Dave: Don't leave it will be a disaster Ed: Don't leave it will be a disaster Nick: Don't leave it will be a disaster CBI: Don't leave it will be a disaster BBC: Don't leave it will be a disaster Nige: Lets leave, its bullshit Dave/Nick/Ed/BBC: Don't listen to Nige, he's a racist, Oh and don't leave it will be a disaster! Dave: But its up to you voters of course...
Two thoughts. 1. Stephen Fisher gives 31 “Others”, which includes 18 N. Irish. Hence there are only 13 ”available“ for Green, Respect, PC and SNP. Etc. Unlikely.
2. How do we police an EU citzen arriving here for work, not finding any and being “entitled" to be chucked out after however long? AFAIK there’s no requirment to register with anyone, not even the Jobcentre.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Dave: Don't leave it will be a disaster Ed: Don't leave it will be a disaster Nick: Don't leave it will be a disaster CBI: Don't leave it will be a disaster BBC: Don't leave it will be a disaster Nige: Lets leave, its bullshit Dave/Nick/Ed/BBC: Don't listen to Nige, he's a racist, Oh and don't leave it will be a disaster! Dave: But its up to you voters of course...
Wow.
People make up their minds for any number of reasons. Not everyone can be as rational, well-researched and acute as you.
They will have the opportunity to make up their minds in 2017, if there is a Cons govt.
I think your first error, if I may be so bold, is to patronise the voters.
Am I alone in finding the pictures of these people literally fighting in stores for a large and cheap TV quite sad and not a little repulsive? I am not religious but the consumerism of western society is an illness.
Anyway off to Newcastle for our annual shopping trip. Joy.
I always say I'm not going to take part in it then I see a good offer.
It ain't that bad. I once went Christmas shopping in New York.
It was like the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
Intriguing comment - Has London been invaded by Ottoman Turks?
That's minor. The BIG decision Switzeralnd makes on Sunday is whether or not the SNB must keep 20% of its reserves in gold. NO is ahead but if it's a YES that will have fairly seismic impact on currencies/gold price/global economy. The world's central bankers are praying for a NO. Me - I'd be voting YES.
The problem is that no treaty changes could have been enacted by 2017. We'd be voting on the basis of a wish-list.
Exactly, and he has form. In the same way as he evaded his promises in the "Cast Iron" pledge on the basis the moment had past, there isn't the slightest chance he would reopen the referendum in say 2019 if one of the key items in that wish-list isn ratified by our European "partners"
The problem is that no treaty changes could have been enacted by 2017. We'd be voting on the basis of a wish-list.
Exactly, and he has form. In the same way as he evaded his promises in the "Cast Iron" pledge on the basis the moment had past, there isn't the slightest chance he would reopen the referendum in say 2019 if one of the key items in that wish-list isn ratified by our European "partners"
Brent Crude at $72 having recovered from early trade at ~$71.3
Alarming case of child care from NE Lincolnshire Council re an adoption row. Grandparents wanted to adopt a child when its mother died.
"Judge Simon Jack was deciding whether the boy should be placed for adoption or allowed to live with his grandparents.
He said North East Lincolnshire Council witnesses had been "visibly biased" and its case "severely undermined"......
He said it was accepted that the boy, known only as J, could not live with his father.
But he said the council had wanted him placed for adoption and had "effectively ruled out" both sets of grandparents.
"I have never, in over 10 years of hearing care cases, taken the view, as I did in this case, that the local authority's witnesses were visibly biased in their attempts to support the local authority's case," he said.
"It is very unfortunate and I hope I shall never see that again."
The judge concluded the boy should live with one set of grandparents.
He was critical of the evidence given by social workers Neil Swaby, Rachel Olley and Peter Nelson.
He said their concerns "appeared to be grossly overstated in order to try and achieve their ends".
"During the course of that evidence the local authority's case was severely undermined." 'Totally discredited'
He said Mr Swaby had been "very begrudging indeed in his evidence" and "was intent on saying only things which supported the local authority's case".
The judge said: "I then heard evidence from Rachel Olley, whose evidence was totally discredited in my view.
"Again I had the very strong impression that the local authority witnesses were intent on playing up any factors which were unfavourable to the grandparents and playing down any factors which might be favourable."
The judge said some of Mr Nelson's evidence "smacks to me of the same bias".
The problem is that no treaty changes could have been enacted by 2017. We'd be voting on the basis of a wish-list.
Exactly, and he has form. In the same way as he evaded his promises in the "Cast Iron" pledge on the basis the moment had past, there isn't the slightest chance he would reopen the referendum in say 2019 if one of the key items in that wish-list isn ratified by our European "partners"
If you think Dave has it within him to make good = in. If you think Dave hasn't a chance in hell = out.
It's not in his gift, that's down the the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU.
Yes I get that and if you think he will be foiled by the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU = OUT.
And when Dave comes on the TV in a nice suit, sitting in his office with the oak panelling, maybe a little Elgar playing in the background, and looks seriously at the camera and tells the voters that he has come to an agreement with our European Partners about reducing immigration, and what ever other jollies he has worked out... how many of the public are going to understand that this is all provisional and based on some arcane procedures that are going to take a couple of years to work out, and how many are sufficiently disinterest in politics and that they will believe him and the nice man from the CBI, and the journo from the BBC and put a tick in the IN box?
The grim reality is of course that nothing requiring EU treaty change will ever get passed by all member states that is not firmly in the 'ever closer' camp. The only real choice we face over time is 'in balls deep' or 'out'. I don't see the UK ever really accepting its fate as part of a socialist superstate - we'd first need to join the Euro, which has precisely zero chance of passing a UK referendum. In the end we'll not be part of their inward looking bankruptopia - our horizons have for centuries been outward looking, to the sea, the rest of the world. We're geographically European but not attitudinally. The journey towards this endpoint will involve alot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The problem is that no treaty changes could have been enacted by 2017. We'd be voting on the basis of a wish-list.
Exactly, and he has form. In the same way as he evaded his promises in the "Cast Iron" pledge on the basis the moment had past, there isn't the slightest chance he would reopen the referendum in say 2019 if one of the key items in that wish-list isn ratified by our European "partners"
If you think Dave has it within him to make good = in. If you think Dave hasn't a chance in hell = out.
It's not in his gift, that's down the the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU.
Yes I get that and if you think he will be foiled by the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU = OUT.
And when Dave comes on the TV in a nice suit, sitting in his office with the oak panelling, maybe a little Elgar playing in the background, and looks seriously at the camera and tells the voters that he has come to an agreement with our European Partners about reducing immigration, and what ever other jollies he has worked out... how many of the public are going to understand that this is all provisional and based on some arcane procedures that are going to take a couple of years to work out, and how many are sufficiently disinterest in politics and that they will believe him and the nice man from the CBI, and the journo from the BBC and put a tick in the IN box?
You could use exactly the same argument about voting. It depends on how interested the individual is and who they believe.
