You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
As soon as you say that though, you are dead:
"since the protection against removal on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is set out in the Treaties for EU migrant workers (Article 45(3) TFEU)."
You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
Congratulations to UKIP for their consistency. May I suggest to all those who don't subscribe to their ideology that they find themselves a nice retreat abroad. Watching the unseemly scramble to trump them has made Dave and Ed look like the sleaziest duo since Burke and Hare
I'm thinking of retiring to Belgium. The biggest problem seems to be healthcare costs between moving there and drawing my UK State Pension (at which point I would become covered by the Belgian system).
Mr. Indigo, from some it's like a joke I think I read here about two old ladies in a cafe complaining about everything: "This food is awful." "Yes, and the portions are too small."
Today the Sun runs a story of a couple with a young child that are going to splash out 1500 quid for Christmas. Nothing really unusual at that of course a lot of people splash out at this time of year. What's specific in this case though (and not these days unusual either) is neither have had a job for 5 years and have been living on 17k of benefits each year. The story is from a tabloid so usual pinch of salt stuff but this plays into the resentment of those who do work hard against those that appear not to be bothered to get a job.
I know I feel resentment given they are young, could get something is they could be bothered, probably clear as much as I do for doing absolutely nothing, they have been doing nothing for 5 years and look like continuing to do nothing for the next 5 years. Why? ......Because they are quoted as saying we know how this works and know how to make it ( benefits) work for us at Christmas. I have complete and total sympathy for genuine cases but this is one of many that just isn't genuine.
The media of course fan the resentment with these stories but its the political parties that not only cause this sytem to work as it does but continue to champion people like this that are resented. The people above really have no intention of doing anything to help themselves we all know it. the only thing they intend is to be a parasite on the rest of us and visit the food banks on a regular baisis for as long as they can get away with it.
No politician will chance there votes by stating the obvious though so it will continue as will the resentment.
It is a little bit gobsmacking that our lords and masters have signed us up to a set of treaties which explicitly prevent us from expelling or blocking the immigration of EU citizens on the basis of public policy, public security or public health, except in an extremely narrow set of circumstances surrounding convicted criminals and a few other edge cases.
Except this is all nonsense. When Downing Street floated a points system or emergency brake I was widely supportive and said so on here. It was only when Cameron buckled after being told what the British are allowed to by the German Chancellor that I criticised him. The reality is that Parris has contempt for regular people and is a fully fledged Europhile that supports this weakness because he doesn't want us to have powers back from Brussels.
Does Matthew Parris read PB? He has accurately predicted most of the thread since the speech...
Here’s the unwritten “line to take” that every irreconcilable carries in his or her head for prime-ministerial announcements on immigration and Europe. We’ll need to get used to it, and discount it. It runs thus: 1 Unless proposals amount to a non-negotiable demand for everything we could dream of plus the kitchen sink, denounce them as “totally inadequate”; “pathetic fig leaf”, “missing the elephant in the room”, etc. 2 If proposals look surprisingly ambitious, denounce as “pie-in-the-sky” and “unachievable” and advise the prime minister to “get real”. 3 If wrong-footed by a favourable public response, denounce Mr Cameron in personal terms as a confidence trickster who won’t keep his word anyway.
My guess is that this weekend the irreconcilables will be dithering between 1 and 2, and ready to fall back on 3 if the speech gets a positive reception.
It is a little bit gobsmacking that our lords and masters have signed us up to a set of treaties which explicitly prevent us from expelling or blocking the immigration of EU citizens on the basis of public policy, public security or public health, except in an extremely narrow set of circumstances surrounding convicted criminals and a few other edge cases.
Not really. It's called Freedom of Movement and a key EU principle, which is reciprocal and benefits lots of Brits who want retire to Spain, for example. What is really gobsmacking is that until now we have not thought to look at the benefit rules, so they can't come here and live at our expense.
It is a little bit gobsmacking that our lords and masters have signed us up to a set of treaties which explicitly prevent us from expelling or blocking the immigration of EU citizens on the basis of public policy, public security or public health, except in an extremely narrow set of circumstances surrounding convicted criminals and a few other edge cases.
Not really. It's called Freedom of Movement and a key EU principle, which is reciprocal and benefits lots of Brits who want retire to Spain, for example. What is really gobsmacking is that until now we have not thought to look at the benefit rules, so they can't come here and live at our expense.
I think people make much too bigger deal about the benefits of FoM, the Spanish wanted us to go there and spend money into their economy, if the FoM hadn't been there, the visas would have been forthcoming in very short order. I am a permanent resident here in the Philippines, despite being a Brit, it wasn't a big deal, couple of mornings at the immigration office, a hundred quid or so in fees. If people want you, they will give you a visa, if they dont want you, its not going to be a lot of fun going there even if you have the right through FoM.
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
Congrats to David Mellor for his fulsome and unreserved apology this morning. I don’t like the man’s politics, or sometimes, the way he goes about things, but credit where it’s due. Must admit I suspect he got a considerable amount what’s often known as “GBH of the ear’ole” from his lady partner! Especially in view of the circumstances!
Back on topic, if one arrives at Stansted from Poland, what steps does one have to take, apart from showing one’s EU passport to the immigration officer. AFAIK one doesn’t have to give an address in the UK to which one is going. Or am I wrong?
Except this is all nonsense. When Downing Street floated a points system or emergency brake I was widely supportive and said so on here. It was only when Cameron buckled after being told what the British are allowed to by the German Chancellor that I criticised him.
'Tisn't you know. Both a points system (which we cannot even implement for non-EU migrants for some reason) and an emergency brake would be contrary to EU treaties so it's not so much a matter of "what the Germans will allow", it would have to be negotiated, and passed through legal channels, etc etc and it is not certain what would actually get implemented.
What politicians should have been doing is changing the benefit rules - possibly for Brits as well as EU migrants - so that they can be fairly denied to recent EU (and other!) immigrants. Other countries have less pervious benefit systems, you cannot just turn up and claim, we could have looked at other countries' entitlement systems and tweaked ours. Or we can't, because of course "not invented here" rules supreme in politics. It now seems you get away with a reasonable amount on the basis that FoM means freedom to live and work, not be indigent.
Some things seem obvious. You should not be able to claim Child Benefit for children living abroad. You should not be able to move here and claim Income Support or ESA as you are not required to be actively seeking work (and in the latter case, are not fit for work) so cannot be said to be here to "live and work"
If the Tories were serious about this, they'd have started five years ago.
Does Matthew Parris read PB? He has accurately predicted most of the thread since the speech...
Here’s the unwritten “line to take” that every irreconcilable carries in his or her head for prime-ministerial announcements on immigration and Europe. We’ll need to get used to it, and discount it. It runs thus: 1 Unless proposals amount to a non-negotiable demand for everything we could dream of plus the kitchen sink, denounce them as “totally inadequate”; “pathetic fig leaf”, “missing the elephant in the room”, etc. 2 If proposals look surprisingly ambitious, denounce as “pie-in-the-sky” and “unachievable” and advise the prime minister to “get real”. 3 If wrong-footed by a favourable public response, denounce Mr Cameron in personal terms as a confidence trickster who won’t keep his word anyway.
My guess is that this weekend the irreconcilables will be dithering between 1 and 2, and ready to fall back on 3 if the speech gets a positive reception.
Back on topic, if one arrives at Stansted from Poland, what steps does one have to take, apart from showing one’s EU passport to the immigration officer. AFAIK one doesn’t have to give an address in the UK to which one is going. Or am I wrong?
