but Rochdale, Elm House and numerous other notorious cases which are leading to more and more victims having the courage to speak out. The Feds are now receiving first hand evidence of the crimes and the names of those involved, directly and in the widespread cover ups. We now know that the Geoffrey Dickens file was slender and consisted principally of a list of names. It was seen by many people in authority, and in the Press. It is almost inconceivable there are no copies around and even if they have all been destroyed, the key elements could easily be reconstructed.
There is now prima facie evidence in police hands that at least one murder was committed in connection with these matters. No Officer who cares about his future would allow the matter to go univestigated now. It will take time, no doubt, and many of the bigger fish will no doubt slip through the net, but I am more hopeful than ever that investigations will bear fruit, and some at least of the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
Just heard the news leading with Recklass suggesting repatriating those he doesn't want. I wonder whether this will win him votes in Rochester or lose them?
Having heard Cameron proposing taking citizenship away from those fighting in Syria I suspect it's been researched and found to be a winner
But Cameron's policy is certainly more dangerous because it's so arbitrary. At least Recklass could work out some rules that might apply accross the board.
What would Cameron's plan involve? What would he do about UK citizens fighting for Israel or for the official Syrian opposition or in Africa and does it make a difference whether you are on the side of the government or for the rebels? Is a medic for ISIS better or worse than a fighter for the Free Syrian Army.......Who decides who loses their citizenship?
In other words like so much that Cameron suggests a load of ill thought out 'populist' bollocks....
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
Pensioner loneliness and alienation is a significant cost. But I haven't done a full analysis of the pros and cons. Not opposed in principle, however.
You are not opposed in principle to pensioners being forced to downsize? Really?
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
Thanks. My bet is still that UKIP are hoping for defections, but won't actually get them as the Tory MPs have got cold feet and are calling an unofficial truce for 5 months.
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
Shush. You'll destroy the kipper narrative that establishment Tories like me are prepared to tolerate child rape for political benefit.
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
So Ed asked why is bedroom tax fair doesnt get an answer
Ed asked why is Mansion tax unfair when bedroom tax isnt doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why has the cancer target been missed for 3 quarters running doesnt get an answer
Ed asks why is panic room classed as a spare bedroom doesnt get an answer
Why the "bedroom tax" fair? Because there is a limited amount of public resources available and they must be used in the best way possible. Someone may like a spare room, but if they don't *need* it they can't expect it on the taxpayer's dime.
The best way to free up spare rooms would be to force pensioners (the main source of under-occupied rooms in SH) to downsize and move somewhere else - do you support that policy?
Pensioner loneliness and alienation is a significant cost. But I haven't done a full analysis of the pros and cons. Not opposed in principle, however.
You are not opposed in principle to pensioners being forced to downsize? Really?
It was stated elsewhere on here that 'incentivised' is a better word than 'forced'. With limited social housing, it seems a matter of common sense that we have to allocate it as 'best' we can. 'Best' in quotes because there will most certainly be losers no matter what approach is adopted.
I'm not sure this is a wicked problem, but it bears a lot similarities to the classic definition. One of the side effects of the rise of 'perception' politics is that we seem to have great difficulty tackling any problem where people lose out.
Unless they're rich of course; then we're all in .
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
The Ofsted report is not Rotherham-specific.
The Select Committee report uses Rotherham for a springboard to more general observations and specifically concludes:
"17. On the evidence we took the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England. It follows that other authorities not only need to review their own arrangements in the light of the Jay Report but also the Government needs to ensure that the guidance and benchmarks are in place to ensure these reviews are effective and children are identified and protected."
But since that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you'll ignore those also.
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
It's well beyond the point at which it can be swept under the carpet, Antifrank.
It isn't just Rotherham, but Rochdale, Elm House and numerous other notorious cases which are leading to more and more victims having the courage to speak out. The Feds are now receiving first hand evidence of the crimes and the names of those involved, directly and in the widespread cover ups. We now know that the Geoffrey Dickens file was slender and consisted principally of a list of names. It was seen by many people in authority, and in the Press. It is almost inconceivable there are no copies around and even if they have all been destroyed, the key elements could easily be reconstructed.