Martin Kettle argues that the SNP may be overplaying their hand:
The SNP’s negative response to Smith could set it adrift from Scottish people There was a change in the body language of Scottish politics today. After Lord Smith presented his proposals, representatives of the five parties at the core of the commission gave their responses in Edinburgh’s National Museum of Scotland. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in varying degrees positive. The SNP and the Greens were negative and grudging. That could be a tonal miscalculation – voters like politicians to work together – but it was repeated by Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and Stewart Hosie, the SNP deputy leader and Dundee East MP, at Westminster. It felt like the start of a possible shift in the centre of political gravity, with the SNP perhaps even finding itself outside the consensus in the way that Labour has been in recent weeks.
The problem is that no treaty changes could have been enacted by 2017. We'd be voting on the basis of a wish-list.
Exactly, and he has form. In the same way as he evaded his promises in the "Cast Iron" pledge on the basis the moment had past, there isn't the slightest chance he would reopen the referendum in say 2019 if one of the key items in that wish-list isn ratified by our European "partners"
If you think Dave has it within him to make good = in. If you think Dave hasn't a chance in hell = out.
It's not in his gift, that's down the the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU.
Yes I get that and if you think he will be foiled by the ratification procedures of the other members of the EU = OUT.
And when Dave comes on the TV in a nice suit, sitting in his office with the oak panelling, maybe a little Elgar playing in the background, and looks seriously at the camera and tells the voters that he has come to an agreement with our European Partners about reducing immigration, and what ever other jollies he has worked out... how many of the public are going to understand that this is all provisional and based on some arcane procedures that are going to take a couple of years to work out, and how many are sufficiently disinterest in politics and that they will believe him and the nice man from the CBI, and the journo from the BBC and put a tick in the IN box?
You could use exactly the same argument about voting. It depends on how interested the individual is and who they believe.
True, but he has a huge credibility gap on this one.
I will be interested to see how he attempts to bridge it.
And the beauty of it is that whatever he does or doesn't do and however weak he shows himself in deed or act guess what?
You can vote us out of the EU in 2017.
Result!
You just need to make sure that the right party is in office that will give you that option.
The only party that can be trusted to give us an EU referendum is the UK Independence Party. Certainly not Cameron's Tories. Let's have a look at the big EU stands he's followed through on in the last few years.
"We're going to block the Lisbon Treaty!" "Well, if it passes we won't block it, but we won't let matters rest there!" "Actually, we won't do anything about it, but we'll have a referendum on future significant transfers of power." "Actually, we'll make significant transfers of powers ourselves without a referendum, but we'll ask parliament." "Actually, we won't even bother asking parliament."
"We won't get involved in the Eurozone bailout!" "Actually, we will get involved in the Eurozone bailout, but just Ireland, given their historic connections to the UK" "Actually, we will also help bailout other Eurozone countries too."
"We're blocking the EU fiscal compact as it transfers more power to Brussels!" "Actually, they can go and do it themselves through other mechanisms, but they won't be able to use EU institutions." "Actually, we'll let them use EU institutions."
"We're going to cap the EU budget and stop us paying so much to the EU!" "Actually, we've agreed for our contribution to go up" "Actually, the EU messed up the numbers so we're going to have to pay even more on top of that." "But we've halved the extra payment!" "Actually, we haven't halved it, we're just changing the timing of the cash flow." "Oh, and the EU has overspent with a big black hole in funding that we're going to have to pay more for" "And our contribution is going up more in future."
"We're going to take tough action on EU migration! We might have a points system!" "Actually, maybe we won't have a points system, but we'll have a big emergency brake capping the numbers!" "Actually, we won't cap the numbers, but we'll stop benefits to EU migrants!" "Actually, we won't stop the benefits, but we'll delay them for a few years!" "Some of the benefits."
Given how quickly Cameron buckles and backs down, by the time we actually get to 2017, the EU referendum will be a consultation exercise. Consulting the shadow cabinet. In 2023.
once again the state broadcaster failed to even mention [in the part I saw] the English Parliament, the most rational and popular option. It's a disgraceful omission that speaks of political interest, not objective reporting.
If the LibDems support EVFEL then the coalition can vote it through next month and defy Labour to oppose it (knowing they'll lose anyway). I agree this will do much to help the yellows in England.
More importantly, EVFEL leads to an English PArliament sooner rather than later. EVFEL is only a blocking mechanism. It would stop eg Labour passing lefty laws that don't command an English MP majority. Fair dinkum. But it offers no active ability to govern England. So it would put a (probably Labour) UK PM in an impossible position. Potentially unable to legislate on health/education/policing/etc. With a devomax Scotland as a given, that means the only route out of impasse is an English Parliament within a fully federal UK. Which we should all welcome with open arms.
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
Am I alone in finding the pictures of these people literally fighting in stores for a large and cheap TV quite sad and not a little repulsive? I am not religious but the consumerism of western society is an illness.
Anyway off to Newcastle for our annual shopping trip. Joy.
Horrific , the country really has gone to the dogs.
And the beauty of it is that whatever he does or doesn't do and however weak he shows himself in deed or act guess what?
You can vote us out of the EU in 2017.
Result!
You just need to make sure that the right party is in office that will give you that option.
The only party that can be trusted to give us an EU referendum is the UK Independence Party. Certainly not Cameron's Tories. Let's have a look at the big EU stands he's followed through on in the last few years.
"We're going to block the Lisbon Treaty!" "Well, if it passes we won't block it, but we won't let matters rest there!" "Actually, we won't do anything about it, but we'll have a referendum on future significant transfers of power." "Actually, we'll make significant transfers of powers ourselves without a referendum, but we'll ask parliament." "Actually, we won't even bother asking parliament."
"We won't get involved in the Eurozone bailout!" "Actually, we will get involved in the Eurozone bailout, but just Ireland, given their historic connections to the UK" "Actually, we will also help bailout other Eurozone countries too."
"We're blocking the EU fiscal compact as it transfers more power to Brussels!" "Actually, they can go and do it themselves through other mechanisms, but they won't be able to use EU institutions." "Actually, we'll let them use EU institutions."
"We're going to cap the EU budget and stop us paying so much to the EU!" "Actually, we've agreed for our contribution to go up" "Actually, the EU messed up the numbers so we're going to have to pay even more on top of that." "But we've halved the extra payment!" "Actually, we haven't halved it, we're just changing the timing of the cash flow." "Oh, and the EU has overspent with a big black hole in funding that we're going to have to pay more for" "And our contribution is going up more in future."
"We're going to take tough action on EU migration! We might have a points system!" "Actually, maybe we won't have a points system, but we'll have a big emergency brake capping the numbers!" "Actually, we won't cap the numbers, but we'll stop benefits to EU migrants!" "Actually, we won't stop the benefits, but we'll delay them for a few years!" "Some of the benefits."
Given how quickly Cameron buckles and backs down, by the time we actually get to 2017, the EU referendum will be a consultation exercise. Consulting the shadow cabinet. In 2023.
Martin Kettle argues that the SNP may be overplaying their hand:
The SNP’s negative response to Smith could set it adrift from Scottish people There was a change in the body language of Scottish politics today. After Lord Smith presented his proposals, representatives of the five parties at the core of the commission gave their responses in Edinburgh’s National Museum of Scotland. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in varying degrees positive. The SNP and the Greens were negative and grudging. That could be a tonal miscalculation – voters like politicians to work together – but it was repeated by Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and Stewart Hosie, the SNP deputy leader and Dundee East MP, at Westminster. It felt like the start of a possible shift in the centre of political gravity, with the SNP perhaps even finding itself outside the consensus in the way that Labour has been in recent weeks.
