Are we taking lessons in morality from Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State:
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board has banned the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:
"Female ejaculation"
?
Just back fron the Egon Schiele exhibition at The Courtauld. Strongly recommended.
Schiele was imprisoned in Austria for displaying pornographic pictures, i.e. his own drawings and paintings. Take comfort that this was done under the authority of a Hapsburg dynasty that was soon to collapse, largely as a consequence of its own incompetence, its archaic institutions and attitudes.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone
Worse than the non- reforms in Wales? The NHS comes under "severe strain" every winter, and Labour shroud waving (but don't mention WALES or Staffs) part of the scenery......
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's reminiscent of the people who say that all Labour supporters are motivated by class hatred, or all Tories are motivated by personal greed. Classifying everyone who disagrees with you as personally vile is lazy, anti-democratic and almost always wrong.
Most people think they're advocating good ideas, or at least "least bad" ideas in a difficult situation. Some are clearly wrong, but it doesn't make them into the vicious characters dreamed up by their opponents.
Labour voters are not motivated by class hatred, labour voters are people who vote labour. I would be surprised if anyone said 'all labour voters' are motivated by class hatred. But we see endless examples of left wing socialist activitsts who espouse the concept. It drives labour policy, I can remember the anti 'toff' propaganda in the Crewe by election and endless Labour dog whistles on the subject. We see 'class' hatred and wealth envy policies from Labour. 13 labour years without 50p tax and suddently having it at 45p is not sane economics is pure selfish greed by the upper class. We see the clear contempt from UKIP - the ting tong remark was a clear example of the thinking. If you want to hold hands with kippers to say how badly treated you all are, then dedums good luck to you.
...Whilst your Party activates are entirely free of such base motives, no?
So to answer the question, no it can't be side-lined and the Tories have no-one to blame but themselves having ignored practically everyone telling them not to do it.
Farage answering questions from teenagers on #LeadersLive
Viewers voting on Farage response to their questions shows 70% to 30% in favour of Farage.
Even allowing for some extra button pushing by UKIP activists, there does seem to be a majority for Farage on various topics. He did have clear, logical answers to the issues they raised.
Worse than the non- reforms in Wales? The NHS comes under "severe strain" every winter, and Labour shroud waving (but don't mention WALES or Staffs) part of the scenery......
If you think having local councillors running sexual health services and deciding which of a group of bidders is best without having even a single doctor on the panel, or even making quality of service a deciding factor, then yes I suppose you might think the reforms have worked.
E-mailed HMRC at the weekend and Amazon today about EU VAT nonsense. Got a reply from Amazon [none yet from HMRC]. Suggests I won't be affected, though I'd like to hear it from the taxman as well.
Still worth buying e-books earlier, though, as Amazon's solution to the admin burden appears to be increasing the prices so VAT will now be at 20%, rather than 3%.
So, the EU law designed to make Amazon pay its fair share will drive prices up and drive SMEs either out of online business or towards portals such as Amazon. It's monumentally badly drafted legislation.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
A complete disaster? I don't know about that and the bed blocking issue you raise has been around for years, flaring up into public notice from time to time before going off the radar as people talk about other items in crisis. The good Dr FoxinSox has stated on this site that the Lansley reforms seem to be working out pretty well from where he sits as an NHS physician and I am inclined to take his word for it.
Agh – The Blair’s Christmas card is awful; if I smile like that in a photo, the good lady slaps me on the shoulder and says ‘stop scaring the children’.
Will Clegg win the best family Chrimbo card for a second time..?
Labouring on the NHS frontline i take the view that to a large extent the reforms are working.
The local CCG is a vast improvement on the PCT The acute trust and mental health trust are wellmanaged, primary care is excellent
Nationally CQC is to large extent reformed from the Stalinist regime that oversaw Mid-Staffs Stevens is indeed the real deal at NHS England and his cunning 5 year plan welcomed across the political spectrum.
Can the Tories ever do more than neutralise the issue?....NO
If they have to talk on the issue then they should attack Burnham on MidStaffs ,he deserves it all and more ,and the unreconstructd Welsh NHS.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
A complete disaster? I don't know about that and the bed blocking issue you raise has been around for years, flaring up into public notice from time to time before going off the radar as people talk about other items in crisis. The good Dr FoxinSox has stated on this site that the Lansley reforms seem to be working out pretty well from where he sits as an NHS physician and I am inclined to take his word for it.
Correct. Your points show how people invent things to suit themselves. And / or they are totally misinformed about reality.
Mr. Socrates, so, that's ferry prices up 30%, SMEs damaged to get a little from Amazon, and now, no spanking.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Why on Earth does the government think it should regulate material made and consumed by consenting adults? There is no argument for it at all other than "government knows best and we disapprove of your fetish".
Mr. Socrates, so, that's ferry prices up 30%, SMEs damaged to get a little from Amazon, and now, no spanking.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Why on Earth does the government think it should regulate material made and consumed by consenting adults? There is no argument for it at all other than "government knows best and we disapprove of your fetish".