Do they even take any details from the passport ? Its been a few years, but last time I walked through the EU channel I held my passport up vaguely in the direction of the immigration officer and he waved me through.
Back on topic, if one arrives at Stansted from Poland, what steps does one have to take, apart from showing one’s EU passport to the immigration officer. AFAIK one doesn’t have to give an address in the UK to which one is going. Or am I wrong?
Do they even take any details from the passport ? Its been a few years, but last time I walked through the EU channel I held my passport up vaguely in the direction of the immigration officer and he waved me through.
How long ago was that? Now passport checks are a lot more rigorous even for nationals from EU members where they generously provide great health benefits for elderly Brits.
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
You didn't read a word I wrote did you?
* Screw the Scots, do the other 55 million of us want the Smith Commission proposals? if not, why can our voice not be heard?
* I don't believe the Tory promise. EVEL needs to be in the Smith Commission proposals, and it isn't. Gideon is talking about "devolution to cities and regions" so they have apparently already taken a decision to divide England into penny packets rather than go for a properly federal Union. We are giving Scotland tax-raising powers. We will not give Birmingham tax-raising powers, so who will decide on English taxes? This is sounding like another cast iron guarantee to me.
* As I said, I don't care that all parties have made submission to the Smith Commission. I don't like consensus. It is a done deal that is being foisted on us. It would be better to have a number of competing models that could be kicked around.
This is all being decided too quickly, it is too much of a stitch-up, and if this is the price of the Union, we should have let the Scots go. We have been sold down the river by our leaders who made a "vow" they did not have the authority to give.
As I said, we should renege on the deal and provoke independence.
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
There is a chance that Father Xmas is real and the tooth fairy exists.
OGH The issue is not about those immigrants coming in with needed skills and jobs to go to while many of our OAPs retire off to the Costas and the Med, the issue is them coming in to claim benefits off UK taxpayers, even Merkel has said she wants to restrict migrants' benefits
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
I would strongly disagree that what is being proposed is anything close to any sensible definition of devomax, which was being touted at the time of the Vow, and which, remember, Mr Darling for one promised as just about everything short of actual independence. It's not even full control of income tax (for which one would need control of allowances, and on any rational basis also of NI).
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
Congratulations to UKIP for their consistency. May I suggest to all those who don't subscribe to their ideology that they find themselves a nice retreat abroad. Watching the unseemly scramble to trump them has made Dave and Ed look like the sleaziest duo since Burke and Hare
Cameron's immigration speech is probably the nastiest thing to come from the mouth of any mainstream politician in recent decades. If he genuinely believes what he said in that speech then he's not fit to hold office. On the other hand, if he doesn't believe what he said in that speech and he's just trying to claw back the heartless bigot vote from UKIP then, equally, he's not fit to hold office.
Either way he makes me feel ashamed to be British and very guilty that I voted for his party. I had fairly high hopes in 2010 when I cast my vote.
OK, I'll be the first to admit that the fact that my own political journey over the last few years has moved me away from "the right" in general and my own changed opinions make Cameron's changes appear all the more stark and glaring than they otherwise would do but there's still one massive gulf between the moderate Cameron of 2010 and frothy mouthed loon Cameron of this week.
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
I would strongly disagree that what is being proposed is anything close to any sensible definition of devomax, which was being touted at the time of the Vow, and which, remember, Mr Darling for one promised as just about everything short of actual independence. It's not even full control of income tax (for which one would need control of allowances, and on any rational basis also of NI).
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
You keep on trotting out the "immigrants are good for us" line. But there is the possibility that if we could weed out the indigent, the sick, the intermittently employed, and the jihadists, and could have a points system for non-EU migrants that aims to select high quality immigrants with skills needed in the uk, we could have a position where "immigrants are even better for us".
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
There is a chance that Father Xmas is real and the tooth fairy exists.
Ukip toxicity keeps on rising - polls are unequivocal.
'Can there be anything more dumb than Cameron's move to clamp down on benefits for EU immigrants? See this great article from the Economist.'
More of a selective than great article from the Economist.
As they know perfectly well,health cover varies enormously depending on the EU country, naturally if they had chosen to write an article about health care for expat pensioners in France it would have been a different story but obviously didn't fit their narrative.
Congratulations to UKIP for their consistency. May I suggest to all those who don't subscribe to their ideology that they find themselves a nice retreat abroad. Watching the unseemly scramble to trump them has made Dave and Ed look like the sleaziest duo since Burke and Hare
Cameron's immigration speech is probably the nastiest thing to come from the mouth of any mainstream politician in recent decades. If he genuinely believes what he said in that speech then he's not fit to hold office.
The point is a fair one but just what is the real original point of free movement? Its there so as not to put barriers in the way of people who can get jobs. The govt want to formalise this, people who we need will still come in. They would still come in under a kipper govt. They will still come in because we have been creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is happening in successful economies all over the world. We benefit from the supply nof willing labour - if it was not there we would have wage inflation followed by price inflation followed bay lackmof competitiveness and a decline in real incomes. If immigration was say stopped then our economy would stall.
The fear, probably injustified, of benefits cheats still needs to be adressed . With checks on benefts then logic suggests that immigrants coming in actually are working and contributing. And by contributing they ae benefiting us.
On the subject of Mr H's article what we are seeing from the likes of UKIP is envy and resentment whipped up into Hate with the help of ignorance. It has to be Hate because there is nothing to resent - our unemployment is falling, we are getting close to the point where there is a natural floor to unemployment, 90% of new jobs go the UK nationals.
The Labour Party have alays pedddled envy and the prospect of something for nothing.
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
There is a chance that Father Xmas is real and the tooth fairy exists.
Ukip toxicity keeps on rising - polls are unequivocal.
As does their vote... bit of a conundrum really ;-)
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
I would strongly disagree that what is being proposed is anything close to any sensible definition of devomax, which was being touted at the time of the Vow, and which, remember, Mr Darling for one promised as just about everything short of actual independence. It's not even full control of income tax (for which one would need control of allowances, and on any rational basis also of NI).
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
You need to re read the Vow.
the vow isn't worth the paper it is(n't) written on, they failed to ask the British people before making a vague promise they do not have the authority to deliver. It is ultra vires.
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
There is a chance that Father Xmas is real and the tooth fairy exists.
Ukip toxicity keeps on rising - polls are unequivocal.
As does their vote... bit of a conundrum really ;-)
According to a recent study by researchers at University College London, the average recent migrant to Britain from within the EU is in his twenties and costs the National Health Service (NHS) less than the average native.
Yes, but they also earn less than the average British native, paying less in taxes. And they then get old and consumer more healthcare.
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
I would strongly disagree that what is being proposed is anything close to any sensible definition of devomax, which was being touted at the time of the Vow, and which, remember, Mr Darling for one promised as just about everything short of actual independence. It's not even full control of income tax (for which one would need control of allowances, and on any rational basis also of NI).
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
You need to re read the Vow.
I did say, at the time of the Vow. Not everyone takes the Daily Record, and Mr Darling was the formal leader of the No campaign which included the Tories, while Mr Brown had spoken after consultation with Mr Cameron.
Following on from my post below. I am in Malta on business. I picked up the Malta Times this morning for a quick flick through and lo and behold there on page 2 was a perfect example of my point.
Englishman guilty of drunken rampage and causing damage to hotel room of £800 pounds. The hotel was the Soreda hotel in Qwara. For those not familiar with said hotel here is a link
The person in question ( i wont name him) stated he had a severe drinking problem and "learning difficulties" . he appeared in front of the magistrates bare foot in a pair of Ralph Lauren shorts and. Bright pink polo shirt. He said he can pay the money but would have to return to London to get the money to do so. Magistrates have given him 8 months suspended sentence for 18 months but he must pay for the damage by 17th December when he has said he is due to depart Malta for the UK.