I have a feeling, however, that I’m not alone in feeling sick of being lied to. For the avoidance of doubt though: I want to see sensible levels of immigration, not no immigration. I want us to treat the world equally and fairly, not have a discriminatory attitude towards Europe and against places like India, Australia, Canada, Africa, and so on.
I want Britain to prosper, and immigration can be a part of that. But not on this scale, and certainly not this quickly
He articulates my thoughts perfectly. Yes to immigration. But at a speed and scale and quality we can absorb. Maybe Dave is belatedly coming round to this point of view - it's the only sustainable one on offer.
I also pretty much detest the EU as I want the UK to be independent / fully governed from London not from Brussels - for me it's a simple 'demos' thing. I believe in the UK as an independent nation state (however shockingly non-PC that may be to some these days) and that we should run our own affairs. The EU is becoming an anti-democratic superstate where voters cannot actually remove those who govern them.
Crikey! Maybe I'm going to vote kipper in May. With all the attendant EICIPM implications.
Patrick, we'd love to have you join us. I understand the reluctance - I, too, stuck with Cameron for a long time. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I listened to his promises to make a tougher stand somewhere else. But that tougher stand never happened. Meanwhile UKIP, far from the media's stereotype, continued to offer a sensible and balanced policy. Once you put the emotional link to the Conservative Party to one side, and realise the Party has broken that link, not you, you can look at the issues objectively, and see UKIP better represent your views. And they won't look down on you for having your views either.
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
But there will be, the Scots can see it, the English can see it, its only the (Labour) politicians that can't see it (for obvious reasons), I am sure most of us South of the border, like most of you North of the border just want it done and dusted so we can get on with our lives!
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
But there will be, the Scots can see it, the English can see it, its only the (Labour) politicians that can't see it (for obvious reasons), I am sure most of us South of the border, like most of you North of the border just want it done and dusted so we can get on with our lives!
However it is not happening , Smith commission is a joke
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
once again the state broadcaster failed to even mention [in the part I saw] the English Parliament, the most rational and popular option. It's a disgraceful omission that speaks of political interest, not objective reporting.
If the LibDems support EVFEL then the coalition can vote it through next month and defy Labour to oppose it (knowing they'll lose anyway). I agree this will do much to help the yellows in England.
More importantly, EVFEL leads to an English PArliament sooner rather than later. EVFEL is only a blocking mechanism. It would stop eg Labour passing lefty laws that don't command an English MP majority. Fair dinkum. But it offers no active ability to govern England. So it would put a (probably Labour) UK PM in an impossible position. Potentially unable to legislate on health/education/policing/etc. With a devomax Scotland as a given, that means the only route out of impasse is an English Parliament within a fully federal UK. Which we should all welcome with open arms.
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
What devomax powers do YOU want then that aren't being offered (out of interest)?
Yes they must be anmoyed that gamblers have immigrated onto their site..
They probably think PB is a mosque.
At least they don't think a single UKIP supporter on a message board is evidence of what over 93% of their supporters believe.
It was a wider reference to Kippers who see Muslims everywhere.
Just look at MikeK's comment after I first posted that link about Cathedral.
He said it was likely under LibLabCon that it would become a Mosque.
But the polling shows Kippers have a negative perception of Asian/Muslim men not shared by the public at large.
Such as when it comes to sex crimes or the number of Muslims they think are in this country.
Your specific claim was that if UKIP lost the people who were "obsessed" - not "have a negative perception of", but "obsessed" - with Muslims they'd be below the Loonies in the polling, so 93% of the UKIP support. You have claimed your evidence backs that up, but it doesn't. You're just not very good with numbers.
Yes they must be anmoyed that gamblers have immigrated onto their site..
They probably think PB is a mosque.
At least they don't think a single UKIP supporter on a message board is evidence of what over 93% of their supporters believe.
It was a wider reference to Kippers who see Muslims everywhere.
Just look at MikeK's comment after I first posted that link about Cathedral.
He said it was likely under LibLabCon that it would become a Mosque.
But the polling shows Kippers have a negative perception of Asian/Muslim men not shared by the public at large.
Such as when it comes to sex crimes or the number of Muslims they think are in this country.
Your specific claim was that if UKIP lost the people who were "obsessed" - not "have a negative perception of", but "obsessed" - with Muslims they'd be below the Loonies in the polling, so 93% of the UKIP support. You have claimed your evidence backs that up, but it doesn't. You're just not very good with numbers.
Maybe not 93% of UKIP support, but what percentage of your posts?
Another girl was sexually exploited after a local authority outside Bristol set her up alone in a flat at the age of 16 in a deprived inner-city neighbourhood although she had been described as having the emotional development of a three-year-old.
...They also began to sexually abuse A. One gang member acted as her pimp. He would stand guard as she had sex with men. Together they could make £300 a day from five or six clients. Victim A grew fond of some of her abusers (her social worker compared it to a kidnap victim falling for her kidnappers). She said she was glad to please the men and felt “part of something”.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
That's minor. The BIG decision Switzeralnd makes on Sunday is whether or not the SNB must keep 20% of its reserves in gold. NO is ahead but if it's a YES that will have fairly seismic impact on currencies/gold price/global economy. The world's central bankers are praying for a NO. Me - I'd be voting YES.
Is No ahead? Not in that poll I linked to from October (44-39 for Yes) - I couldn't find a more recent one.
Am I alone in finding the pictures of these people literally fighting in stores for a large and cheap TV quite sad and not a little repulsive? I am not religious but the consumerism of western society is an illness.
Anyway off to Newcastle for our annual shopping trip. Joy.
Yes. Something depressing for lefties of my generation is how the whole idea of branding and consumer hoodwinking has become generally accepted by younger people, even those nominally on the left. At uni we'd have gently laughed at someone who took pride in wearing a particular brand of clothing or driving a fancy car.
I did a translation of a report by a well-known oil company the other day, which said proudly that although the benefits of their products were marginal, dealers were able to charge MUCH more because of their successful marketing campaign. They didn't think it necessary to qualify it in any way with any kind of embarrassment, commitment to improve quality further, etc. - it was simply a straight statement that the product was nothing special but we've successfully kidded the consumers, mwhahaha.
Martin Kettle argues that the SNP may be overplaying their hand:
The SNP’s negative response to Smith could set it adrift from Scottish people There was a change in the body language of Scottish politics today. After Lord Smith presented his proposals, representatives of the five parties at the core of the commission gave their responses in Edinburgh’s National Museum of Scotland. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in varying degrees positive. The SNP and the Greens were negative and grudging. That could be a tonal miscalculation – voters like politicians to work together – but it was repeated by Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and Stewart Hosie, the SNP deputy leader and Dundee East MP, at Westminster. It felt like the start of a possible shift in the centre of political gravity, with the SNP perhaps even finding itself outside the consensus in the way that Labour has been in recent weeks.
Nats talking to each other in the Nationalist echo-chamber - no! That's never happened before......