I think it's more the government wants to reserve spanking for itself.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's reminiscent of the people who say that all Labour supporters are motivated by class hatred, or all Tories are motivated by personal greed. Classifying everyone who disagrees with you as personally vile is lazy, anti-democratic and almost always wrong.
Most people think they're advocating good ideas, or at least "least bad" ideas in a difficult situation. Some are clearly wrong, but it doesn't make them into the vicious characters dreamed up by their opponents.
Labour voters are not motivated by class hatred, labour voters are people who vote labour. I would be surprised if anyone said 'all labour voters' are motivated by class hatred. But we see endless examples of left wing socialist activitsts who espouse the concept. It drives labour policy, I can remember the anti 'toff' propaganda in the Crewe by election and endless Labour dog whistles on the subject. We see 'class' hatred and wealth envy policies from Labour. 13 labour years without 50p tax and suddently having it at 45p is not sane economics is pure selfish greed by the upper class. We see the clear contempt from UKIP - the ting tong remark was a clear example of the thinking. If you want to hold hands with kippers to say how badly treated you all are, then dedums good luck to you.
Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I've probably met and had really detailed discussions with 100x more left-wing socialist activists than you have. I don't defend everything that Labour campaigners do, and generally campaigns bring out the worst in everyone (me and maybe thee included). But IMO you're mistaken in the underlying motivation.
I think the economy will once again be the issue that drives the election, and unfortunately is where the Tories are going to be in trouble.
For years now they have been trumpeting the long term economkc plan, and that things have recovered to the point where we have the best economy in Europe. And you mustn't let Labour ruin this amazing recovery!
Except that most people don't feel a recovery. Their wages are going nowhere, inflation is apparently low yet the money they have keeps buying lessz and it firmly remains a struggle.
Had the Tories not believed the paper numbers they spun and been honest - its still tough, its not been as good as we hoped, but we have a plan and its better than theirs - then it might be believable. Instead they ask people to believe that they aren't broke, they aren't struggling AND to give the Tories credit for it.
Only this morning we had Lord Someone on the Today programme talking about infrastructure. Wouldn't accept that they'd slashed budgets and when ONS facts were presented he proceeded to state that the ONS is wrong and he is right. Hmmmmm.
Mr. Socrates, so, that's ferry prices up 30%, SMEs damaged to get a little from Amazon, and now, no spanking.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Why on Earth does the government think it should regulate material made and consumed by consenting adults? There is no argument for it at all other than "government knows best and we disapprove of your fetish".
I think it's more the government wants to reserve spanking for itself.
If the government wanted to prevent sexual abuse in this country, they'd be far better off starting with a national investigation of the rapes of thousands and thousands of children. Instead they do nothing there but try to prevent spanking and name-calling in porn.
No doubt in a year or two they'll ban the viewing of such stuff in imported porn on the basis of it being a "loophole". It's not about improving sexual morality, as demonstrated by the lack of a response to the street grooming scandal. This is just bringing in an offence they can use to humiliate anyone the government choose to bring a case against, whether or not they are found guilty. Given the experiences of Simon Walsh, a decent-minded government would reverse existing abuses here, but they're instead determined to double down on such a travesty.
Quite, Mr. Socrates. There is such a thing as freedom, which politicians might care to remember now and then.
Politicians are the last people we should trust with our freedoms. Power is what they are interested in (no doubt because they want to do good) and the more power you give them the greater the likelihood that they will use it to limit or remove our freedoms.
Mr. Socrates, so, that's ferry prices up 30%, SMEs damaged to get a little from Amazon, and now, no spanking.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Why on Earth does the government think it should regulate material made and consumed by consenting adults? There is no argument for it at all other than "government knows best and we disapprove of your fetish".
I think it's more the government wants to reserve spanking for itself.
If the government wanted to prevent sexual abuse in this country, they'd be far better off starting with a national investigation of the rapes of thousands and thousands of children. Instead they do nothing there but try to prevent spanking and name-calling in porn.
No doubt in a year or two they'll ban the viewing of such stuff in imported porn on the basis of it being a "loophole". It's not about improving sexual morality, as demonstrated by the lack of a response to the street grooming scandal. This is just bringing in an offence they can use to humiliate anyone the government choose to bring a case against, whether or not they are found guilty. Given the experiences of Simon Walsh, a decent-minded government would reverse existing abuses here, but they're instead determined to double down on such a travesty.
It's just one more example of HMG pushing gimmicks instead using the laws we have. Activity as a substitute for action.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
Labouring on the NHS frontline i take the view that to a large extent the reforms are working.
The local CCG is a vast improvement on the PCT The acute trust and mental health trust are wellmanaged, primary care is excellent
Nationally CQC is to large extent reformed from the Stalinist regime that oversaw Mid-Staffs Stevens is indeed the real deal at NHS England and his cunning 5 year plan welcomed across the political spectrum.
Can the Tories ever do more than neutralise the issue?....NO
If they have to talk on the issue then they should attack Burnham on MidStaffs ,he deserves it all and more ,and the unreconstructd Welsh NHS.
Why are Acute hospitals nearly all in deficit then?
Would it be because of the 30% marginal tariff or because of Lansleys GP Commissioners conflict of interest fiasco?