Nothing unusual in that really a Brit gets carried away on the booze while abroad and gets hauled up before the beak ........however.........
The person concerned stated he did not have a job and is receiving benefits in London.
Something is seriously wrong in our benefits system if such a guy on benefits can fly to a Med Island, get pissed up every night while living it up at one of the good hotels in Malta for a period of some 3 weeks to a month and still have access to 800 quid to pay for damages.
Congratulations to UKIP for their consistency. May I suggest to all those who don't subscribe to their ideology that they find themselves a nice retreat abroad. Watching the unseemly scramble to trump them has made Dave and Ed look like the sleaziest duo since Burke and Hare
Cameron's immigration speech is probably the nastiest thing to come from the mouth of any mainstream politician in recent decades. If he genuinely believes what he said in that speech then he's not fit to hold office. On the other hand, if he doesn't believe what he said in that speech and he's just trying to claw back the heartless bigot vote from UKIP then, equally, he's not fit to hold office.
Either way he makes me feel ashamed to be British and very guilty that I voted for his party. I had fairly high hopes in 2010 when I cast my vote.
OK, I'll be the first to admit that the fact that my own political journey over the last few years has moved me away from "the right" in general and my own changed opinions make Cameron's changes appear all the more stark and glaring than they otherwise would do but there's still one massive gulf between the moderate Cameron of 2010 and frothy mouthed loon Cameron of this week.
It's always been obvious to me that you are a social democrat in denial, although you seem to be coming to terms with it. You don't just disagree with the right on issues like the EU, immigration, welfare dependency etc, you are openly hostile to the concerns behind them and consider right of centre views on these topics illegitimate. If we had a run of the mill European social democratic party in the UK, you'd be right at home.
I can understand your difficulty though, as right now we don't have it. The Liberal Democrats are socially there, but under this leadership economically right wing. The Labour Party is this weird coalition of trade union class warriors and partisan anti-Tory corporatists. The Greens are pie in the sky utopian leftists. It will probably sort itself out with time. A term of Ed Miliband overseeing more austerity will probably see the Labour left and the bulk of Lib Dem activists defect to the Greens. If the Conservatives carry on with their soft europhile Cameroon process, they'll probably integrate the Orange Bookers. And the remnants of the Lib Dems and Labour can refound the SDP.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
The English Democrats want independence. If you want an English parliament, you should vote UKIP.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
JohnLilburne All parties made submissions to the Smith Commission and the devomax they are proposing, rather than independence or the status quo, is what polls have shown most Scots want all along. As I said the Tories have promised to push ahead with EVEL if they win a majority, so English voters need to vote Tory if that is so important too them. I agree more powers for local councils would also be sensible and likely to emerge from another Tory LD Coalition
I would strongly disagree that what is being proposed is anything close to any sensible definition of devomax, which was being touted at the time of the Vow, and which, remember, Mr Darling for one promised as just about everything short of actual independence. It's not even full control of income tax (for which one would need control of allowances, and on any rational basis also of NI).
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
You need to re read the Vow.
I did say, at the time of the Vow. Not everyone takes the Daily Record, and Mr Darling was the formal leader of the No campaign which included the Tories, while Mr Brown had spoken after consultation with Mr Cameron.
Was also in other media outlets. As for Brown - borderline bonkers - rUk had rumbled that by 2009.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I'd like to see the cap reduced or at worst frozen in the autumn statement and probably indefinitely.
Following on from my post below. I am in Malta on business. I picked up the Malta Times this morning for a quick flick through and lo and behold there on page 2 was a perfect example of my point.
Englishman guilty of drunken rampage and causing damage to hotel room of £800 pounds. The hotel was the Soreda hotel in Qwara. For those not familiar with said hotel here is a link
The person in question ( i wont name him) stated he had a severe drinking problem and "learning difficulties" . he appeared in front of the magistrates bare foot in a pair of Ralph Lauren shorts and. Bright pink polo shirt. He said he can pay the money but would have to return to London to get the money to do so. Magistrates have given him 8 months suspended sentence for 18 months but he must pay for the damage by 17th December when he has said he is due to depart Malta for the UK.
Nothing unusual in that really a Brit gets carried away on the booze while abroad and gets hauled up before the beak ........however.........
The person concerned stated he did not have a job and is receiving benefits in London.
Something is seriously wrong in our benefits system if such a guy on benefits can fly to a Med Island, get pissed up every night while living it up at one of the good hotels in Malta for a period of some 3 weeks to a month and still have access to 800 quid to pay for damages.
He might be in trouble with the DWP when he gets home. If claiming JSA he would have had to close his claim, and if claiming ESA he is only supposed to go abroad for 28 days maximum (and in any case let them know first). If it says where he comes from in the TOM report you might want to let his local Jobcentre know. You can also report potential fraud online.
Is there a market on no party having 300 seats? It would be a significant event (first time since 1929 blah blah) and usher in interesting times: it's hard to see how it could be business as usual like it has been in this parliament. (The fact that it has been business as usual is a terrible indictment of the LibDems in coalition.)
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
Just because you might like one policy of a party, even if its their defining policy, everyone says you should go and vote for them, even if they are patently bonkers on all their other policies. I might like the idea of an English Parliament, but a the EDs are never going to form a government or join a coalition (or even retain their deposit) so whatever they believe is beside the point, and also I might totally dislike the rest of their policy platform.
UKIP has this to a Tee, lots of people, more that three quarters of the population according to the British Social Attitudes Survey want a substantial cut in immigration, who do they vote for if not UKIP if that is what they want, what if they are repelled by the rest of UKIP platform.
If you believe for some reason in green policies, the main parties pay lip services to it but dont plan to do anything with any substance, but the Green Party platform is 80% unworkable fantasy and 20% dangerous nonsense that would bankrupt the country before you know it - and yet the chorus is "well if that is what you believe, vote for the Green Party"
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
HYUFD, you obviously believe that the British people should be happy with whatever our political masters stitch up for us.
Maybe I need to wait to see what is in the Tory manifesto. But because of the "vow" and stitch-up if I want to vote against it I will have to vote UKIP or SNP (and I expect the latter won't be standing in NE Hants).
The polls are crap. The devil is in the detail, i am a Unionist and beginning to believe that the stitch-up we are being offered by the parties is worse than Scottish independence would have been.
Of course you may be prepared to argue that the Smith proposals are the best of all possible worlds and couldn't possibly be bettered. Why no open argument & political debate about what the constitutional future looks like?
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
The English don't want their own parliament, they want only English MPs in the HoC to vote for laws which apply only to England.
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
Socrates The English Democrats' key policy is an English Parliament, independence is not listed, though many of its supporters will back a breakaway, like UKIP they also want out of the EU http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies.html
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
Out of interest how many bedrooms do you think would be appropriate for a mother and six kids?
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I have a limited knowledge of this but there are a lot of Council-owned properties where the rent is paid directly from housing benefit by which I mean the Council gets the benefit money instead of the tenant so there is a weekly rent payment into the Council coffers.
Indeed, the policy in every Council I've worked with is to keep people, especially single-parent families, with a roof over their head rather than evicting them. Now, some might call that foolish, some might call it humane - I know where I am on that.
Is there a market on no party having 300 seats? It would be a significant event (first time since 1929 blah blah) and usher in interesting times: it's hard to see how it could be business as usual like it has been in this parliament. (The fact that it has been business as usual is a terrible indictment of the LibDems in coalition.)