Kettle completly misrepresent the polling to come up with that view.
Over 60% of the Scottish people want everything bar defence and foreign policy devolved. Just double checked and Smith doesn't do that so I think it is safe to say that Smith has not given the majority of the people of Scotland what they want.
once again the state broadcaster failed to even mention [in the part I saw] the English Parliament, the most rational and popular option. It's a disgraceful omission that speaks of political interest, not objective reporting.
If the LibDems support EVFEL then the coalition can vote it through next month and defy Labour to oppose it (knowing they'll lose anyway). I agree this will do much to help the yellows in England.
More importantly, EVFEL leads to an English PArliament sooner rather than later. EVFEL is only a blocking mechanism. It would stop eg Labour passing lefty laws that don't command an English MP majority. Fair dinkum. But it offers no active ability to govern England. So it would put a (probably Labour) UK PM in an impossible position. Potentially unable to legislate on health/education/policing/etc. With a devomax Scotland as a given, that means the only route out of impasse is an English Parliament within a fully federal UK. Which we should all welcome with open arms.
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
What devomax powers do YOU want then that aren't being offered (out of interest)?
Could you clarify what you mean by 'devomax'? It obviously differs from the dictionary meaning.
'devo max Definitions noun (mainly British) an arrangement in which a central government transfers the maximum amount of authority to a regional government while still retaining sovereignty over it'
'devo max also devolution max noun [uncountable] a proposal in which Scotland would have full economic independence from the United Kingdom but would still remain a part of it and be governed in specific areas such as foreign policy and defence'
'Full fiscal autonomy (sometimes referred to as devolution max,[1] devo-max,[2] fiscal federalism,[3] independence lite,[4] or independence-minus,[5]) is a particular form of far-reaching devolution proposed for Scotland. The term has come to describe a constitutional arrangement in which instead of receiving a block grant from the UK Exchequer as at present, the Scottish Parliament would receive all taxation levied in Scotland; it would be responsible for most spending in Scotland, but would make payments to the UK government to cover Scotland's share of the cost of providing certain UK-wide services, including, at a minimum, defence and the conduct of foreign relations. Scottish fiscal autonomy, stopping short of full political independence, is usually promoted by advocates of a federal or confederal constitution for the United Kingdom.'
Martin Kettle argues that the SNP may be overplaying their hand:
The SNP’s negative response to Smith could set it adrift from Scottish people There was a change in the body language of Scottish politics today. After Lord Smith presented his proposals, representatives of the five parties at the core of the commission gave their responses in Edinburgh’s National Museum of Scotland. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in varying degrees positive. The SNP and the Greens were negative and grudging. That could be a tonal miscalculation – voters like politicians to work together – but it was repeated by Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and Stewart Hosie, the SNP deputy leader and Dundee East MP, at Westminster. It felt like the start of a possible shift in the centre of political gravity, with the SNP perhaps even finding itself outside the consensus in the way that Labour has been in recent weeks.
"Switzerland will decide on Sunday whether to curb immigration into the landlocked country, in a referendum proposed by an environmental group."
The proposal is expected to be heavily defeated. Two other proposals (to close tax loopholes for expats and increase gold reserves) are expected to pass.
Yes they must be anmoyed that gamblers have immigrated onto their site..
They probably think PB is a mosque.
At least they don't think a single UKIP supporter on a message board is evidence of what over 93% of their supporters believe.
It was a wider reference to Kippers who see Muslims everywhere.
Just look at MikeK's comment after I first posted that link about Cathedral.
He said it was likely under LibLabCon that it would become a Mosque.
But the polling shows Kippers have a negative perception of Asian/Muslim men not shared by the public at large.
Such as when it comes to sex crimes or the number of Muslims they think are in this country.
Your specific claim was that if UKIP lost the people who were "obsessed" - not "have a negative perception of", but "obsessed" - with Muslims they'd be below the Loonies in the polling, so 93% of the UKIP support. You have claimed your evidence backs that up, but it doesn't. You're just not very good with numbers.
Maybe not 93% of UKIP support, but what percentage of your posts?
I only discuss Muslims when someone else has brought it up or there's a story about them in the news. If that seems a lot, it's because there's a lot of Muslim rape gangs in this country.
I see that the usual suspects, who are utterly incapable of ever giving Cameron credit for anything, are ranting as usual.
But it's very simple. The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful, but need tightening. More needs to be done, and if we have a Conservative government in May, more will be done.
Meanwhile the success of the British economy - a massive achievement by any standards, given world conditions and especially the Eurozone woes - has brought an unexpectedly and unacceptably high degree of EU immigration. Cameron underestimated this (his critics massive over-estimated it, of course). Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course, so we need to do more, and he's come up with some very sensible proposals to do so.
Yes, the proposals might need treaty change - although I wouldn't underestimate the EU's capability of working round little difficulties like that if the key power brokers in the EU decide to do so.
And, if they don't, well that will make the Out side's task even easier.
It will be easy to get an Out result, right, guys? Given how Farage is a genius and Cameron utterly useless at politics, as you keep telling us. This immigration thing is a massive boost to your case, right? The public are fed up, right? So an Out result must surely be a shoo-in. The only slight problem you have is getting the referendum, which makes it odd that you are working to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
Or, in other words, Kippers are either thick, or frit.
Or maybe they are smart and realise Cameron is doing rather well.
You can tell when Richard_Nabavi knows he's making a bad argument because he gets aggressive.
The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful? Please, even if there was no EU immigration whatsoever, non-EU immigration is 70% above Cameron's target AND INCREASING.
Plus we can't trust Cameron to give us a referendum. On the bailouts, on significant transfers of powers, on the EU shakedown, on capping the EU budget, on being tough on EU migration, Cameron has made a big stand and then backed down, again and again. He'll do the same on this. We think he's made a big stand, but if "no ifs, no buts" on getting immigration down becomes a "comment", then of course we can't trust any commitment he makes.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
And the beauty of it is that whatever he does or doesn't do and however weak he shows himself in deed or act guess what?
You can vote us out of the EU in 2017.
Result!
You just need to make sure that the right party is in office that will give you that option.
The only party that can be trusted to give us an EU referendum is the UK Independence Party. Certainly not Cameron's Tories. Let's have a look at the big EU stands he's followed through on in the last few years.
"We're going to block the Lisbon Treaty!" "Well, if it passes we won't block it, but we won't let matters rest there!" "Actually, we won't do anything about it, but we'll have a referendum on future significant transfers of power." "Actually, we'll make significant transfers of powers ourselves without a referendum, but we'll ask parliament." "Actually, we won't even bother asking parliament."
"We won't get involved in the Eurozone bailout!" "Actually, we will get involved in the Eurozone bailout, but just Ireland, given their historic connections to the UK" "Actually, we will also help bailout other Eurozone countries too."
"We're blocking the EU fiscal compact as it transfers more power to Brussels!" "Actually, they can go and do it themselves through other mechanisms, but they won't be able to use EU institutions." "Actually, we'll let them use EU institutions."