There is now prima facie evidence in police hands that at least one murder was committed in connection with these matters. No Officer who cares about his future would allow the matter to go univestigated now. It will take time, no doubt, and many of the bigger fish will no doubt slip through the net, but I am more hopeful than ever that investigations will bear fruit, and some at least of the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
There were several hundred child rapists in Rotherham alone, and, as seems likely, this was repeated in 20 other towns, there must be thousands out there involved in the same model of abuse. How many people have actually been sent down for this or are currently being charged. 30? How many have got sentences of more than ten years after carrying out hundreds of rapes? It must be single figures.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
The Ofsted report is not Rotherham-specific.
The Select Committee report uses Rotherham for a springboard to more general observations and specifically concludes:
"17. On the evidence we took the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England. It follows that other authorities not only need to review their own arrangements in the light of the Jay Report but also the Government needs to ensure that the guidance and benchmarks are in place to ensure these reviews are effective and children are identified and protected."
But since that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you'll ignore those also.
Here is a website that seems to focus on what is being done, and it names names
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
Even in the reasonably recent past it was largely a waste of time. I went along if I wanted to ask a question myself or had nothing special to do for half an hour, but I guess I skipped about half of them. I've not watched it once since leaving Parliament.
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
Agree - the next election Labour strategy on show - "Bedroom tax vs mansion tax!" and "Save the NHS" (no, not in Wales, don't mention Wales, its got nothing to do with Wales, just STFU about Wales will you?)
Tories still trying to flog that dead horse?
Anyone know how good veterinarian services are in Wales?
Mr. StClare, that does seem like a legitimate exception to the rule.
Whatever one might think of the principle or practicalities of the bedroom tax I thought it was refreshingly sensible of the Coalition to not get bogged down in the detail of exceptions in legislation, but to allocate discretionary funding so that those decisions could be made at the front line, rather than by MPs one contentious vote at a time in the Commons.
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
The Ofsted report is not Rotherham-specific.
The Select Committee report uses Rotherham for a springboard to more general observations and specifically concludes:
"17. On the evidence we took the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England. It follows that other authorities not only need to review their own arrangements in the light of the Jay Report but also the Government needs to ensure that the guidance and benchmarks are in place to ensure these reviews are effective and children are identified and protected."
But since that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you'll ignore those also.
Why don't you quote the detailed investigation of street grooming in that Ofsted report?
In fact, no need. I'll do it for you. It's one sentence:
"It is also too easy to overlook other risks, for example street level grooming... that young people may be exposed to when they are absent from school."
Because I'm unsatisfied with that level of response to tens of thousands of children being raped on our streets, my view of the world is "warped". Please #### off.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
Even in the reasonably recent past it was largely a waste of time. I went along if I wanted to ask a question myself or had nothing special to do for half an hour, but I guess I skipped about half of them. I've not watched it once since leaving Parliament.
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
I used to love PMQs but now it is just stupid... in a way it might be better if it were not televised as the unfunny scripted jokes/soundbites would be redundant, and they might actually use it to hold the PM to account
Even in the reasonably recent past it was largely a waste of time. I went along if I wanted to ask a question myself or had nothing special to do for half an hour, but I guess I skipped about half of them. I've not watched it once since leaving Parliament.
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
Maybe those who argued against the introduction of TV cameras into parliament were right after all. They did, IIRC, predict exactly the trivialisation which we seem to have had.
To quote June Whitfield in Absolutely Fabulous: "just the one?".
There are ongoing talks with several (according to a prominent Kipper I had dinner with last night. There may or may not be defections, but there is also a view that some of them can serve the UKIP cause better within the Conservative Party.
I reckon defections will happen. But after 8th May.
I expect a minimum of two defections before the next election. One to fill UKIP's vacant candidate slot in Portsmouth South and one to fill the vacant slot in South Basildon & East Thurrock.
Why? Just because there are currently vacancies? I think there's still one in Boston & Skegness, as it happens too.
In both seats there were candidates who were mysteriously deselected. In Portsmouth South, the former candidate was told that he was free to apply for other seats.
In Cambourne, Redruth and Hayle, the mystery was not why the UKIP candidate was deselected - admitting animal neglect charges that resulted in over 200 dead sheep - but why he was selected only a week before he pleaded guilty to the charges.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
Even in the reasonably recent past it was largely a waste of time. I went along if I wanted to ask a question myself or had nothing special to do for half an hour, but I guess I skipped about half of them. I've not watched it once since leaving Parliament.
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
That's very fair, Nick.