Not as far as I'm aware, Dadge.
Which is a shame, because if there were one, I would certainly be keen to bet in it. I should say that there is a very good chance that neither Labour nor Conservatives will clock up 300, and that neither Party will be able to cobble together a stable coalition.
By chance, some of us were able to bet on such an outcome. Hills made an entirely typical mistake when pricing up some while back and in addition to the usual coalition suggestions they offered 'Other' at a double figure price. Presumably they thought it only applied to extremely unlikely outcomes, such as a MLRP/Green alliance, but as OGH pointed out at the time it also covered, by inference, any Minority Government. We all lumped on until Hills realised their mistake.
I think if you turn to the relevant markets now they will offer you odds on things like Con Minority, Lab Minority, etc. The odds are OK but much less attractive than those in the Hills gaffe, because you have to specify in effect who will get most seats, and that's obviously close to an even money call right now.
Sorry, but if you didn't get on when Mike spotted the error you've probably missed the boat.
JohnLilburne Polls show England and Wales all want to keep the UK together.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
The English don't want their own parliament, they want only English MPs in the HoC to vote for laws which apply only to England.
The problem is I don't see that as sustainable in the long term. What would happen if English MPs passed an Act of Parliament against the wishes of the UK Government?
The English were happy with a unitary state. Maybe we now need to explicitly be given some options, rather than continue with slice-by-slice constitutional vandalism on the basis that the English won't complain.
Following on from my post below. I am in Malta on business. I picked up the Malta Times this morning for a quick flick through and lo and behold there on page 2 was a perfect example of my point.
Englishman guilty of drunken rampage and causing damage to hotel room of £800 pounds. The hotel was the Soreda hotel in Qwara. For those not familiar with said hotel here is a link
The person in question ( i wont name him) stated he had a severe drinking problem and "learning difficulties" . he appeared in front of the magistrates bare foot in a pair of Ralph Lauren shorts and. Bright pink polo shirt. He said he can pay the money but would have to return to London to get the money to do so. Magistrates have given him 8 months suspended sentence for 18 months but he must pay for the damage by 17th December when he has said he is due to depart Malta for the UK.
Nothing unusual in that really a Brit gets carried away on the booze while abroad and gets hauled up before the beak ........however.........
The person concerned stated he did not have a job and is receiving benefits in London.
Something is seriously wrong in our benefits system if such a guy on benefits can fly to a Med Island, get pissed up every night while living it up at one of the good hotels in Malta for a period of some 3 weeks to a month and still have access to 800 quid to pay for damages.
He might be in trouble with the DWP when he gets home. If claiming JSA he would have had to close his claim, and if claiming ESA he is only supposed to go abroad for 28 days maximum (and in any case let them know first). If it says where he comes from in the TOM report you might want to let his local Jobcentre know. You can also report potential fraud online.
Not identified unfortunately though I remain to be convinced they would do anything
. I just wonder who is the mug. Here I am away from family busting guts for long hours to make an honest living only to find people like this guy taking the piss.... Literally.
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
Out of interest how many bedrooms do you think would be appropriate for a mother and six kids?
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I'd like to see the cap reduced or at worst frozen in the autumn statement and probably indefinitely.
The cap is a blunt instrument though. The underlying formula should be such that it doesn't bring people near the cap. For example, if you're getting to £26k with six kids, that probably means you're getting to, say, £23k with four kids. Bringing the cap down £3k impacts the first a lot, but leaves the second untouched. What they need to do is reduce the numbers behind the formula so that all of the unreasonable cases come down proportionately.
The other thing I'd like to see is some factoring in of when you have kids. If you are married to a high income lawyer and are the main caregiver for your four kids, when your husband suddenly dies so you fall on hard times, I think that's a very different case to someone that has lived off benefits as a single person since you were 18 and you go ahead and have several children knowing the state will pick up the tab.
According to a recent study by researchers at University College London, the average recent migrant to Britain from within the EU is in his twenties and costs the National Health Service (NHS) less than the average native.
Yes, but they also earn less than the average British native, paying less in taxes. And they then get old and consumer more healthcare.
If just 20% return home (and the evidence from Switzerland is more like 60%), then the state makes a profit on them.
Right now there is a mixed crew of Polish and British guys mending our roof. The Polish guys all have families and homes back in Krakow: they stay in dormitories in the UK, work like crazy and spend every other weekend back home. The moment the UK labour market softens, they'll leave of their own accord.
JohnLilburne The Smith proposals seem a sensible cross-party agreement, but yes if they do not go far enough vote SNP, if they go too far vote UKIP or English Democrat, that is democracy and if those parties do well enough next year and hold the balance of power Smith could be scrapped
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
....And then Stodge awoke from his nitemare !
Afternoon, Stodgy. Anything for the Hennessey? I hate Newbury but the H is a great race.
Unless I am suddenly struck by inspiration I will probably go for Paul Moloney's mount.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I'd like to see the cap reduced or at worst frozen in the autumn statement and probably indefinitely.
The cap is a blunt instrument though. The underlying formula should be such that it doesn't bring people near the cap. For example, if you're getting to £26k with six kids, that probably means you're getting to, say, £23k with four kids. Bringing the cap down £3k impacts the first a lot, but leaves the second untouched. What they need to do is reduce the numbers behind the formula so that all of the unreasonable cases come down proportionately.
The other thing I'd like to see is some factoring in of when you have kids. If you are married to a high income lawyer and are the main caregiver for your four kids, when your husband suddenly dies so you fall on hard times, I think that's a very different case to someone that has lived off benefits as a single person since you were 18 and you go ahead and have several children knowing the state will pick up the tab.
Wouldn't it be simpler to privatise t the provision of all benefits, and make it contribution based?
JohnLilburne The Smith proposals seem a sensible cross-party agreement, but yes if they do not go far enough vote SNP, if they go too far vote UKIP or English Democrat, that is democracy and if those parties do well enough next year and hold the balance of power Smith could be scrapped
What about if Nicola Sturgeon makes declaring UDI from the UK the central plank of the SNP manifesto at the Stormont elections in 2016, because she doesn't like what the Smith Commission has recommended, and gets say 60% of the vote.
You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
Why housing?
So you are happy for the 100 million to camp out under the trees?
7. A better line of criticism, if you're determined to find fault, is precisely the opposite one. Since these proposals won't require treaty change, why wait? Why not enact them now?
8. There are two answers. First, it suits David Cameron to leave the issue as a differentiator among the parties at the next general election. Second, if there won't be a new treaty, immigration allows him to bring something back from the renegotiation that precedes our referendum.
If Cameron believes that these changes will cause such reductions to EU migration, then why on Earth is allowing another year or so of it before he makes the changes? He cares more about show than actually reducing the numbers coming here.
Oh, and there's no new proposals on reducing non-EU immigration.
Presumably the same benefit rules would apply to non-EU immigrants. Or not?
Surely the question should be why these rules do not currently apply to non-EU immigrants?
Are leaflets and documents to access benefits still printed in a myriad languages or will this be another proposal that will be recycled as new.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I'd like to see the cap reduced or at worst frozen in the autumn statement and probably indefinitely.
The cap is a blunt instrument though. The underlying formula should be such that it doesn't bring people near the cap. For example, if you're getting to £26k with six kids, that probably means you're getting to, say, £23k with four kids. Bringing the cap down £3k impacts the first a lot, but leaves the second untouched. What they need to do is reduce the numbers behind the formula so that all of the unreasonable cases come down proportionately.