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
Exactly RichardN seems to know better
Perhaps we should all take a leaf out of Labours Welsh NHS to see how a well run and efficient health service looks like. Or even Labours previous efforts in Stafford where the only thing that wasn't in short supply was the vases the patients used to drink out of....
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
Exactly RichardN seems to know better
Perhaps we should all take a leaf out of Labours Welsh NHS to see how a well run and efficient health service looks like. Or even Labours previous efforts in Stafford where the only thing that wasn't in short supply was the vases the patients used to drink out of....
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
Labouring on the NHS frontline i take the view that to a large extent the reforms are working.
The local CCG is a vast improvement on the PCT The acute trust and mental health trust are wellmanaged, primary care is excellent
Nationally CQC is to large extent reformed from the Stalinist regime that oversaw Mid-Staffs Stevens is indeed the real deal at NHS England and his cunning 5 year plan welcomed across the political spectrum.
Can the Tories ever do more than neutralise the issue?....NO
If they have to talk on the issue then they should attack Burnham on MidStaffs ,he deserves it all and more ,and the unreconstructd Welsh NHS.
Why are Acute hospitals nearly all in deficit then?
Would it be because of the 30% marginal tariff or because of Lansleys GP Commissioners conflict of interest fiasco?
I do not know enough about the NHS reforms to comment. I can say - and I appreciate that this is purely anecdotal - that mine and my family's experience of the NHS over the past few years has been good. So I have not seen evidence of the disaster which Labour have been shouting about for years now.
(In fact, it was under a Labour government that strikes by NHS staff resulted in my father not getting the care he needed and him dying prematurely as a result. Another anecdote but to me a particularly painful one.)
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labouring on the NHS frontline i take the view that to a large extent the reforms are working.
The local CCG is a vast improvement on the PCT The acute trust and mental health trust are wellmanaged, primary care is excellent
Nationally CQC is to large extent reformed from the Stalinist regime that oversaw Mid-Staffs Stevens is indeed the real deal at NHS England and his cunning 5 year plan welcomed across the political spectrum.
Can the Tories ever do more than neutralise the issue?....NO
If they have to talk on the issue then they should attack Burnham on MidStaffs ,he deserves it all and more ,and the unreconstructd Welsh NHS.
Why are Acute hospitals nearly all in deficit then?
Would it be because of the 30% marginal tariff or because of Lansleys GP Commissioners conflict of interest fiasco?
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
Exactly RichardN seems to know better
Perhaps we should all take a leaf out of Labours Welsh NHS to see how a well run and efficient health service looks like. Or even Labours previous efforts in Stafford where the only thing that wasn't in short supply was the vases the patients used to drink out of....
Mmmmm.......Or maybe not?
Wales is improving England is getting worse
Hard not to accept Wales is improving given the very low point its already at as its hard to do otherwise. Given Labour has been in sole charge there for years including the last Labour governments it shows that Labour are as bad if not worse at this NHS lark. Your agreement that Wales is improving is telling but at least you accept the situation there is quite appalling. Just stop with the 24 hours to save the NHS bullshit why don't you?
It is also widely reported that many of the Welsh have fled across the border into England for this NHS that is apparently " getting worse" . This along with the hundreds of thousands that have arrived into this country the NHS in present form is unsustainable and has been for years. Its about time we grew up, looked at the situation and stopped treating the NHS as a political football.
You need to get real even if you have worked in that service.
When the English NHS becomes worse than the Labour led Welsh NHS then you can shout it from the hospital rooftops. Until then a period of humility would be preferable.
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
Most people will vote on other matters , economy , NHS , etc etc and the EU referendum will be low down on their priorities .
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
Personally I see it as:
Labour - Have done all in their power to avoid a referendum LD - Have done all in their power to avoid a referendum Tories - Did all in their power to avoid a referendum until people voted UKIP UKIP - Have led to every step of progress on the issue
I probably won't vote UKIP in 2015, or at any future election. But their success has directly led to the possibility of a referendum, and nothing else has. UKIP voters would be mad to abandon them now, just when they are near reaching their goal.
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
You think its only about the eu referendum?
I suspect from talking to my friends that are planning on voting elsewhere it is about their own personal economy as much as anything else. Most have seen their cost of living rise steadily since 2002 while in many cases they are earning less now than then.
Labour failed to improve their circumstances
The Con/LD coalition failed to improve their circumstances
A wise man once said the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
Most people will vote on other matters , economy , NHS , etc etc and the EU referendum will be low down on their priorities .
Yes I would probably agree with that up to the point the next and final raft of measures are implemented on this country by the EU and compliant left wing party.
I don't have a problem really either way I just want the people to speak and whatever that decision we go with it in full and entirely. A general election that will subsequently claim to be the people speaking for Europe just isn't going to cut it.
Finally a Lib Dem (Stephen Tall) realises that trashing the idea of coalitions though a sh*t chucking strategy, was a stupid move.
"But something else was lost, too: the chance for the Lib Dems to make the case for coalition government itself. The Lib Dems veered from the Rose Garden love-in to hard-core differentiation within a year, a shift which left voters confused about what we stood for and suspicious that we mostly wanted the trappings of power.