"We're going to cap the EU budget and stop us paying so much to the EU!" "Actually, we've agreed for our contribution to go up" "Actually, the EU messed up the numbers so we're going to have to pay even more on top of that." "But we've halved the extra payment!" "Actually, we haven't halved it, we're just changing the timing of the cash flow." "Oh, and the EU has overspent with a big black hole in funding that we're going to have to pay more for" "And our contribution is going up more in future."
"We're going to take tough action on EU migration! We might have a points system!" "Actually, maybe we won't have a points system, but we'll have a big emergency brake capping the numbers!" "Actually, we won't cap the numbers, but we'll stop benefits to EU migrants!" "Actually, we won't stop the benefits, but we'll delay them for a few years!" "Some of the benefits."
Given how quickly Cameron buckles and backs down, by the time we actually get to 2017, the EU referendum will be a consultation exercise. Consulting the shadow cabinet. In 2023.
A damning critique.
It maybe a damning critique but it is also a sadly accurate summary of Cameron's words and actions in relation to the EU.
The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful? Please, even if there was no EU immigration whatsoever, non-EU immigration is 70% above Cameron's target AND INCREASING.
Plus we can't trust Cameron to give us a referendum.
Now, that is absolutely lunacy. Completely, 100%, bat-shit crazy bonkers.
My offer remains open, and of course has not been taken up. Up to a £1000, or maybe more, at Evens to any credit-worthy PBer that, if there is a Conservative majority, there will be an EU referendum by the end of 2017.
I don't expect to get any takers, which tells you all you need to know.
I see that the usual suspects, who are utterly incapable of ever giving Cameron credit for anything, are ranting as usual.
But it's very simple. The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful, but need tightening. More needs to be done, and if we have a Conservative government in May, more will be done.
Meanwhile the success of the British economy - a massive achievement by any standards, given world conditions and especially the Eurozone woes - has brought an unexpectedly and unacceptably high degree of EU immigration. Cameron underestimated this (his critics massive over-estimated it, of course). Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course, so we need to do more, and he's come up with some very sensible proposals to do so.
Yes, the proposals might need treaty change - although I wouldn't underestimate the EU's capability of working round little difficulties like that if the key power brokers in the EU decide to do so.
And, if they don't, well that will make the Out side's task even easier.
It will be easy to get an Out result, right, guys? Given how Farage is a genius and Cameron utterly useless at politics, as you keep telling us. This immigration thing is a massive boost to your case, right? The public are fed up, right? So an Out result is a shoo-in. The only slight problem you have is getting the referendum, which makes it odd that you are working to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
Or, in other words, Kippers are either thick, or frit.
Or maybe they are smart and realise Cameron is doing rather well.
Cameron makes a pledge that misses the target by a country mile which in turn loses the party a chunk of its support and so has to suggest a two tier system of benefits that discriminates arbitrarily on place of birth
I'm only reading a ticker of the yet-another-Cameron-immigration-speech so cannot see how it is being delivered but there's a lot of stuff in the text which basically vindicates the last Labour government.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
Well, that is a silly statement, given the fact that we are in coalition, and on two occasions have tried and failed to get a referendum bill through parliament. More to the point, though, a referendum before renegotiation would be the worst of all worlds. The result would be to stay In, locking in the current unsatisfactory treaty arrangements.
Freddy goes pop eyed, spittle-flecked, to the right of Heffer, Nats under the mattress tonto.
'New leader Nicola Sturgeon, while we were all riveted on the Thames estuary, has stated beyond contradiction that SNP will never, under any circumstances work with the Tories. So Labour then. Miliband in Downing Street. But there will be a non-negotiable condition. A second referendum on secession from the UK. Which they will win by hook or by crook - and they have a lot of those. But let us not forget this. SNP is not just Centre-Left. It is not just Left. It is extreme Left, diehard Forties-style Skargillite Socialist. Its leadership would prefer to cooperate with Josef Stalin than Winston Churchill. And in terms of wealth-management it makes Francois Hollande look like Rockefeller. This country, our country, he is not the danger. It still lies north of the border.'
The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful? Please, even if there was no EU immigration whatsoever, non-EU immigration is 70% above Cameron's target AND INCREASING.
It is down substantially since 2010.
But nowhere near enough. It's about three times what it should be, should it have it's share of the reduction to tens of thousands.
Plus we can't trust Cameron to give us a referendum.
Now, that is absolutely lunacy. Completely, 100%, bat-shit crazy bonkers.
My offer remains open, and of course has not been taken up. Up to a £1000, or maybe more, at Evens to any credit-worthy PBer that, if there is a Conservative majority, there will be an EU referendum by the end of 2017.
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority. This is the whole reason Cameron has made the commitment, because he knows he won't have to follow through.
My offer remains open, and of course has not been taken up. Up to a £1000, or maybe more, at Evens to any credit-worthy PBer that, if there is a Conservative majority, there will be an EU referendum by the end of 2017.
I wouldn't take evens regardless of how this was phrased, but anybody thinking of taking you up on this should nail down the wording a bit. For example, one of the less implausible weasels would be to say, "The EU are being a bunch of meanies about negotiating, let's show them we mean business by having a referendum on whether we're very, very cross with them".
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
I wouldn't take evens regardless of how this was phrased, but anybody thinking of taking you up on this should nail down the wording a bit. For example, one of the less implausible weasels would be to say, "The EU are being a bunch of meanies about negotiating, let's show them we mean business by having a referendum on whether we're very, very cross with them".
I'd be prepared to bet that the wording will be an In/Out choice substantially as per the James Wharton bill, with Peter the Punter to adjudicate if there are any differences in the wording.
Edit: Of course you are quite right that Evens is a very ungenerous offer. That is the point. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of my losing this bet.
I see that the usual suspects, who are utterly incapable of ever giving Cameron credit for anything, are ranting as usual.
But it's very simple. The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful, but need tightening. More needs to be done, and if we have a Conservative government in May, more will be done.
Meanwhile the success of the British economy - a massive achievement by any standards, given world conditions and especially the Eurozone woes - has brought an unexpectedly and unacceptably high degree of EU immigration. Cameron underestimated this (his critics massive over-estimated it, of course). Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course, so we need to do more, and he's come up with some very sensible proposals to do so.
Yes, the proposals might need treaty change - although I wouldn't underestimate the EU's capability of working round little difficulties like that if the key power brokers in the EU decide to do so.
And, if they don't, well that will make the Out side's task even easier.
It will be easy to get an Out result, right, guys? Given how Farage is a genius and Cameron utterly useless at politics, as you keep telling us. This immigration thing is a massive boost to your case, right? The public are fed up, right? So an Out result must surely be a shoo-in. The only slight problem you have is getting the referendum, which makes it odd that you are working to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
Or, in other words, Kippers are either thick, or frit.
Or maybe they are smart and realise Cameron is doing rather well.
Kippers are neither thick nor frit, I says a lot about you that you consider them to be so.
They are just realists that live in the real world.
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority.
So it's a risk-free bet - it would be void if there's not a Conservative majority.
Still no takers.
I wonder why?
Ok, fine, let's agree the terms.
I offer you £50 at evens that, if David Cameron is Prime Minister, he will not hold a referendum with only two options - In versus Out - on completed renegotiations by the end of 2017.
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority.
So it's a risk-free bet - it would be void if there's not a Conservative majority.