The other thing I'd like to see is some factoring in of when you have kids. If you are married to a high income lawyer and are the main caregiver for your four kids, when your husband suddenly dies so you fall on hard times, I think that's a very different case to someone that has lived off benefits as a single person since you were 18 and you go ahead and have several children knowing the state will pick up the tab.
Wouldn't it be simpler to privatise t the provision of all benefits, and make it contribution based?
That would seem unfair to people that graduated school in the middle of a recession and couldn't get a full time job. People who have played by the rules shouldn't have to face poverty.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
I'd like to see the cap reduced or at worst frozen in the autumn statement and probably indefinitely.
The cap is a blunt instrument though. The underlying formula should be such that it doesn't bring people near the cap. For example, if you're getting to £26k with six kids, that probably means you're getting to, say, £23k with four kids. Bringing the cap down £3k impacts the first a lot, but leaves the second untouched. What they need to do is reduce the numbers behind the formula so that all of the unreasonable cases come down proportionately.
The other thing I'd like to see is some factoring in of when you have kids. If you are married to a high income lawyer and are the main caregiver for your four kids, when your husband suddenly dies so you fall on hard times, I think that's a very different case to someone that has lived off benefits as a single person since you were 18 and you go ahead and have several children knowing the state will pick up the tab.
Wouldn't it be simpler to privatise t the provision of all benefits, and make it contribution based?
That would seem unfair to people that graduated school in the middle of a recession and couldn't get a full time job. People who have played by the rules shouldn't have to face poverty.
The government makes contributions on your behalf while you are in fulltime education maybe.
According to a recent study by researchers at University College London, the average recent migrant to Britain from within the EU is in his twenties and costs the National Health Service (NHS) less than the average native.
Yes, but they also earn less than the average British native, paying less in taxes. And they then get old and consumer more healthcare.
If just 20% return home (and the evidence from Switzerland is more like 60%), then the state makes a profit on them.
Right now there is a mixed crew of Polish and British guys mending our roof. The Polish guys all have families and homes back in Krakow: they stay in dormitories in the UK, work like crazy and spend every other weekend back home. The moment the UK labour market softens, they'll leave of their own accord.
What effect does that have on the British workers' wages?
You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
I don't understand the issue they have here. You visit a place on a tourist visa, you return before it expires or you get deported. I had visa for Russia, I returned before it ran out. Why the emotionalism of deporting people who break the law and overstay? Even Mitt Romney got the concept of self deportation.
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
You always moan but never offer an answer. So should it be 1,2, or 3 bedrooms ?
The reason you do not say what you prefer is, if by any chance the government reduces 4 to 3, that you would still be able to moan and criticize.
You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
Why housing?
So you are happy for the 100 million to camp out under the trees?
Well I fear this ridiculous example of yours could develop into a long argument, but that is your stereotype, not mine.
They could be privately renting, or bunking in with a mate.. but Dave would chuck em out..
Afternoon, Stodgy. Anything for the Hennessey? I hate Newbury but the H is a great race.
Unless I am suddenly struck by inspiration I will probably go for Paul Moloney's mount.
Hello, PtP. Thought I might have seen you at Leafy on Tuesday and I should be going in a fortnight though I imagine you'll be at Cheltenham.
As for the Hennessy, not an easy race to find an angle. DJAKADAM is plenty short enough for what he's done and this isn't a 5-y-o's race. Earlier in the week, I thought MIDNIGHT PRAYER was a solid e/w bet and had a little at 25s but I fear the ground has gone against him in the last 48 hours. He's my idea of a National horse - don't ask me which one though !!
If you forced me to have a bet now, I'd go for THE DRUIDS NEPHEW - solid if unspectacular form, the jockey booking takes the eye and if I could get on e/w at 12s, I reckon that's a fair bet. It's far from a vintage renewal - the race suffers from the proximity of the Betfair Chase which draws all the Gold Cup contenders who can race off levels and not have to give lumps of weight away to the handicappers.
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
"Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get..."
They'd probably agree. That's why they don't live there anymore
According to a recent study by researchers at University College London, the average recent migrant to Britain from within the EU is in his twenties and costs the National Health Service (NHS) less than the average native.
Yes, but they also earn less than the average British native, paying less in taxes. And they then get old and consumer more healthcare.
If just 20% return home (and the evidence from Switzerland is more like 60%), then the state makes a profit on them.
Right now there is a mixed crew of Polish and British guys mending our roof. The Polish guys all have families and homes back in Krakow: they stay in dormitories in the UK, work like crazy and spend every other weekend back home. The moment the UK labour market softens, they'll leave of their own accord.
It's the non-EU immigrants who are the stayers. They are also the ones with least positive net tax impact into the economy. They are Labour's favoured immigrants.
You could take that argument to its logical conclusion then - and say if 100 million immigrants have been here 6 months, haven't got a job, but aren't claiming any benefit, why are you going to deport them? What have they done wrong?" Any idiot could see that you would still have massive pressures on health, education and especially housing.
There comes a point at which public policy says to any one person "cheerio..."
I don't understand the issue they have here. You visit a place on a tourist visa, you return before it expires or you get deported. I had visa for Russia, I returned before it ran out. Why the emotionalism of deporting people who break the law and overstay? Even Mitt Romney got the concept of self deportation.
Other countries are obviously wacist.
Plenty of countries have the concept of illegal entry into the country. In the UK instead you get given a stipend, housing (depending on your needs - hat tip NPXMP), and a pathway to citizenship if you promise to vote Labour.
If you don't have/enforce this concept why bother having borders.
Indigo Well tough, if you are not voting for the English Democrats obviously you do not care that much about an English Parliament
So when 56% of the population vote Kipper next May because they want a large reduction in immigration, you will be okay with that ?
56% OF THE POPULATION? On even a 70% turnout, and including only those eligible to vote, that's going to be....
....complete bollocks.
56% of those voting is also complete bollocks. Do you have any comprehension of just how hated UKIP is by so many?
Congratulations on frothing before reading the rest of the thread. HYUFD said that people who wanted an English parliament should vote English Democrats, by implication irrespective of thier other policies, I replied that by that measure 56% of the population should vote UKIP, since that is the amount in the British Social Attitudes Survey that want large cuts in immigration. But do go on, you are clearly enjoying your frothing.
Is there a market on no party having 300 seats? It would be a significant event (first time since 1929 blah blah) and usher in interesting times: it's hard to see how it could be business as usual like it has been in this parliament. (The fact that it has been business as usual is a terrible indictment of the LibDems in coalition.)
Not as far as I'm aware, Dadge.
Which is a shame, because if there were one, I would certainly be keen to bet in it. I should say that there is a very good chance that neither Labour nor Conservatives will clock up 300, and that neither Party will be able to cobble together a stable coalition.
By chance, some of us were able to bet on such an outcome. Hills made an entirely typical mistake when pricing up some while back and in addition to the usual coalition suggestions they offered 'Other' at a double figure price. Presumably they thought it only applied to extremely unlikely outcomes, such as a MLRP/Green alliance, but as OGH pointed out at the time it also covered, by inference, any Minority Government. We all lumped on until Hills realised their mistake.
I think if you turn to the relevant markets now they will offer you odds on things like Con Minority, Lab Minority, etc. The odds are OK but much less attractive than those in the Hills gaffe, because you have to specify in effect who will get most seats, and that's obviously close to an even money call right now.
Sorry, but if you didn't get on when Mike spotted the error you've probably missed the boat.
I have Views on this, which I should be sharing later today or tomorrow.
Indigo Well tough, if you are not voting for the English Democrats obviously you do not care that much about an English Parliament
So when 56% of the population vote Kipper next May because they want a large reduction in immigration, you will be okay with that ?