We have largely failed to demonstrate that Coalition is a grown-up and pragmatic way of doing business which leads to better, not worse, government. In 2010, a poll by ComRes found 46 per cent of voters wanted a hung parliament. Yet by 2013, the same pollster reported that 67 per cent wanted one party to win outright at the next general election rather than there being a Coalition. True, part of this is simply voters protesting the status quo (whatever that status quo happens to be at the time), but we haven’t exactly helped." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/12/74036.html
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
Agreed. I too switch off. And I - and my family - have the sort of health which makes it a very live issue for me.
Labour are making a fetish of the NHS. It is not grown up politics and stands in the way of making sure we have as good a health service as possible given the amount spent on it.
"Loving" an institution is adolescent sentimentality. "Weaponising" it is pathetic. The only thing political parties should be thinking about is not teenage slogans but about how best to have a health service that works.
Quite, Mr. Socrates. There is such a thing as freedom, which politicians might care to remember now and then.
I agree too, whatever people want to do in their own time is their business. Saying that, there are obvious limits to this, which is where the state should be focussing, but I don't believe any on that list qualify.
Sums up the BBC worldview / bias in one question. For a man of Peston intellect he knows there hasn't really been any austerity, let alone relentless.
LMAO. Do PBTories really think the BBC has been biased against the Tories on the economy? Sure, they're biased to the social-liberal viewpoint, but on economics they've been endlessly parrotting the Right's hysterical mantra of how the deficit is some big evil that's coming to get us and swallow us up in our sleep if we don't start destroying the public services, while ignoring the legitimate centre-left anti-austerity viewpoint.
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
If you are talking A&E I would agree. If you talk gp's and chronic care then there is much that leaves to be desired.
Why does it take a week for me to get a GP appointment?
Why can I only have one during normal working hours (11am to 4pm monday to friday) unless I want to take my chances of being the first x there at 9am on a morning
Why does my father have to ring them up every few months because they are meant to be doing regular checks for his cancer resurfacing considering the number of administrators they have
Why when my girlfriend was in labour did I have to threaten to start smashing up the place if the nurses didnt come and check on her after my third time in an hour of asking them to do so instead of gossiping about their holidays (when they did it to placate me all of a sudden it was panic stations)
The NHS frontline staff often do a good job but there are far too many on the payroll that are admin staff and far too many who believe the job they are paid to do is beneath them and this is mainly since nursing went degree based.
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
For everyone who says its great, I'll find you someone who says its shite. When I think about what happened to my wife before she died, and the catalogue of errors and misdiagnoses, I want to punch the lights out of one or two people who at best were well meaning , at worst UTTER shits. In fact I would have sued but she wouldn't let me because she was a GP.
Now If I want to see a GP its at least a week to see my own Doctor, sometimes two. Its a disgrace. The Whole GP system needs changing, they all need to be employees as if not they just are out to maximise what they make. Patient care is secondary to that and that's why in my practise, to get your call answered often takes 40 mins.
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
Agreed. I too switch off. And I - and my family - have the sort of health which makes it a very live issue for me.
Labour are making a fetish of the NHS. It is not grown up politics and stands in the way of making sure we have as good a health service as possible given the amount spent on it.
"Loving" an institution is adolescent sentimentality. "Weaponising" it is pathetic. The only thing political parties should be thinking about is not teenage slogans but about how best to have a health service that works.
The worst thing about the scaremongering is that it does work. Labour scare people, making them think the NHS is crap, when generally it's good, and certainly just about as good as any other public healthcare system. Making people worry about the care they will receive is wrong, when the health problems are worrying enough as it is.
I'm certainly not saying the NHS is perfect, I've seen the bad side too, or that it does not face some serious challenges, but we are extremely fortunate to live in a country were generally the healthcare works very well, and nobody gets hit by a huge bill for using it.
Mr. Socrates, so, that's ferry prices up 30%, SMEs damaged to get a little from Amazon, and now, no spanking.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Why on Earth does the government think it should regulate material made and consumed by consenting adults? There is no argument for it at all other than "government knows best and we disapprove of your fetish".
I think it's more the government wants to reserve spanking for itself.
If the government wanted to prevent sexual abuse in this country, they'd be far better off starting with a national investigation of the rapes of thousands and thousands of children. Instead they do nothing there but try to prevent spanking and name-calling in porn.
No doubt in a year or two they'll ban the viewing of such stuff in imported porn on the basis of it being a "loophole". It's not about improving sexual morality, as demonstrated by the lack of a response to the street grooming scandal. This is just bringing in an offence they can use to humiliate anyone the government choose to bring a case against, whether or not they are found guilty. Given the experiences of Simon Walsh, a decent-minded government would reverse existing abuses here, but they're instead determined to double down on such a travesty.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
Now If I want to see a GP its at least a week to see my own Doctor, sometimes two. Its a disgrace. The Whole GP system needs changing, they all need to be employees as if not they just are out to maximise what they make. Patient care is secondary to that and that's why in my practise, to get your call answered often takes 40 mins.