Still no takers.
I wonder why?
Ok, fine, let's agree the terms.
I offer you £50 at evens that, if David Cameron is Prime Minister, he will not hold a referendum with only two options - In versus Out - on completed renegotiations by the end of 2017.
So so-called EU negotiations will centre on tinkering and irrelevancies.
Sadly so.. because even if they got no benefits at all, earning £6.50 in the UK flipping burgers beats the hell out of earning £1.25 doing the same in a former Eastern Bloc country. They might have had to pay £7.85 (£9.15 in London) to get a local to do it, but now that local can cost the country sitting at home on JSA. Its just transferring expenses an employer should be bearing, to the state.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
That would be the Parliament in which the Tories don't have a majority?
In which there was a tacitly supported private members bill which was undone by Lib/Lab shenanigans?
Oh, sorry, the Parliament where Cameron has absolute control and his word is law. Sorry. Silly me.
"Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course" Richard - that has to be the underestimate of the year. If he had reduced immigration but fallen slightly short of his target that would be one thing, but when immigration is moving in the opposite direction that is another.
As for Cameron's promise let's imagine a domestic scenario for a moment:
Wife: I thought you were going to mow the lawn today Man: I'll do it tomorrow. I'm watching the football now Wife: You said that yesterday Man: I promise I'll mow the lawn tomorrow
Now you can analyse this two ways. You could conclude the man has promised to mow the lawn therefore the lawn will be mowed. Or you could conclude that the man really doesn't want to mow the lawn so when tomorrow comes he will try and find some way of weaseling out of it again.
Now David Cameron really doesn't want a referendum. What I expect he wanted was for people to shut up about Europe but instead he has been bounced into this referendum promise by his right wing and UKIP's growing strength. What I expect would suit him quite well is to have another coalition with the LDs and use that as an excuse to weasel out of a referendum.
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority.
So it's a risk-free bet - it would be void if there's not a Conservative majority.
Still no takers.
I wonder why?
Why? Because if the Conservatives win a majority, they will probably offer the voters a referendum.
The question is whether voters who were promised much by the Party on immigration at the 2010 election and voted for it as a consequences should vote for it again. Should they forgive it for misleading it last time and accept that this time it means it? Or should they say 'no, you deceived us last time, so even if you do mean it now, we are not buying it'.
Freddy goes pop eyed, spittle-flecked, to the right of Heffer, Nats under the mattress tonto.
'New leader Nicola Sturgeon, while we were all riveted on the Thames estuary, has stated beyond contradiction that SNP will never, under any circumstances work with the Tories. So Labour then. Miliband in Downing Street. But there will be a non-negotiable condition. A second referendum on secession from the UK. Which they will win by hook or by crook - and they have a lot of those. But let us not forget this. SNP is not just Centre-Left. It is not just Left. It is extreme Left, diehard Forties-style Skargillite Socialist. Its leadership would prefer to cooperate with Josef Stalin than Winston Churchill. And in terms of wealth-management it makes Francois Hollande look like Rockefeller. This country, our country, he is not the danger. It still lies north of the border.'
Are you just waking up to the fact that the SNP are an ultra left party, more akin to the Trotskyists of the 4th international than the Labour party. The other arm of this dual menace are the Greens. another far left party but wrapt in bird feathers, badger fur and windmills for a head-dress.
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority.
So it's a risk-free bet - it would be void if there's not a Conservative majority.
Still no takers.
I wonder why?
Ok, fine, let's agree the terms.
I offer you £50 at evens that, if David Cameron is Prime Minister, he will not hold a referendum with only two options - In versus Out - on completed renegotiations by the end of 2017.
What do you mean by 'completed renegotiations'?
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
That would be the Parliament in which the Tories don't have a majority?
In which there was a tacitly supported private members bill which was undone by Lib/Lab shenanigans?
Oh, sorry, the Parliament where Cameron has absolute control and his word is law. Sorry. Silly me.
Having watched the end of the Callaghan government, Cameron is being altogether far to gentlemanly about his legislative program at the moment, he should be forcing votes at every opportunity and using it to either get what he wants, or showing his coalition "partners" up for the two-faced individuals they are. He should have pushed the constituency boundaries through on a confidence motion, Clegg has no more desire to be in opposition that Cameron does.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
That would be the Parliament in which the Tories don't have a majority?
In which there was a tacitly supported private members bill which was undone by Lib/Lab shenanigans?
Oh, sorry, the Parliament where Cameron has absolute control and his word is law. Sorry. Silly me.
Having watched the end of the Callaghan government, Cameron is being altogether far to gentlemanly about his legislative program at the moment, he should be forcing votes at every opportunity and using it to either get what he wants, or showing his coalition "partners" up for the two-faced individuals they are. He should have pushed the constituency boundaries through on a confidence motion, Clegg has no more desire to be in opposition that Cameron does.
But Cameron may want a coalition partner in the future. What you suggest may be bravado, but it's hardly enlightened self interest.
I was expecting to see a thread header showing a kipper bearing Cameron's face. he has turned into a Kipper, hasn't he?
He intends to negotiate all these changes with the EU, but what is the timescale? I suspect he'll want Farage's voters to trust him until after May 2015. Then the fiery rhetoric may well fizzle out.
Basically, he's saying to Ukip ... "OK, you're right. Just give me a year or two to sort it out."
It may convince enough on the fringes of Ukip to give him a majority, especially if Ed, via Yvette etc, doesn't respond.
But the immigration pledge, cast iron as it was, might be an unfortunate milestone.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
< Why? Because if the Conservatives win a majority, they will probably offer the voters a referendum.
The question is whether voters who were promised much by the Party on immigration at the 2010 election and voted for it as a consequences should vote for it again. Should they forgive it for misleading it last time and accept that this time it means it? Or should they say 'no, you deceived us last time, so even if you do mean it now, we are not buying it'.
That's the problem. Tricky one.
Politics is indeed tricky, and not everything this government wanted to achieve has yet been achieved (not helped, in some respects, by having the LibDems in tow, of course).
I'll tell you one thing, though. If voters think they've been misled on this, just think what the reaction will be if we do leave the EU, and find (as we would find) that not much had actually changed in that scenario either.
The SNP are ultra left pro- private enterprise communists looking to undermine the welfare state by giving a big government cut in corporation tax rates.
Comments
Ed: Don't leave it will be a disaster
Nick: Don't leave it will be a disaster
CBI: Don't leave it will be a disaster
BBC: Don't leave it will be a disaster
Nige: Lets leave, its bullshit
Dave/Nick/Ed/BBC: Don't listen to Nige, he's a racist, Oh and don't leave it will be a disaster!
Dave: But its up to you voters of course...
"The Guardian told me everyone was starving and in deep poverty yet there are hoards of people snapping up luxury cleaners and televisions?
Cost of living crisis?"
1. Stephen Fisher gives 31 “Others”, which includes 18 N. Irish. Hence there are only 13 ”available“ for Green, Respect, PC and SNP. Etc. Unlikely.
2. How do we police an EU citzen arriving here for work, not finding any and being “entitled" to be chucked out after however long? AFAIK there’s no requirment to register with anyone, not even the Jobcentre.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
People make up their minds for any number of reasons. Not everyone can be as rational, well-researched and acute as you.