And even if Blair and Campbell do bear some responsibility, it must be shared out too amongst subsequent practitioners, including the current motley crews.
PS You won't be at DD? Shame. I'll be there in my latest gown, and I hear my favorite cartoonist will be dropping in briefly. Can't tempt you?
If this abuse has been properly uncovered and not swept under the carpet, perhaps antifrank could point me to the analysis of the extent of the abuse in Ipswich, or Derby, or Telford.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion. Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
It's a rhetorical device.
Actually I made a statement to start with, not a question (in response to someone else). Then you jumped in (fine, it's a discussion board) with some gobbledy-gook ("It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit") which was also not what was meant and then you pointed me to DP.
And here we are. Doesn't change Reckless' stature.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
Horseshit Nick and you know it. This is the bastard child of New Labour. Before New Labour politicians used messaging to support content / policy / belief. Blair turned it round so that a movable belief could be depolyed in support of message management / spin. Your lot poisoned politics.
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
Even in the reasonably recent past it was largely a waste of time. I went along if I wanted to ask a question myself or had nothing special to do for half an hour, but I guess I skipped about half of them. I've not watched it once since leaving Parliament.
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
Which came first, the Mandelson or the Rentoul ? The Campbell or the Hodges ?
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
Shush. You'll destroy the kipper narrative that establishment Tories like me are prepared to tolerate child rape for political benefit.
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
A bit harsh of you to call another_richard a strawman.
But that's what he said.
Again the overwhelming condemnation of him was defeaning in its silence from his fellow kippers
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Absolutely, Hurst, and it all feeds into an 'anti-politics' mood that manifests itself occasionally if somewhat incoherently at by-elections and other occasions when the great unwashed get a chance to tell the Authorities what they think of them.
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
Horseshit Nick and you know it. This is the bastard child of New Labour. Before New Labour politicians used messaging to support content / policy / belief. Blair turned it round so that a movable belief could be depolyed in support of message management / spin. Your lot poisoned politics.
That's absurd given how the Tories in 1992 managed to campaign on a tax rise that would have affected a minority of the population, by implying it would cost every family the mean amount raised as a result.
I'm sure there are earlier examples of dishonesty, but neither party has campaigned in an honest way for a very long term and you cannot blame Blair/Campbell for being uniquely duplicitous.
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
Shush. You'll destroy the kipper narrative that establishment Tories like me are prepared to tolerate child rape for political benefit.
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
A bit harsh of you to call another_richard a strawman.
But that's what he said.
Again the overwhelming condemnation of him was defeaning in its silence from his fellow kippers
I have defended you from criticism from other Kippers several times on this board and you know it. Given that you continue to smear Kippers as racists, you're not the sort of poster I feel deserves defending any more
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Arguing with strawmen. We know there's been a response to Rotherham: how could they not when the 1800 kids number has been all over the news? The question is whether, knowing this information, and knowing that Professor Jay has said it is likely happening in lots of other towns, whether they are restricting the response just to Rotherham and now doing a nationwide investigation to find out the whole size of the problem.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
The Ofsted report is not Rotherham-specific.
The Select Committee report uses Rotherham for a springboard to more general observations and specifically concludes:
"17. On the evidence we took the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England. It follows that other authorities not only need to review their own arrangements in the light of the Jay Report but also the Government needs to ensure that the guidance and benchmarks are in place to ensure these reviews are effective and children are identified and protected."
But since that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you'll ignore those also.
Why don't you quote the detailed investigation of street grooming in that Ofsted report?
In fact, no need. I'll do it for you. It's one sentence:
"It is also too easy to overlook other risks, for example street level grooming... that young people may be exposed to when they are absent from school."
Because I'm unsatisfied with that level of response to tens of thousands of children being raped on our streets, my view of the world is "warped". Please #### off.
Having had it pointed out that the reports are not specific to Rotherham, you've moved on from "they're confining themselves to Rotherham" and are now criticising the reports so far issued for not covering points that they were never designed to cover.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion. Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
It's a rhetorical device.
Actually I made a statement to start with, not a question (in response to someone else). Then you jumped in (fine, it's a discussion board) with some gobbledy-gook ("It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit") which was also not what was meant and then you pointed me to DP.
And here we are. Doesn't change Reckless' stature.