56% OF THE POPULATION? On even a 70% turnout, and including only those eligible to vote, that's going to be....
....complete bollocks.
56% of those voting is also complete bollocks. Do you have any comprehension of just how hated UKIP is by so many?
I'm always dubious of these statements. UKIP will not get 56% but then I do not buy the hated by so many view. I know no one who hates them but I don't believe the sample is representative. In your circle maybe everyone hates them but that is no more representative.
Otherwise we get to Nixon 1972. "How could he win, I know absolutely no one who voted for him!!" Recycled to 2004 with great mirth.
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
"Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get..."
They'd probably agree. That's why they don't live there anymore
The East London, like "British" Jihadis, another triumph of multiculturalism. At least they vote Labour so it's ok.
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
You always moan but never offer an answer. So should it be 1,2, or 3 bedrooms ?
The reason you do not say what you prefer is, if by any chance the government reduces 4 to 3, that you would still be able to moan and criticize.
Is there a market on no party having 300 seats? It would be a significant event (first time since 1929 blah blah) and usher in interesting times: it's hard to see how it could be business as usual like it has been in this parliament. (The fact that it has been business as usual is a terrible indictment of the LibDems in coalition.)
Not as far as I'm aware, Dadge.
Which is a shame, because if there were one, I would certainly be keen to bet in it. I should say that there is a very good chance that neither Labour nor Conservatives will clock up 300, and that neither Party will be able to cobble together a stable coalition.
By chance, some of us were able to bet on such an outcome. Hills made an entirely typical mistake when pricing up some while back and in addition to the usual coalition suggestions they offered 'Other' at a double figure price. Presumably they thought it only applied to extremely unlikely outcomes, such as a MLRP/Green alliance, but as OGH pointed out at the time it also covered, by inference, any Minority Government. We all lumped on until Hills realised their mistake.
I think if you turn to the relevant markets now they will offer you odds on things like Con Minority, Lab Minority, etc. The odds are OK but much less attractive than those in the Hills gaffe, because you have to specify in effect who will get most seats, and that's obviously close to an even money call right now.
Sorry, but if you didn't get on when Mike spotted the error you've probably missed the boat.
I have Views on this, which I should be sharing later today or tomorrow.
Thanks Antifrank.
I read your very excellent piece last nite and it is proving a good guide for my current betting. I'm probably too strong on UKIP and Tories, light on Labour and SNP, but I can fix that.
It's always been obvious to me that you are a social democrat in denial, although you seem to be coming to terms with it. You don't just disagree with the right on issues like the EU, immigration, welfare dependency etc, you are openly hostile to the concerns behind them and consider right of centre views on these topics illegitimate. If we had a run of the mill European social democratic party in the UK, you'd be right at home.
I can understand your difficulty though, as right now we don't have it. The Liberal Democrats are socially there, but under this leadership economically right wing. The Labour Party is this weird coalition of trade union class warriors and partisan anti-Tory corporatists. The Greens are pie in the sky utopian leftists. It will probably sort itself out with time. A term of Ed Miliband overseeing more austerity will probably see the Labour left and the bulk of Lib Dem activists defect to the Greens. If the Conservatives carry on with their soft europhile Cameroon process, they'll probably integrate the Orange Bookers. And the remnants of the Lib Dems and Labour can refound the SDP.
The points you make about my opinions are not at all unfair ones given the limited evidence available to you just from my postings here. However I would make the point that I don't believe that I have ever been in denial about my political leanings. The shifts in my views over the years have been genuine ones fed and generated by my life experiences.
This is not me coming to terms with views that I was in denial about - it's views evolving and changing over time as I've lived my life from teenager to 40-year-old. I've learned lessons as I've gone along - as we all do. It might surprise you to learn that I was an EU-sceptic myself in my teens and twenties and was actually, albeit briefly, a Conservative Party member in the early 2000s.
I'd also, politely, like to take issue with your suggestion that I consider right of centre views on the EU, immigration and such as illegitimate. I don't - I believe that they're profoundly misguided but not illegitimate. I know that you hold your views as sincerely as I hold mine and I don't wish to suggest otherwise or suggest that you're not entitled to hold them. The reason that I get a bit wound up about these issues is because I feel very strongly about them - again, that's true of you too from the opposite side of the argument.
Lastly, I'm quite intrigued by your suggestion that I might be a social democrat. That's not a possibility that's ever crossed my mind. It's the Greens that I feel closest to now - indeed I've made a few small donations to them of late and I just hope they put up a candidate in my constituency next year.
I just did the Policy In Practice Universal Credit calculator, and you can still earn £26k a year and live in a four bed house if you have six kids as a single mother. Seems like the government still hasn't got to grips with this.
You always moan but never offer an answer. So should it be 1,2, or 3 bedrooms ?
The reason you do not say what you prefer is, if by any chance the government reduces 4 to 3, that you would still be able to moan and criticize.
You are a serial MOANER.
I'm sorry, I'm not following your question. Could you repeat? I always make an effort to answer every question honestly. I'm out and about for a bit so might not respond for a couple of hours.
I think David Cameron's new proposals leave the Tories looking like the nasty party
Which is the nicer sounding society?
A points based system that allows only immigrants that are specifically required into the country, but once they are here, they are treated as an equal and allowed access to the same benefits as anyone else
or
A system where anyone is allowed in, but must register with the police to check they are working, and are treated as second class citizens when they are in need of help from the welfare state
It's difficult to outdo kippers in nastiness. BTW in Germany everyone has to register their abode with the police.
I think Dave has managed it.
There is a good chance that UKIP will come out of this immigration debate looking fair and honest, & in their effort to look tough, the big two parties will end up looking like the bad guys
Can you imagine a scenario where Con/Lab support in England and Wales switches to UKIP before the 2015 General Election, the way Lab support appears to have switched to the SNP in Scotland?
No.
BUT
I'll tell you what could honestly propel UKIP to ~ 150+ seats.
The EU vote - if it happens, whichever way it goes.
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
Labour would be incredibly stupid to hold a referendum on the same day as a GE, as it would increase turnout among those BOOers who otherwise probably wouldn't bother, who obviously wouldn't be voting Labour. It would be the reverse of the common tactic in US elections, which is to get referendums on the ballot about subjects which motivate their supporters. If your scenario happened it would be like the Scottish one, held autumn 2019 so that a win for 'In' (as would seem to be the current favourite), would leave any BOO Tory leader heading into an election with his most eye-catching policy having been rejected by the electorate, and his party openly loathing him for losing. There would of course be the risk of losing, but if it comes to having to concede it anyway, then surely the calculation would be to have it then so a win at least had an upside.
Comments
"since the protection against removal on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is set out in the Treaties for EU migrant workers (Article 45(3) TFEU)."
Today the Sun runs a story of a couple with a young child that are going to splash out 1500 quid for Christmas. Nothing really unusual at that of course a lot of people splash out at this time of year. What's specific in this case though (and not these days unusual either) is neither have had a job for 5 years and have been living on 17k of benefits each year. The story is from a tabloid so usual pinch of salt stuff but this plays into the resentment of those who do work hard against those that appear not to be bothered to get a job.
I know I feel resentment given they are young, could get something is they could be bothered, probably clear as much as I do for doing absolutely nothing, they have been doing nothing for 5 years and look like continuing to do nothing for the next 5 years. Why? ......Because they are quoted as saying we know how this works and know how to make it ( benefits) work for us at Christmas. I have complete and total sympathy for genuine cases but this is one of many that just isn't genuine.