They will have the opportunity to make up their minds in 2017, if there is a Cons govt.
I think your first error, if I may be so bold, is to patronise the voters.
It ain't that bad. I once went Christmas shopping in New York.
It was like the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia
Intriguing comment - Has London been invaded by Ottoman Turks?
That's minor. The BIG decision Switzeralnd makes on Sunday is whether or not the SNB must keep 20% of its reserves in gold. NO is ahead but if it's a YES that will have fairly seismic impact on currencies/gold price/global economy. The world's central bankers are praying for a NO. Me - I'd be voting YES.
As to vote UKIP/get Milliband, that's like saying vote Lib Dem/Green, get Cameron. Lots of voters don't want either.
If you think Dave has it within him to make good = in.
If you think Dave hasn't a chance in hell = out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30232803
Brent Crude at $72 having recovered from early trade at ~$71.3
Alarming case of child care from NE Lincolnshire Council re an adoption row. Grandparents wanted to adopt a child when its mother died.
"Judge Simon Jack was deciding whether the boy should be placed for adoption or allowed to live with his grandparents.
He said North East Lincolnshire Council witnesses had been "visibly biased" and its case "severely undermined"......
He said it was accepted that the boy, known only as J, could not live with his father.
But he said the council had wanted him placed for adoption and had "effectively ruled out" both sets of grandparents.
"I have never, in over 10 years of hearing care cases, taken the view, as I did in this case, that the local authority's witnesses were visibly biased in their attempts to support the local authority's case," he said.
"It is very unfortunate and I hope I shall never see that again."
The judge concluded the boy should live with one set of grandparents.
He was critical of the evidence given by social workers Neil Swaby, Rachel Olley and Peter Nelson.
He said their concerns "appeared to be grossly overstated in order to try and achieve their ends".
"During the course of that evidence the local authority's case was severely undermined."
'Totally discredited'
He said Mr Swaby had been "very begrudging indeed in his evidence" and "was intent on saying only things which supported the local authority's case".
The judge said: "I then heard evidence from Rachel Olley, whose evidence was totally discredited in my view.
"Again I had the very strong impression that the local authority witnesses were intent on playing up any factors which were unfavourable to the grandparents and playing down any factors which might be favourable."
The judge said some of Mr Nelson's evidence "smacks to me of the same bias".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-30227974
http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
Voters moving away from Labour, but not towards Conservatives/LD.
So it still a 'change' election, but Labour are not the change desired.
The SNP’s negative response to Smith could set it adrift from Scottish people
There was a change in the body language of Scottish politics today. After Lord Smith presented his proposals, representatives of the five parties at the core of the commission gave their responses in Edinburgh’s National Museum of Scotland. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in varying degrees positive. The SNP and the Greens were negative and grudging. That could be a tonal miscalculation – voters like politicians to work together – but it was repeated by Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood and Stewart Hosie, the SNP deputy leader and Dundee East MP, at Westminster. It felt like the start of a possible shift in the centre of political gravity, with the SNP perhaps even finding itself outside the consensus in the way that Labour has been in recent weeks.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/snp-smith-commission-scottish-people-devolution
Nats talking to each other in the Nationalist echo-chamber - no! That's never happened before......
I will be interested to see how he attempts to bridge it.
"We're going to block the Lisbon Treaty!"
"Well, if it passes we won't block it, but we won't let matters rest there!"
"Actually, we won't do anything about it, but we'll have a referendum on future significant transfers of power."
"Actually, we'll make significant transfers of powers ourselves without a referendum, but we'll ask parliament."
"Actually, we won't even bother asking parliament."
"We won't get involved in the Eurozone bailout!"
"Actually, we will get involved in the Eurozone bailout, but just Ireland, given their historic connections to the UK"
"Actually, we will also help bailout other Eurozone countries too."
"We're blocking the EU fiscal compact as it transfers more power to Brussels!"
"Actually, they can go and do it themselves through other mechanisms, but they won't be able to use EU institutions."
"Actually, we'll let them use EU institutions."
"We're going to cap the EU budget and stop us paying so much to the EU!"
"Actually, we've agreed for our contribution to go up"
"Actually, the EU messed up the numbers so we're going to have to pay even more on top of that."
"But we've halved the extra payment!"
"Actually, we haven't halved it, we're just changing the timing of the cash flow."
"Oh, and the EU has overspent with a big black hole in funding that we're going to have to pay more for"
"And our contribution is going up more in future."
"We're going to take tough action on EU migration! We might have a points system!"
"Actually, maybe we won't have a points system, but we'll have a big emergency brake capping the numbers!"
"Actually, we won't cap the numbers, but we'll stop benefits to EU migrants!"
"Actually, we won't stop the benefits, but we'll delay them for a few years!"
"Some of the benefits."
Given how quickly Cameron buckles and backs down, by the time we actually get to 2017, the EU referendum will be a consultation exercise. Consulting the shadow cabinet. In 2023.
Just look at MikeK's comment after I first posted that link about Cathedral.
He said it was likely under LibLabCon that it would become a Mosque.
But the polling shows Kippers have a negative perception of Asian/Muslim men not shared by the public at large.
Such as when it comes to sex crimes or the number of Muslims they think are in this country.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
Plus I'm spending most of today in a darkened room.
Paddington and Horrible Bosses 2 out today.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/guilty-prostitution-bristol-rape-girls-sex-abuse-somali
Another girl was sexually exploited after a local authority outside Bristol set her up alone in a flat at the age of 16 in a deprived inner-city neighbourhood although she had been described as having the emotional development of a three-year-old.
...They also began to sexually abuse A. One gang member acted as her pimp. He would stand guard as she had sex with men. Together they could make £300 a day from five or six clients. Victim A grew fond of some of her abusers (her social worker compared it to a kidnap victim falling for her kidnappers). She said she was glad to please the men and felt “part of something”.
Truly sickening.
I did a translation of a report by a well-known oil company the other day, which said proudly that although the benefits of their products were marginal, dealers were able to charge MUCH more because of their successful marketing campaign. They didn't think it necessary to qualify it in any way with any kind of embarrassment, commitment to improve quality further, etc. - it was simply a straight statement that the product was nothing special but we've successfully kidded the consumers, mwhahaha.
Over 60% of the Scottish people want everything bar defence and foreign policy devolved. Just double checked and Smith doesn't do that so I think it is safe to say that Smith has not given the majority of the people of Scotland what they want.
I saw 47 NO / 38 Yes recently but can't remember where - probably Zerohedge.