Or do you think he played a blinder?*
*actual question
It wasn't gobbledegook, you said
"he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change"
Which isn't so because the situation would have changed... the door to future immigrants would be closed (not locked), which is a change to the current situation
As for whether he is an idiot or played a blinder I would say that there is space between the two, as there is with uncontrolled immigration and zero immigration, and there is no need to try and force a binary choice
Just heard the news leading with Recklass suggesting repatriating those he doesn't want. I wonder whether this will win him votes in Rochester or lose them?
Having heard Cameron proposing taking citizenship away from those fighting in Syria I suspect it's been researched and found to be a winner
But Cameron's policy is certainly more dangerous because it's so arbitrary. At least Recklass could work out some rules that might apply accross the board.
What would Cameron's plan involve? What would he do about UK citizens fighting for Israel or for the official Syrian opposition or in Africa and does it make a difference whether you are on the side of the government or for the rebels? Is a medic for ISIS better or worse than a fighter for the Free Syrian Army.......Who decides who loses their citizenship?
In other words like so much that Cameron suggests a load of ill thought out 'populist' bollocks....
He's a poor PM.
To be fully frank, yes, Cameron has underwhelmed as Prime Minister. I had hoped for more when I voted for him. But then, I had hoped for him to be a Conservative Prime Minister, not a Coalition one. If he should get a majority next May, I would like to hope he would be a more forceful figure when he doesn't have a bunch of LibDem anchors strapped to him.
But he has certain strong convictions - driving through gay marriage and honouring the commitment to the level of foreign aid, both amidst some considerable doubts in the wider party, are to his great credit in my book. That he seems so "meh" about the democratic deficits in the EU - much less so.
That said, he is head and shoulders - and torso and legs and feet - above E Miliband.
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Having had it pointed out that the reports are not specific to Rotherham, you've moved on from "they're confining themselves to Rotherham" and are now criticising the reports so far issued for not covering points that they were never designed to cover.
Yes, that view of the world is pretty warped.
Jesus Christ. I'll go slowly:
1. The reports into the street grooming scandal are indeed confined to Rotherham. The report that you mentioned was not into the street grooming scandal so it does not change that.
2. The official reports being designed to not cover the street grooming scandal is exactly what I'm criticising. Entirely legitimately.
I find it outrageous that, after it looks like tens of thousands of children have been picked up on our streets and raped and tortured over years, there hasn't been a government investigation into the national extent of child street grooming and exactly what has happened. I want a national police investigation and a Jay report for the whole country. That's not a "warped" view of the world. That's damn human decency. You appear to be lacking it.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
I support it if they knew to start with that there was a time-limited visa and they overstayed this limit.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
Having had it pointed out that the reports are not specific to Rotherham, you've moved on from "they're confining themselves to Rotherham" and are now criticising the reports so far issued for not covering points that they were never designed to cover.
Yes, that view of the world is pretty warped.
Jesus Christ. I'll go slowly:
1. The reports into the street grooming scandal are indeed confined to Rotherham. The report that you mentioned was not into the street grooming scandal so it does not change that.
2. The official reports being designed to not cover the street grooming scandal is exactly what I'm criticising. Entirely legitimately.
I find it outrageous that, after it looks like tens of thousands of children have been picked up on our streets and raped and tortured over years, there hasn't been a government investigation into the national extent of child street grooming and exactly what has happened. I want a national police investigation and a Jay report for the whole country. That's not a "warped" view of the world. That's damn human decency. You appear to be lacking it.
Jesus Christ indeed. I'll go slowly.
You said that the response had been Rotherham-specific. The response has not been Rotherham-specific. Nor are there any signs that the official response has ended or even ended the first phase.
I realise that blows your mind, but there it goes.
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
I'm inclined to your view on this one, Casino, rather than our esteemed co-poster Antifrank.
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
Anitfrank's point is that two of UKIP's good prospects are being kept warm for someone, and it's a shrewd observation. Maybe, though, we are looking too narrowly at just Tory MPs as the prospective parachutees for these constituencies.
May you be right, Richard.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Personally, I hope not! I want the Tories to win just one more time.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
Please let it be Portsmouth South... please let it be Portsmouth South...
Having had it pointed out that the reports are not specific to Rotherham, you've moved on from "they're confining themselves to Rotherham" and are now criticising the reports so far issued for not covering points that they were never designed to cover.