The media of course fan the resentment with these stories but its the political parties that not only cause this sytem to work as it does but continue to champion people like this that are resented. The people above really have no intention of doing anything to help themselves we all know it. the only thing they intend is to be a parasite on the rest of us and visit the food banks on a regular baisis for as long as they can get away with it.
No politician will chance there votes by stating the obvious though so it will continue as will the resentment.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/538654480381005824/photo/1
Back on topic, if one arrives at Stansted from Poland, what steps does one have to take, apart from showing one’s EU passport to the immigration officer. AFAIK one doesn’t have to give an address in the UK to which one is going. Or am I wrong?
What politicians should have been doing is changing the benefit rules - possibly for Brits as well as EU migrants - so that they can be fairly denied to recent EU (and other!) immigrants. Other countries have less pervious benefit systems, you cannot just turn up and claim, we could have looked at other countries' entitlement systems and tweaked ours. Or we can't, because of course "not invented here" rules supreme in politics. It now seems you get away with a reasonable amount on the basis that FoM means freedom to live and work, not be indigent.
Some things seem obvious. You should not be able to claim Child Benefit for children living abroad. You should not be able to move here and claim Income Support or ESA as you are not required to be actively seeking work (and in the latter case, are not fit for work) so cannot be said to be here to "live and work"
If the Tories were serious about this, they'd have started five years ago.
Has he seen the PB Kipper playbook - nails it.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21635041-britain-imports-young-sprightly-migrants-and-exports-creaky-old-ones-balance-ailments?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/balanceofailments
* Screw the Scots, do the other 55 million of us want the Smith Commission proposals? if not, why can our voice not be heard?
* I don't believe the Tory promise. EVEL needs to be in the Smith Commission proposals, and it isn't. Gideon is talking about "devolution to cities and regions" so they have apparently already taken a decision to divide England into penny packets rather than go for a properly federal Union. We are giving Scotland tax-raising powers. We will not give Birmingham tax-raising powers, so who will decide on English taxes? This is sounding like another cast iron guarantee to me.
* As I said, I don't care that all parties have made submission to the Smith Commission. I don't like consensus. It is a done deal that is being foisted on us. It would be better to have a number of competing models that could be kicked around.
This is all being decided too quickly, it is too much of a stitch-up, and if this is the price of the Union, we should have let the Scots go. We have been sold down the river by our leaders who made a "vow" they did not have the authority to give.
As I said, we should renege on the deal and provoke independence.
Whether the voters accept this, or whatever diluted version gest through Westminster, is the critical killer as far as Scotland is concerned.
Mr Lilburne's comments do also show that what happens south of the border is another story.
Either way he makes me feel ashamed to be British and very guilty that I voted for his party. I had fairly high hopes in 2010 when I cast my vote.
OK, I'll be the first to admit that the fact that my own political journey over the last few years has moved me away from "the right" in general and my own changed opinions make Cameron's changes appear all the more stark and glaring than they otherwise would do but there's still one massive gulf between the moderate Cameron of 2010 and frothy mouthed loon Cameron of this week.
'Can there be anything more dumb than Cameron's move to clamp down on benefits for EU immigrants? See this great article from the Economist.'
More of a selective than great article from the Economist.
As they know perfectly well,health cover varies enormously depending on the EU country, naturally if they had chosen to write an article about health care for expat pensioners in France it would have been a different story but obviously didn't fit their narrative.
It's not dumb, it's politics. Whether he means it or not is questionable.
The LDs are being true to their beliefs and that's noble, but that means they have to go back to their constituencies and prepare for oblivion.
The point is a fair one but just what is the real original point of free movement? Its there so as not to put barriers in the way of people who can get jobs. The govt want to formalise this, people who we need will still come in. They would still come in under a kipper govt. They will still come in because we have been creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is happening in successful economies all over the world. We benefit from the supply nof willing labour - if it was not there we would have wage inflation followed by price inflation followed bay lackmof competitiveness and a decline in real incomes.
If immigration was say stopped then our economy would stall.
The fear, probably injustified, of benefits cheats still needs to be adressed . With checks on benefts then logic suggests that immigrants coming in actually are working and contributing. And by contributing they ae benefiting us.
On the subject of Mr H's article what we are seeing from the likes of UKIP is envy and resentment whipped up into Hate with the help of ignorance. It has to be Hate because there is nothing to resent - our unemployment is falling, we are getting close to the point where there is a natural floor to unemployment, 90% of new jobs go the UK nationals.
The Labour Party have alays pedddled envy and the prospect of something for nothing.
Yes, but they also earn less than the average British native, paying less in taxes. And they then get old and consumer more healthcare.
formal leader of the No campaign which included the Tories, while Mr Brown had spoken after consultation with Mr Cameron.
Englishman guilty of drunken rampage and causing damage to hotel room of £800 pounds. The hotel was the Soreda hotel in Qwara. For those not familiar with said hotel here is a link
http://www.soredahotelmalta.com/SoredaHotel/TheHotel/HotelGallery/tabid/1806/Default.aspx
The person in question ( i wont name him) stated he had a severe drinking problem and "learning difficulties" . he appeared in front of the magistrates bare foot in a pair of Ralph Lauren shorts and. Bright pink polo shirt. He said he can pay the money but would have to return to London to get the money to do so. Magistrates have given him 8 months suspended sentence for 18 months but he must pay for the damage by 17th December when he has said he is due to depart Malta for the UK.
Nothing unusual in that really a Brit gets carried away on the booze while abroad and gets hauled up before the beak ........however.........
The person concerned stated he did not have a job and is receiving benefits in London.
Something is seriously wrong in our benefits system if such a guy on benefits can fly to a Med Island, get pissed up every night while living it up at one of the good hotels in Malta for a period of some 3 weeks to a month and still have access to 800 quid to pay for damages.
I can understand your difficulty though, as right now we don't have it. The Liberal Democrats are socially there, but under this leadership economically right wing. The Labour Party is this weird coalition of trade union class warriors and partisan anti-Tory corporatists. The Greens are pie in the sky utopian leftists. It will probably sort itself out with time. A term of Ed Miliband overseeing more austerity will probably see the Labour left and the bulk of Lib Dem activists defect to the Greens. If the Conservatives carry on with their soft europhile Cameroon process, they'll probably integrate the Orange Bookers. And the remnants of the Lib Dems and Labour can refound the SDP.
I find it stunning that, after four years of austerity, and many departments feeling like they have scraped to the bone, the benefit system still seems to be paying out absurd amounts to some groups. The fact we even need the £26k cap is absurd: the raw formula behind it shouldn't come close to that amount. I'm really hoping the universal credit will solve this once it is rolled out properly.
The other thing we need to do is force councils to calculate the in-kind benefits people are getting. If you're in a council house, it should be worked out what implicit rent payment you're actually getting covered by the local authority, and this should be picked up by the statistics.
Cameron made quite clear he wanted EVEL on the day after the referendum, but if the English were so desperate for their own parliament they could have voted for the English Democrats who have been standing for election on that platform for years. They will be standing again at the general election
Income tax has effectively been given over to Scotland despite Darling never making any commitment for that.
UKIP has this to a Tee, lots of people, more that three quarters of the population according to the British Social Attitudes Survey want a substantial cut in immigration, who do they vote for if not UKIP if that is what they want, what if they are repelled by the rest of UKIP platform.
If you believe for some reason in green policies, the main parties pay lip services to it but dont plan to do anything with any substance, but the Green Party platform is 80% unworkable fantasy and 20% dangerous nonsense that would bankrupt the country before you know it - and yet the chorus is "well if that is what you believe, vote for the Green Party"
Maybe I need to wait to see what is in the Tory manifesto. But because of the "vow" and stitch-up if I want to vote against it I will have to vote UKIP or SNP (and I expect the latter won't be standing in NE Hants).