For those interested in gold this is all good stuff:
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ttmygh/how-could-it-happen
'devo max
Definitions
noun (mainly British) an arrangement in which a central government transfers the maximum amount of authority to a regional government while still retaining sovereignty over it'
http://tinyurl.com/n4lxzv5
'devo max also devolution max
noun [uncountable]
a proposal in which Scotland would have full economic independence from the United Kingdom but would still remain a part of it and be governed in specific areas such as foreign policy and defence'
http://tinyurl.com/pcmxszt
'Full fiscal autonomy (sometimes referred to as devolution max,[1] devo-max,[2] fiscal federalism,[3] independence lite,[4] or independence-minus,[5]) is a particular form of far-reaching devolution proposed for Scotland. The term has come to describe a constitutional arrangement in which instead of receiving a block grant from the UK Exchequer as at present, the Scottish Parliament would receive all taxation levied in Scotland; it would be responsible for most spending in Scotland, but would make payments to the UK government to cover Scotland's share of the cost of providing certain UK-wide services, including, at a minimum, defence and the conduct of foreign relations. Scottish fiscal autonomy, stopping short of full political independence, is usually promoted by advocates of a federal or confederal constitution for the United Kingdom.'
http://tinyurl.com/mv3d2d6
Another thread and UKIP is centre stage again, egged on by TSE at his most obnoxious.
To all Lab/Lib/Con Pbers- please calm down. UKIP is here to stay as a major player in British politics. Get used to it.
I tried listening to that clip. Is that really German they were speaking? Really, what do they teach in Swiss schools these days?
Have they never heard of Hochdeutsch?
UKIP is to now what the SDP were in the 80's.
But it's very simple. The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful, but need tightening. More needs to be done, and if we have a Conservative government in May, more will be done.
Meanwhile the success of the British economy - a massive achievement by any standards, given world conditions and especially the Eurozone woes - has brought an unexpectedly and unacceptably high degree of EU immigration. Cameron underestimated this (his critics massive over-estimated it, of course). Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course, so we need to do more, and he's come up with some very sensible proposals to do so.
Yes, the proposals might need treaty change - although I wouldn't underestimate the EU's capability of working round little difficulties like that if the key power brokers in the EU decide to do so.
And, if they don't, well that will make the Out side's task even easier.
It will be easy to get an Out result, right, guys? Given how Farage is a genius and Cameron utterly useless at politics, as you keep telling us. This immigration thing is a massive boost to your case, right? The public are fed up, right? So an Out result must surely be a shoo-in. The only slight problem you have is getting the referendum, which makes it odd that you are working to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
Or, in other words, Kippers are either thick, or frit.
Or maybe they are smart and realise Cameron is doing rather well.
42,000 Romanians and Bulgarians get UK jobs http://dailym.ai/1B99Swp via @MailOnline
mac campbell @nufcno1fan 3m3 minutes ago
I saw the immigration lies a mile off - and now nobody can deny it http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-saw-the-immigration-lies-a-mile-off--and-now-nobody-can-deny-it-9888641.html …
http://time.com/3609303/ukip-nigel-farage-westminster-cathedral-mosque/
You could hear the howls of derision up and down the country.
The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful? Please, even if there was no EU immigration whatsoever, non-EU immigration is 70% above Cameron's target AND INCREASING.
Plus we can't trust Cameron to give us a referendum. On the bailouts, on significant transfers of powers, on the EU shakedown, on capping the EU budget, on being tough on EU migration, Cameron has made a big stand and then backed down, again and again. He'll do the same on this. We think he's made a big stand, but if "no ifs, no buts" on getting immigration down becomes a "comment", then of course we can't trust any commitment he makes.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
It also reminds me of Brown whining about the 'harm' Thatcher did, or lefties trying to blame Thatcherite reforms for the financial crash in 2008.
My offer remains open, and of course has not been taken up. Up to a £1000, or maybe more, at Evens to any credit-worthy PBer that, if there is a Conservative majority, there will be an EU referendum by the end of 2017.
I don't expect to get any takers, which tells you all you need to know.
Jeremy Paxman will not be making any further comment.
What a guy. Can he do no wrong?
'New leader Nicola Sturgeon, while we were all riveted on the Thames estuary, has stated beyond contradiction that SNP will never, under any circumstances work with the Tories. So Labour then. Miliband in Downing Street. But there will be a non-negotiable condition. A second referendum on secession from the UK. Which they will win by hook or by crook - and they have a lot of those.
But let us not forget this. SNP is not just Centre-Left. It is not just Left. It is extreme Left, diehard Forties-style Skargillite Socialist. Its leadership would prefer to cooperate with Josef Stalin than Winston Churchill. And in terms of wealth-management it makes Francois Hollande look like Rockefeller.
This country, our country, he is not the danger. It still lies north of the border.'
http://tinyurl.com/lvqxyz5
NB: surprisingly badly written/subbed.
And it's now increasing. We're going backwards.
This is Cameron's "no ifs, no buts"
A pointless bet, because there's no chance of a Conservative majority. This is the whole reason Cameron has made the commitment, because he knows he won't have to follow through.
So so-called EU negotiations will centre on tinkering and irrelevancies.
Still no takers.
I wonder why?
http://www.tonesshots.com/galleries/churches-and-cathedrals/liverpool-catholic-cathedral/
Edit: Of course you are quite right that Evens is a very ungenerous offer. That is the point. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of my losing this bet.
They are just realists that live in the real world.
I offer you £50 at evens that, if David Cameron is Prime Minister, he will not hold a referendum with only two options - In versus Out - on completed renegotiations by the end of 2017.
In which there was a tacitly supported private members bill which was undone by Lib/Lab shenanigans?
Oh, sorry, the Parliament where Cameron has absolute control and his word is law. Sorry. Silly me.
As for Cameron's promise let's imagine a domestic scenario for a moment:
Wife: I thought you were going to mow the lawn today
Man: I'll do it tomorrow. I'm watching the football now
Wife: You said that yesterday
Man: I promise I'll mow the lawn tomorrow
Now you can analyse this two ways. You could conclude the man has promised to mow the lawn therefore the lawn will be mowed. Or you could conclude that the man really doesn't want to mow the lawn so when tomorrow comes he will try and find some way of weaseling out of it again.
Now David Cameron really doesn't want a referendum. What I expect he wanted was for people to shut up about Europe but instead he has been bounced into this referendum promise by his right wing and UKIP's growing strength. What I expect would suit him quite well is to have another coalition with the LDs and use that as an excuse to weasel out of a referendum.
The question is whether voters who were promised much by the Party on immigration at the 2010 election and voted for it as a consequences should vote for it again. Should they forgive it for misleading it last time and accept that this time it means it? Or should they say 'no, you deceived us last time, so even if you do mean it now, we are not buying it'.
That's the problem. Tricky one.
http://www.channel4.com/news/cameron-tries-to-tackle-migration-issue
I was expecting to see a thread header showing a kipper bearing Cameron's face. he has turned into a Kipper, hasn't he?
He intends to negotiate all these changes with the EU, but what is the timescale? I suspect he'll want Farage's voters to trust him until after May 2015. Then the fiery rhetoric may well fizzle out.
Basically, he's saying to Ukip ... "OK, you're right. Just give me a year or two to sort it out."
It may convince enough on the fringes of Ukip to give him a majority, especially if Ed, via Yvette etc, doesn't respond.
But the immigration pledge, cast iron as it was, might be an unfortunate milestone.
They will be a duplicitous rat-snake
I'll tell you one thing, though. If voters think they've been misled on this, just think what the reaction will be if we do leave the EU, and find (as we would find) that not much had actually changed in that scenario either.
If the proposals he suggests are accepted and put into place... we will have no more control over immigration from the EU than we do today