Yes, that view of the world is pretty warped.
Jesus Christ. I'll go slowly:
1. The reports into the street grooming scandal are indeed confined to Rotherham. The report that you mentioned was not into the street grooming scandal so it does not change that.
2. The official reports being designed to not cover the street grooming scandal is exactly what I'm criticising. Entirely legitimately.
I find it outrageous that, after it looks like tens of thousands of children have been picked up on our streets and raped and tortured over years, there hasn't been a government investigation into the national extent of child street grooming and exactly what has happened. I want a national police investigation and a Jay report for the whole country. That's not a "warped" view of the world. That's damn human decency. You appear to be lacking it.
Jesus Christ indeed. I'll go slowly.
You said that the response had been Rotherham-specific. The response has not been Rotherham-specific. Nor are there any signs that the official response has ended or even ended the first phase.
I realise that blows your mind, but there it goes.
Having had it pointed out that the reports are not specific to Rotherham, you've moved on from "they're confining themselves to Rotherham" and are now criticising the reports so far issued for not covering points that they were never designed to cover.
Yes, that view of the world is pretty warped.
Jesus Christ. I'll go slowly:
1. The reports into the street grooming scandal are indeed confined to Rotherham. The report that you mentioned was not into the street grooming scandal so it does not change that.
2. The official reports being designed to not cover the street grooming scandal is exactly what I'm criticising. Entirely legitimately.
I find it outrageous that, after it looks like tens of thousands of children have been picked up on our streets and raped and tortured over years, there hasn't been a government investigation into the national extent of child street grooming and exactly what has happened. I want a national police investigation and a Jay report for the whole country. That's not a "warped" view of the world. That's damn human decency. You appear to be lacking it.
Jesus Christ indeed. I'll go slowly.
You said that the response had been Rotherham-specific. The response has not been Rotherham-specific. Nor are there any signs that the official response has ended or even ended the first phase.
I realise that blows your mind, but there it goes.
In the very previous sentence I talked about the response needed being "a nationwide investigation" to find out the whole extent of the problem. That problem being child grooming. That response being an investigation of child grooming. You pointing to a nationwide report that doesn't go into child grooming is not evidence against that.
You're fully intelligent enough to know exactly what I'm criticising, but rather than engage honestly, you're trying to quote words out of the context of the paragraph to trip people up. That you spend your energy on this topic doing that than demanding investigation into exactly what has happened nationwide shows that you are the one with the sick and warped world view.
Strong on rhetoric scant on detail was a hallmark of the fascist parties in the 1930s Mr Reckless et al. What you sow so you reap
What is interesting is that he doesn't seem to have thought through what he was saying or followed it to its logical conclusion.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
You are misunderreprepresenting it Sam.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
The UKIP immigration spokesman explained it all on The Daily Politics I am sure its on iplayer
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
ah. So if the EU didn't deport all Brits currently working in EU states then the Polish plumber could stay as long as he liked? What's this "transitional period" and "work permit for a fixed period" about then? Reckless didn't give any conditions for it. Or did he mis-speak?
Are you actually asking me all those questions?
No Sam.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either: 1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or 3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
Well you are a closed book, so why bother asking in the first place?
Hilarious. And kippers with their one track obsession with hating foreigners especially if they are black, or asian ting tongs are not? You an your lot are open books, admitedly with brown paper covers.
Comments
In any case, it's all very well carping. What would you actually do about the scandal that there were a million taxpayer-subsidised spare bedrooms (get your head around that number...it is just mind-boggling), at a time when there are also massive problems of overcrowding for families on the waiting-list?
The answer is.. Labour would do nothing. Not a sausage. Just keep taking the money from the taxpayer, and wasting it.
Labour doesn't care, does it? It just sees the entire issue as one on which it can stir up synthetic outrage and demonise the good faith of those who are actually trying to fix things.
I can't see any massive value anywhere, but the percentage vote offer seems to have killed Betfair's equivalent stone dead. It was never very active anyway but the liquidity has now dried up, presumably because serious punters can see that SPIN offers better value.
I've bought UKIP for a fiver at 44.5% but I don't expect to win or lose much either way.