The polls are crap. The devil is in the detail, i am a Unionist and beginning to believe that the stitch-up we are being offered by the parties is worse than Scottish independence would have been.
Of course you may be prepared to argue that the Smith proposals are the best of all possible worlds and couldn't possibly be bettered. Why no open argument & political debate about what the constitutional future looks like?
Gorgeous day in East London or the "Caliphate" as someone on here once termed it. Tell that to the crowds heading to Upton Park and see what response you get...
As for Socrates' utopian re-alignment, let me offer an alternative. Labour win enough seats to govern as a minority next year. The Conservatives unceremoniously dump Cameron and replace them with a strongly anti-EU leader who immediately promises an in-out referendum within 90 days of the election of a Conservative Government with the newly-elected Government campaigning to leave.
The Liberal Democrats gain the last remnant of the pro-Europeans in the Conservative Party and the Tories themselves gain supporters from UKIP which fades into oblivion by 2018.
Under pressure, Labour accedes to an in-out referendum after a re-negotiation process.
In 2020, there's a dual vote on GE day - the election for MPs and the vote on EU membership. The Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Tim Farron both support a vote to stay in as do the Greens. The Conservatives support a vote to leave.
The polls are very tight....no one seems quite to know, despite exhaustive questioning of the party leaders, what would happen if Labour won the election but the electorate voted to leave the EU or if the Tories won and the electorate voted to stay in.
Both Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon are concerned - they might finish up having the balance in the next Parliament.
http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies.html
Indeed, the policy in every Council I've worked with is to keep people, especially single-parent families, with a roof over their head rather than evicting them. Now, some might call that foolish, some might call it humane - I know where I am on that.
Which is a shame, because if there were one, I would certainly be keen to bet in it. I should say that there is a very good chance that neither Labour nor Conservatives will clock up 300, and that neither Party will be able to cobble together a stable coalition.
By chance, some of us were able to bet on such an outcome. Hills made an entirely typical mistake when pricing up some while back and in addition to the usual coalition suggestions they offered 'Other' at a double figure price. Presumably they thought it only applied to extremely unlikely outcomes, such as a MLRP/Green alliance, but as OGH pointed out at the time it also covered, by inference, any Minority Government. We all lumped on until Hills realised their mistake.
I think if you turn to the relevant markets now they will offer you odds on things like Con Minority, Lab Minority, etc. The odds are OK but much less attractive than those in the Hills gaffe, because you have to specify in effect who will get most seats, and that's obviously close to an even money call right now.
Sorry, but if you didn't get on when Mike spotted the error you've probably missed the boat.
The English were happy with a unitary state. Maybe we now need to explicitly be given some options, rather than continue with slice-by-slice constitutional vandalism on the basis that the English won't complain.
. I just wonder who is the mug. Here I am away from family busting guts for long hours to make an honest living only to find people like this guy taking the piss.... Literally.
The other thing I'd like to see is some factoring in of when you have kids. If you are married to a high income lawyer and are the main caregiver for your four kids, when your husband suddenly dies so you fall on hard times, I think that's a very different case to someone that has lived off benefits as a single person since you were 18 and you go ahead and have several children knowing the state will pick up the tab.
Right now there is a mixed crew of Polish and British guys mending our roof. The Polish guys all have families and homes back in Krakow: they stay in dormitories in the UK, work like crazy and spend every other weekend back home. The moment the UK labour market softens, they'll leave of their own accord.
Afternoon, Stodgy. Anything for the Hennessey? I hate Newbury but the H is a great race.
Unless I am suddenly struck by inspiration I will probably go for Paul Moloney's mount.
Is housing benefit excluded from the list of benefits acces to which will be curtailed
Surely the question should be why these rules do not currently apply to non-EU immigrants?
Are leaflets and documents to access benefits still printed in a myriad languages or will this be another proposal that will be recycled as new.
SNP 36%, Lab 32%
The above and CON 17.63% and LD 4.88% gives:
SNP 21, LAB 33, CON 2, LD 3.
Is this possible ?
Right now it is: SNP 43, LAB 12, CON 2, LD 2.
All calculations are based on UNS.
The reason you do not say what you prefer is, if by any chance the government reduces 4 to 3, that you would still be able to moan and criticize.
You are a serial MOANER.
They could be privately renting, or bunking in with a mate.. but Dave would chuck em out..
Why?
....complete bollocks.
56% of those voting is also complete bollocks. Do you have any comprehension of just how hated UKIP is by so many?
As for the Hennessy, not an easy race to find an angle. DJAKADAM is plenty short enough for what he's done and this isn't a 5-y-o's race. Earlier in the week, I thought MIDNIGHT PRAYER was a solid e/w bet and had a little at 25s but I fear the ground has gone against him in the last 48 hours. He's my idea of a National horse - don't ask me which one though !!
If you forced me to have a bet now, I'd go for THE DRUIDS NEPHEW - solid if unspectacular form, the jockey booking takes the eye and if I could get on e/w at 12s, I reckon that's a fair bet. It's far from a vintage renewal - the race suffers from the proximity of the Betfair Chase which draws all the Gold Cup contenders who can race off levels and not have to give lumps of weight away to the handicappers.
They'd probably agree. That's why they don't live there anymore
Other countries are obviously wacist.
Plenty of countries have the concept of illegal entry into the country. In the UK instead you get given a stipend, housing (depending on your needs - hat tip NPXMP), and a pathway to citizenship if you promise to vote Labour.
If you don't have/enforce this concept why bother having borders.
I'm always dubious of these statements. UKIP will not get 56% but then I do not buy the hated by so many view. I know no one who hates them but I don't believe the sample is representative. In your circle maybe everyone hates them but that is no more representative.
Otherwise we get to Nixon 1972. "How could he win, I know absolutely no one who voted for him!!" Recycled to 2004 with great mirth.
The East London, like "British" Jihadis, another triumph of multiculturalism. At least they vote Labour so it's ok.
I read your very excellent piece last nite and it is proving a good guide for my current betting. I'm probably too strong on UKIP and Tories, light on Labour and SNP, but I can fix that.
Thanks and well done.
The points you make about my opinions are not at all unfair ones given the limited evidence available to you just from my postings here. However I would make the point that I don't believe that I have ever been in denial about my political leanings. The shifts in my views over the years have been genuine ones fed and generated by my life experiences.
This is not me coming to terms with views that I was in denial about - it's views evolving and changing over time as I've lived my life from teenager to 40-year-old. I've learned lessons as I've gone along - as we all do. It might surprise you to learn that I was an EU-sceptic myself in my teens and twenties and was actually, albeit briefly, a Conservative Party member in the early 2000s.
I'd also, politely, like to take issue with your suggestion that I consider right of centre views on the EU, immigration and such as illegitimate. I don't - I believe that they're profoundly misguided but not illegitimate. I know that you hold your views as sincerely as I hold mine and I don't wish to suggest otherwise or suggest that you're not entitled to hold them. The reason that I get a bit wound up about these issues is because I feel very strongly about them - again, that's true of you too from the opposite side of the argument.
Lastly, I'm quite intrigued by your suggestion that I might be a social democrat. That's not a possibility that's ever crossed my mind. It's the Greens that I feel closest to now - indeed I've made a few small donations to them of late and I just hope they put up a candidate in my constituency next year.
BUT
I'll tell you what could honestly propel UKIP to ~ 150+ seats.
The EU vote - if it happens, whichever way it goes.