I agree with you about GPs being employed directly. One thing Labour, not the wicked Tories, really did make much worse with the lousy GPs contract deal. It's also the sort of thing that a party that really wants to "save the NHS", rather than use it as a political football, would be looking at.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
The choice is:
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory - promised referendum in 2017, but only if they get a majority (which they won't have), and have a tendency of breaking several promises on the EU UKIP - promised a referendum in 2015 and mean what they say
Farage answering questions from teenagers on #LeadersLive
Viewers voting on Farage response to their questions shows 70% to 30% in favour of Farage.
Even allowing for some extra button pushing by UKIP activists, there does seem to be a majority for Farage on various topics. He did have clear, logical answers to the issues they raised.
Yes he got a majority in his favour on every topic
Particularly liked the way he just dug out the idiot who kept giving it the big one rather than try and be all friendly friendly
One of the "kids" was a guardian journo apparently
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory -promised referendum in 2017 UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
The choice is:
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory - promised referendum in 2017, but only if they get a majority (which they won't have), and have a tendency of breaking several promises on the EU UKIP - promised a referendum in 2015 and mean what they say
Shouldn't that be:
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely Tory - promised referendum in 2017, but only if they get a majority (which they won't have), and have a tendency of breaking several promises on the EU UKIP - promised a referendum in 2015 and mean what they say but only if they get a majority (which they won't have)
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
Labour's been banging on about "vote Labour to save the NHS" my entire adult life, and yet the NHS survived 18 years of Tory government, and now nearly five years of coalition, and even Brown could not screw it up for the three years he was PM.. There are even bodies who now rank the NHS as amongst the best public healthcare systems in the world.
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
For everyone who says its great, I'll find you someone who says its shite. When I think about what happened to my wife before she died, and the catalogue of errors and misdiagnoses, I want to punch the lights out of one or two people who at best were well meaning , at worst UTTER shits. In fact I would have sued but she wouldn't let me because she was a GP.
Now If I want to see a GP its at least a week to see my own Doctor, sometimes two. Its a disgrace. The Whole GP system needs changing, they all need to be employees as if not they just are out to maximise what they make. Patient care is secondary to that and that's why in my practise, to get your call answered often takes 40 mins.
My family has mostly no problems getting GP appointments and when it was necessary appointments with a specialist and prompt access to things like scans. We are very pleased with our local service which has been officially rated as of a high standard generally .Perhaps some of the weaker services could learn something from the good ones.
I don't have a clue why some are talking about porn tonight. I will try to veer the discussion back to polling by posting that there's a new poll for Le Figaro that shows the french left block (the presidential one: socialists, greens ect) getting just 56-66 seats in the french parliament, down from 338 they have today.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Well I must admit I only read what was on PB today. I'm not clear on the nature of the ban, but I think it should be based on providers (such as websites), not users. I would be comfortable with providers of porn to UK users not being allowed to show non-consenting porn scenes.
I don't have a clue why some are talking about porn tonight. I will try to veer the discussion back to polling by posting that there's a new poll for Le Figaro that shows the french left block (the presidential one: socialists, greens ect) getting just 56-66 seats in the french parliament, down from 338 they have today.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Well I must admit I only read what was on PB today. I'm not clear on the nature of the ban, but I think it should be based on providers (such as websites), not users. I would be comfortable with providers of porn to UK users not being allowed to show non-consenting porn scenes.
Oh, I entirely agree with non-consent scenes. Those are disgusting. But stuff between consenting adults the government has no right to intervene with.
I don't have a clue why some are talking about porn tonight. I will try to veer the discussion back to polling by posting that there's a new poll for Le Figaro that shows the french left block (the presidential one: socialists, greens ect) getting just 56-66 seats in the french parliament, down from 338 they have today.
Wipeout!
And those fools gave a vote of confidence for Hollande's government when polls were better for them on the notion that many would have lost their seats and things would only get better. Now all of them could lose their seats, they have been PASOK-ed.
Labour campaigned on the NHS in 1992, remember 'Jennifer's ear' and promised to raise the top tax rate to 50%. They also had a narrow lead in the polls for most of the campaign, they lost
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Well I must admit I only read what was on PB today. I'm not clear on the nature of the ban, but I think it should be based on providers (such as websites), not users. I would be comfortable with providers of porn to UK users not being allowed to show non-consenting porn scenes.
Oh, I entirely agree with non-consent scenes. Those are disgusting. But stuff between consenting adults the government has no right to intervene with.
The problem is that the two newspapers (three with the Sunday) are so different in audience, circulation, and timing - one being a purely local evening newspaper - that to merge then and sack staff simply overworks the remaining staff and/or causes a decline of some sort in content.
As for the rest - we'll see. But, out of (real) interest, might I inquire what your political affiliation is? No need to reply of course. But I ask, in part, because so much of the indyref debate was based on the invocation of British nationalism (or unionism if you prefer): e.g. Mr Cameron adducing the dead of the Somme as a reason to stay in the UK.
I support UKIP. Not because I particularly like them, or dislike them, but because they get it. They want out of the EU and they want to dislodge an utterly toxic political class. Now, I am British (English), and very patriotic, so I have examined my own motivation and whether it is based in a visceral nationalism rather than a sense of logic.