"PMQs has become completely, utterly pointless"
Once upon a time questions in the House were there to provide a means for holding a minister even the Prime Minister to account. Ministers were expected to answer questions about policy then and there but questions on fact or specific issues could be answered in writing subsequently. At some point that got lost and it became a knock-about, who won this week, competition. Now even that has lost its appeal (remember when we would have a new thread and blow by blow comments on here?). Few people care about the questions and answers these days and yet the once potentially powerful mechanism of holding ministers to account has also been lost.
Oh and btw Dave won pmqs today!
POP-DTWAS
Normal people with normal problems and normal lives regard the incessant Punch & Judy show as irrelevant, at best, and at worst as evidence that the stables need a thorough clean out.
Even political anoraks like me find it hard to dissent from such an outlook.
The whole thing seems very odd to me. I don't regard the Conservative Party as a social club. Amongst the party members I know are some I like a lot and some I don't so much, and some whose views are close to mine and some less so, just as there are in any organization I might be involved in. So what? The object of a political party is to get into government and run the country better than the alternatives on offer, and that involves working with people with a range of views.
You can thank Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell for that. EVERYTHING became about spin, messaging, politics. It's difficult to have a reasoned debate abput anything much these days - you'll get swamped by spin merchants and those who live to be offended or score points. Our political culture moved very much away from content towards perception during the New Labour years.
Yes indeed, what pitiful twats they are
And yes, you are right, this will change over time... because eventually those 59% with arrears will be evicted, what an excellent result for all involved and wider society.
I don't speak for Labour (having never voted for them) but a fairer way to approach this would have been to impose it on new tenancies rather than existing ones.
If this really was about the practical outcomes for homeless/overcrowded families it would have been extended to pensioners, who make up the vast bulk of under-occupied properties in the social rented sector.
And in any event, even if the policy had been imposed in good faith, the amounts saved would have been a rounding error in the DWP budget (and in many cases just leading to increased costs elsewhere, by people moving into the more expensive private-rented sector or having to be accepted as homeless with all the costs associated with that).
I have lurked here for a long time, and usually take the time to read your comments Richard, but on this issue your position bears no relation to the real world.
Driving Christians out of the Conservative Party was hardly likely to improve the quality, was it?
What irked me about Mark Reckless' defector, apart from the fact, he ruined my planned quiet Saturday afternoon in September, was his defection, was timed to caused maximum damage to the Tory party (which was ironic, considering the whining and moaning Kippers about Cameron recalling parliament during their conference)
When Carswell defected, I praised him when others condemned him for the timing of his defection, I said, he had to defect now, otherwise if he waited until after the the Indyref, his defection would have dominated the conference season.
I still give praise to Carswell and Reckless for putting themselves up for re-election, hopefully it will be a custom for all future defectors, whatever their parties.
Maybe the policy has changed but having security inside the flat seems very odd to me. For houses I have again heard of additional security being added to windows etc. But nothing inside.
This may be a truly exceptional case but as a basis for challenging a national tax which has substantial discretional payments built into it it looks like a contrived nonsense. Remember how many people supposedly needed an extra room for their dialysis machines until Mr Sox (I think) posted a picture of something that would fit in the average drawer?
The problems with this extra charge are obvious. There is not enough suitably sized accommodation available for people to move to. The massive increase in rent arrears of those living near the breadline who simply can't pay it. The disruption caused when houses have been adapted for disability.
There are lots of problems with this policy. "Panic rooms" are just silly.
*retires after lighting touch paper*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2840524/What-three-Tory-MPs-polled-voters-leaving-EU-just-like-two-defected-Ukip.html
So far this week we've seen a report from the IPCC that they're investigating ten police officers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30103480
A report from Ofsted off the back of the Rotherham scandal:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/sexual-exploitation-of-children-it-couldnt-happen-here-could-it
A report from a Parliamentary sub-committee into the scandal:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/648/64802.htm
Today the matter was raised again in Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/19/ukips-mark-reckless-suggests-eu-migrants-should-be-sent-home-reaction-politics-live-blog
"12:28 Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, asks what the government is doing to help vulnerable children.
Cameron says agencies have to work together. That is not happening in enough cities, he says."
For a topic that's being swept under the carpet, it seems to be being looked at an awful lot.
That's not really an argument. Saying 'this is a dreadful policy, it would be better if we had more of it' doesn't make any sense.
Maybe in time the point you raise might have to be considered, although older people are more likely to be badly hit by change. That's no reason not to do what can be done in respect of people of working age; after all, in the private sector they don't get the privileged treatment that Ed wants to bring back for the social sector.
But my apologies for categorising you as a Labour supporter! That was bad on my part.
Some people who don't believe in equality of all citizens and have taken it on themselves to judge their fellow men chose to leave. Personally, as a Christian, I don't believe that God will get too exercised about it - but if He does, that's His right. I wouldn't presume to know his mind.
My position is very similiar to DavidL's on this one.
I listened to it and, as Hugo Rifkind pointed out in his tweet, it seems to be saying no those from the EU can stay but those from the EU would be given a transitional period and then must go.
It is most curious. And any "clarification" seems to have made it worse.
Because either he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change, or he is saying that some people need to be deported.
It is that (together with the irrevocably damaged Tory brand) which dooms the current party, and its chances of sustaining itself under FPTP.
It is isnt situation no change, because there would be in all likely be hood far fewer people coming in.. the situation now is we have 243k a year
If we left the EU, what happens to our passports? Would British citizens get a British one and EU migrants still have their EU one?
It's not quite the same as taking a seat from scratch though as they are/were the sitting MP.
It was a reminder of how sharp the dividing lines will be at this election and a demonstration of Labour's belief that its best hope lies in framing the Tories as the friends of the rich and themselves as the friends of the poor. It is a strategy antithetical to that of New Labour, which sought partnership, rather than confrontation, with the elite. But defying the dissenters within and without of his party, it is one that Miliband has doubled-down on. Should he achieve victory on these terms, decades-long assumptions about the "centre ground" of British politics will be blown apart.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/pmqs-review-miliband-comes-out-swinging-mansion-tax
Having heard Cameron proposing taking citizenship away from those fighting in Syria I suspect it's been researched and found to be a winner
But Cameron's policy is certainly more dangerous because it's so arbitrary. At least Recklass could work out some rules that might apply accross the board.
What would Cameron's plan involve? What would he do about UK citizens fighting for Israel or for the official Syrian opposition or in Africa and does it make a difference whether you are on the side of the government or for the rebels? Is a medic for ISIS better or worse than a fighter for the Free Syrian Army.......Who decides who loses their citizenship?
In other words like so much that Cameron suggests a load of ill thought out 'populist' bollocks....
Identify the social housing NEED in the town/borough or whatever.
Identify the social housing AVAILABILITY in the town/borough or whatever.
Create a program to match the need and availability - the parameters being to move about as few people as possible. Reduce benefits for people for who need a smaller property, but who currently reside in a larger one has been identified but refuse to move.
Try and match up future availability and needs.
Looking solely at C and L who will get the largest reduction in votes? Will there be a net swing from L to C, or vice versa?
It isn't just Rotherham, but Rochdale, Elm House and numerous other notorious cases which are leading to more and more victims having the courage to speak out. The Feds are now receiving first hand evidence of the crimes and the names of those involved, directly and in the widespread cover ups. We now know that the Geoffrey Dickens file was slender and consisted principally of a list of names. It was seen by many people in authority, and in the Press. It is almost inconceivable there are no copies around and even if they have all been destroyed, the key elements could easily be reconstructed.
There is now prima facie evidence in police hands that at least one murder was committed in connection with these matters. No Officer who cares about his future would allow the matter to go univestigated now. It will take time, no doubt, and many of the bigger fish will no doubt slip through the net, but I am more hopeful than ever that investigations will bear fruit, and some at least of the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
He said "for a transitional period [those who are already here] should have a work permit at least for a fixed period."
What then? Deportation?
Deportation seemed only to be an option if the EU deported all Brits currently working in EU states, something that he said would be childish, and not UKIPs desire
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115925336
It seems to me too late for defectors to offer a plausible case that doesn't just look like opportunism. Of course the Rochester result might make a difference, but I suspect we will see a low turnout, in which case it could prove a rather artifical result on which potential recruits to UKIP would not want to rely too much.
Antifrank's prediction would be very good for my betting, but it will be a pleasant surprise for me if it comes about.
The fact that the response has only been Rotherham-specific shows that this is a damage limitation exercise rather than an effort to understand the full extent of the problem.
I'm not sure this is a wicked problem, but it bears a lot similarities to the classic definition. One of the side effects of the rise of 'perception' politics is that we seem to have great difficulty tackling any problem where people lose out.