Having done this I still conclude that the EU remains one of the biggest (though not the only) bulwarks of elite power against the individual. With the active connivance of our governing class, it wields legislative power, and seeks military power, over member states. Its deadening impact on our economy is incalculable. I cannot fathom a movement which claims to represent independence, but advocates continued membership (and no opportunity to vote ourselves out) of this organisation. This is the organisation that imposed austerity on Greece ffs!
However, the UK scraped through the referendum. I certainly didn't expect a 'No' vote to herald a golden age -I expect the UK to get less and less popular for the time being. However, I do believe the worm will turn within a decade -let's all pray it does, because if decline continues at this rate, we are all screwed, indy or no indy.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Well I must admit I only read what was on PB today. I'm not clear on the nature of the ban, but I think it should be based on providers (such as websites), not users. I would be comfortable with providers of porn to UK users not being allowed to show non-consenting porn scenes.
Oh, I entirely agree with non-consent scenes. Those are disgusting. But stuff between consenting adults the government has no right to intervene with.
By "non-consent scenes" do you mean scenes between consenting adults where someone is pretending not to consent?
I mentioned months ago that the next election will be a battle by proxy between the Tories and Labour, using UKIP and the Greens as their proxies to damage the other party.
If the Tories are successful in pumping the Green party, in the next election both Labour and the Tories will be in the 20's, since although the Greens take twice as much support from Labour they still get support from the Tories.
@faisalislam: It surely can't be true that any elected politicians in Scotland have filmed themselves burning copies of the Smith Commission...
Can't have taken them long. Its only 28 pages long which includes 8 pages of introduction two pages or responsibilities and one page at the back titled " this page left intentionally blank".
Yet we don't seem to have any further action from Timpson.
Now Timpson seems like a reasonable man and he's noted for his interest in disadvantaged children, as indeed is the Timpson family generally. So surely he doesn't think that Rotherham council are suitable to take care of vulnerable children ?
Nor is Timpson averse to taking action - in July he took control of Slough's children's services department after they were discovered to be 'inadequate':
Does the government need more reports before it can do anything ? Does the government need more time to think about things ? To put the timescale into context you could fit the entire Falklands War into the period since the Jay Report on Rotherham was published.
I happen to agree with banning rapey porn -but I can't really see the point of banning British producers from producing it and not banning it wholesale. As it is, it seems to be merely (another) restriction on British industry, allowing foreign competitors free reign.
We're not talking about "rapey porn". Since when was spanking and female ejaculation "rapey"?
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Well I must admit I only read what was on PB today. I'm not clear on the nature of the ban, but I think it should be based on providers (such as websites), not users. I would be comfortable with providers of porn to UK users not being allowed to show non-consenting porn scenes.
Oh, I entirely agree with non-consent scenes. Those are disgusting. But stuff between consenting adults the government has no right to intervene with.
By "non-consent scenes" do you mean scenes between consenting adults where someone is pretending not to consent?
As long as it's clear that the consent is there, I wouldn't have an issue with that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's endemic in so many people who strongly support a party. In order to justify themselves and dehumanise whoever they choose as an opponent, they declaim the motives of their opponent, which they can perceptively see as being stupid and/or malevolent (so as to enhance themselves relative to them).
"All Tories want to..." "Lefties always detest..." "UKippers are driven by..." "Lib Dems just can't resist..."
...you know the rest.
The thing is - the only people they're really talking to are themselves. It doesn't appeal to those who they're traducing, the uninterested turn away in embarrassment, the neutral-but-interested feel disgust.
It's simply political masturbation. Feels good to those doing it, makes everyone seeing it feel uncomfortable.
It can be irritating when you try to have a sensible debate and partisans turn up frantically fapping away.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's endemic in so many people who strongly support a party. In order to justify themselves and dehumanise whoever they choose as an opponent, they declaim the motives of their opponent, which they can perceptively see as being stupid and/or malevolent (so as to enhance themselves relative to them).
"All Tories want to..." "Lefties always detest..." "UKippers are driven by..." "Lib Dems just can't resist..."
...you know the rest.
The thing is - the only people they're really talking to are themselves. It doesn't appeal to those who they're traducing, the uninterested turn away in embarrassment, the neutral-but-interested feel disgust.
It's simply political masturbation. Feels good to those doing it, makes everyone seeing it feel uncomfortable.
It can be irritating when you try to have a sensible debate and partisans turn up frantically fapping away.
I've always thought that partisan political party cheerleading and hatemongering is very similar fundamentally to the cheering and hating that the worst sort of sports fans engage in.
But they both seem to give some people some sort of 'meaning' to their lives.
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
I agree with every word. However, I am not sure what the Government in 1906 would have done about freely available hardcore rape scenes for the public's titillation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not agitating for a ban or anything, but when I heard the news, I just wasn't sorry. No doubt upon further inspection (as with everything this Government does) there will be a less savoury and more authoritarian motive however...
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
It would be interesting if we could give you small state libertarians a county or two to try out your ideas.
I suppose we would have to give the big state authoritarians similar to try out theirs as well.