Unless they're rich of course; then we're all in
The Select Committee report uses Rotherham for a springboard to more general observations and specifically concludes:
"17. On the evidence we took the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England. It follows that other authorities not only need to review their own arrangements in the light of the Jay Report but also the Government needs to ensure that the guidance and benchmarks are in place to ensure these reviews are effective and children are identified and protected."
But since that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you'll ignore those also.
I am pointing out that Reckless is an idiot.
Either:
1. He didn't think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or
2. He did think through what he said and the logical consequences = idiot; or
3. He mis-spoke = idiot.
http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/
But it's a symptom of our cynical and trivial political climate rather than a primary cause. It is very much easier to get media coverage for a zinger at PMQs than for an idea, however good it might be. A poster downthread blames Blair and Campbell; I'd blame the media that they were reacting to; but perhaps both were reacting to the superficial political culture of modern times.
In fact, no need. I'll do it for you. It's one sentence:
"It is also too easy to overlook other risks, for example street level grooming... that young people may be exposed to when they are absent from school."
Because I'm unsatisfied with that level of response to tens of thousands of children being raped on our streets, my view of the world is "warped". Please #### off.
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/8203-UKIP-withdraw-Camborne-Redruth-Hayle/story-23177861-detail/story.html
Excuse the pun, but it seems UKIP might have some, er, vetting issues? What could possibly go wrong next April?
And even if Blair and Campbell do bear some responsibility, it must be shared out too amongst subsequent practitioners, including the current motley crews.
PS You won't be at DD? Shame. I'll be there in my latest gown, and I hear my favorite cartoonist will be dropping in briefly. Can't tempt you?
Actually I made a statement to start with, not a question (in response to someone else). Then you jumped in (fine, it's a discussion board) with some gobbledy-gook ("It seems to be that people already here can stay, but people wanting to come need a VIsa/Permit") which was also not what was meant and then you pointed me to DP.
And here we are. Doesn't change Reckless' stature.
Or do you think he played a blinder?*
*actual question
The Campbell or the Hodges ?
Do you support or oppose the deportation of non-EU citizens that have come to the end of their visa and don't qualify for another one?
But that's what he said.
Again the overwhelming condemnation of him was defeaning in its silence from his fellow kippers
I'm sure there are earlier examples of dishonesty, but neither party has campaigned in an honest way for a very long term and you cannot blame Blair/Campbell for being uniquely duplicitous.
Regardless of my own views, my betting bank cares not a jot where defectors come from!
Yes, that view of the world is pretty warped.
"he is saying everyone from the EU who is here can stay, in which case situation no change"
Which isn't so because the situation would have changed... the door to future immigrants would be closed (not locked), which is a change to the current situation
As for whether he is an idiot or played a blinder I would say that there is space between the two, as there is with uncontrolled immigration and zero immigration, and there is no need to try and force a binary choice
But he has certain strong convictions - driving through gay marriage and honouring the commitment to the level of foreign aid, both amidst some considerable doubts in the wider party, are to his great credit in my book. That he seems so "meh" about the democratic deficits in the EU - much less so.
That said, he is head and shoulders - and torso and legs and feet - above E Miliband.
I am interested in which poor seat gets Neil Hamilton foisted upon them.
1. The reports into the street grooming scandal are indeed confined to Rotherham. The report that you mentioned was not into the street grooming scandal so it does not change that.
2. The official reports being designed to not cover the street grooming scandal is exactly what I'm criticising. Entirely legitimately.
I find it outrageous that, after it looks like tens of thousands of children have been picked up on our streets and raped and tortured over years, there hasn't been a government investigation into the national extent of child street grooming and exactly what has happened. I want a national police investigation and a Jay report for the whole country. That's not a "warped" view of the world. That's damn human decency. You appear to be lacking it.
Do you support or oppose the deportation of Crystal Palace supporters between the ages of 17 and 43 because the UK decides to change the immigration rules?
You said that the response had been Rotherham-specific. The response has not been Rotherham-specific. Nor are there any signs that the official response has ended or even ended the first phase.
I realise that blows your mind, but there it goes.
You're fully intelligent enough to know exactly what I'm criticising, but rather than engage honestly, you're trying to quote words out of the context of the paragraph to trip people up. That you spend your energy on this topic doing that than demanding investigation into exactly what has happened nationwide shows that you are the one with the sick and warped world view.