In other news, that nice Danny Alexander was in my neck of the woods today, with an interesting announcement on housebuilding.
The Northstowe development comprises 10,000+ homes that are planned to be built on the site of the old Oakington airfield, to the north of Cambridge. First mooted in 2006 as an eco-town, there has been no meaningful development in the intervening years.
Today, Danny Alexander announced that the government will be building the development as a trial scheme. They will pay the builders to build the houses, which will then be sold on to the public. The government (hope) to regain its investment from those sales.
I cannot make up my mind whether this is genius or stupidity. It certainly promises to unblock the stalled development, but will the builders just take the government for a ride?
More importantly, will removing housebuilders from the planning of developments make for better communities, or will it just lead to faddy council-designed wastelands?
Bizarre thread header I have to say. We already knew there was minimum 40% of the electorate that won't touch the Tories with a barge pole. They just need to try and tie up as close to 2/3rds as possible of the rest.
In other news, that nice Danny Alexander was in my neck of the woods today, with an interesting announcement on housebuilding.
The Northstowe development comprises 10,000+ homes that are planned to be built on the site of the old Oakington airfield, to the north of Cambridge. First mooted in 2006 as an eco-town, there has been no meaningful development in the intervening years.
Today, Danny Alexander announced that the government will be building the development as a trial scheme. They will pay the builders to build the houses, which will then be sold on to the public. The government (hope) to regain its investment from those sales.
I cannot make up my mind whether this is genius or stupidity. It certainly promises to unblock the stalled development, but will the builders just take the government for a ride?
More importantly, will removing housebuilders from the planning of developments make for better communities, or will it just lead to faddy council-designed wastelands?
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
I consider that quote by AJP Taylor to be one of the most important commentaries ever written on what has gone wrong with Britain in the 20th century. I never tire of reading it as it is a perfect summary of how much we have lost, even though most people hardly realise it.
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
Asks someone who advocates ethnic cleansing of the poorer members of society.
I don't believe I'm in favour of any kind of ethnic cleansing.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
It would be interesting if we could give you small state libertarians a county or two to try out your ideas.
I suppose we would have to give the big state authoritarians similar to try out theirs as well.
One of the interesting things about ancient Greece was that with hundreds of city states, every form of government could be tried out.
I support UKIP. Not because I particularly like them, or dislike them, but because they get it. They want out of the EU and they want to dislodge an utterly toxic political class. Now, I am British (English), and very patriotic, so I have examined my own motivation and whether it is based in a visceral nationalism rather than a sense of logic.
Having done this I still conclude that the EU remains one of the biggest (though not the only) bulwarks of elite power against the individual. With the active connivance of our governing class, it wields legislative power, and seeks military power, over member states. Its deadening impact on our economy is incalculable. I cannot fathom a movement which claims to represent independence, but advocates continued membership (and no opportunity to vote ourselves out) of this organisation. This is the organisation that imposed austerity on Greece ffs!
However, the UK scraped through the referendum. I certainly didn't expect a 'No' vote to herald a golden age -I expect the UK to get less and less popular for the time being. However, I do believe the worm will turn within a decade -let's all pray it does, because if decline continues at this rate, we are all screwed, indy or no indy.
Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
I'd say the Scots want their own chance to negotiate directly with the EU before they make up their mind ultimately. Different priorities from London: the recent Coalition refusal to involve the Scottish Gmt in fisheries talks was unbelievably crass as it merely reinforces this for an industry largely in Scotland. And the cost/benefit balance in Scotland is different while the EU and related elements such as the ECHR are seen as a defence against uncontrolled London neoliberalism.
For the moment, the EU is seen as a good thing. As the polling shows. But I have a sense that it is on probation, which is a sensible view anyway.
I notice the Tories and Labour are now in the position of having to differ on whether to leave the EU after spending years claiming it would be a terrible thing for Scotland. If the Tories push exit from the EU that's a heck of a U-turn, and if Labour now try to preserve the Union in the teeth of Brexit ... Remember Labour politicians were praising the election of a Scottish UKIP MEP last spring. I take it you are familiar with Mr Coburn's striking utterances, such as his apparent opinion of late that the Glasgow Herald is (I paraphrase) a SNP propaganda sheet. (Did he confuse it with the National? Surely not.).
As for nationalism, I'd say that the indy side moved on from mere patriotism long ago. A very strong driver is simply to get away from London ( = Westminster elite) control before it drags us all down with it. Which ties in nicely with your viewpoint.
Comments
Schiele was imprisoned in Austria for displaying pornographic pictures, i.e. his own drawings and paintings. Take comfort that this was done under the authority of a Hapsburg dynasty that was soon to collapse, largely as a consequence of its own incompetence, its archaic institutions and attitudes.
Perhaps we are to be liberated soon. ;-)
Really, Flightpath, you must try harder.
WBA/Palace/Man U/Swans pays 11/1
Even allowing for some extra button pushing by UKIP activists, there does seem to be a majority for Farage on various topics. He did have clear, logical answers to the issues they raised.
If you think having local councillors running sexual health services and deciding which of a group of bidders is best without having even a single doctor on the panel, or even making quality of service a deciding factor, then yes I suppose you might think the reforms have worked.
E-mailed HMRC at the weekend and Amazon today about EU VAT nonsense. Got a reply from Amazon [none yet from HMRC]. Suggests I won't be affected, though I'd like to hear it from the taxman as well.
Still worth buying e-books earlier, though, as Amazon's solution to the admin burden appears to be increasing the prices so VAT will now be at 20%, rather than 3%.
So, the EU law designed to make Amazon pay its fair share will drive prices up and drive SMEs either out of online business or towards portals such as Amazon. It's monumentally badly drafted legislation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30300372
Sums up the BBC worldview / bias in one question. For a man of Peston intellect he knows there hasn't really been any austerity, let alone relentless.
Will Clegg win the best family Chrimbo card for a second time..?
The local CCG is a vast improvement on the PCT
The acute trust and mental health trust are wellmanaged, primary care is excellent
Nationally CQC is to large extent reformed from the Stalinist regime that oversaw Mid-Staffs
Stevens is indeed the real deal at NHS England and his cunning 5 year plan welcomed across the political spectrum.
Can the Tories ever do more than neutralise the issue?....NO
If they have to talk on the issue then they should attack Burnham on MidStaffs ,he deserves it all and more ,and the unreconstructd Welsh NHS.
These meddling bureaucrats have gone too far!
[In seriousness, the government, whether here or the Brussels eunuchocracy, should keep its nose out of such things. Ahem].
Never mind.
For years now they have been trumpeting the long term economkc plan, and that things have recovered to the point where we have the best economy in Europe. And you mustn't let Labour ruin this amazing recovery!
Except that most people don't feel a recovery. Their wages are going nowhere, inflation is apparently low yet the money they have keeps buying lessz and it firmly remains a struggle.
Had the Tories not believed the paper numbers they spun and been honest - its still tough, its not been as good as we hoped, but we have a plan and its better than theirs - then it might be believable. Instead they ask people to believe that they aren't broke, they aren't struggling AND to give the Tories credit for it.
Only this morning we had Lord Someone on the Today programme talking about infrastructure. Wouldn't accept that they'd slashed budgets and when ONS facts were presented he proceeded to state that the ONS is wrong and he is right. Hmmmmm.
No doubt in a year or two they'll ban the viewing of such stuff in imported porn on the basis of it being a "loophole". It's not about improving sexual morality, as demonstrated by the lack of a response to the street grooming scandal. This is just bringing in an offence they can use to humiliate anyone the government choose to bring a case against, whether or not they are found guilty. Given the experiences of Simon Walsh, a decent-minded government would reverse existing abuses here, but they're instead determined to double down on such a travesty.
Would it be because of the 30% marginal tariff or because of Lansleys GP Commissioners conflict of interest fiasco?
Mmmmm.......Or maybe not?
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely
LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely
Tory -promised referendum in 2017
UKIP - demand a referendum and will give one just can't win GE and will allow Labour in to complete the entrapment.
In short we can never escape but we have a slim chance with one party.
No I am not a Tory I am an anyone.... just absolutely anyone but Labour ( even Monster Raving Loony if required)
(In fact, it was under a Labour government that strikes by NHS staff resulted in my father not getting the care he needed and him dying prematurely as a result. Another anecdote but to me a particularly painful one.)
What I do feel - picking up on OGH's comments about Labour being seen as a one-trick pony - is that the NHS is not the sole - or even the primary- function of the state. Labour should - if they really want to be a serious party of government and in government - be something more than the "Save the NHS" party.
It is also widely reported that many of the Welsh have fled across the border into England for this NHS that is apparently " getting worse" . This along with the hundreds of thousands that have arrived into this country the NHS in present form is unsustainable and has been for years. Its about time we grew up, looked at the situation and stopped treating the NHS as a political football.
You need to get real even if you have worked in that service.
When the English NHS becomes worse than the Labour led Welsh NHS then you can shout it from the hospital rooftops. Until then a period of humility would be preferable.
Labour - Have done all in their power to avoid a referendum
LD - Have done all in their power to avoid a referendum
Tories - Did all in their power to avoid a referendum until people voted UKIP
UKIP - Have led to every step of progress on the issue
I probably won't vote UKIP in 2015, or at any future election. But their success has directly led to the possibility of a referendum, and nothing else has. UKIP voters would be mad to abandon them now, just when they are near reaching their goal.
I suspect from talking to my friends that are planning on voting elsewhere it is about their own personal economy as much as anything else. Most have seen their cost of living rise steadily since 2002 while in many cases they are earning less now than then.
Labour failed to improve their circumstances
The Con/LD coalition failed to improve their circumstances
A wise man once said the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result
Yes I would probably agree with that up to the point the next and final raft of measures are implemented on this country by the EU and compliant left wing party.
I don't have a problem really either way I just want the people to speak and whatever that decision we go with it in full and entirely. A general election that will subsequently claim to be the people speaking for Europe just isn't going to cut it.
"But something else was lost, too: the chance for the Lib Dems to make the case for coalition government itself. The Lib Dems veered from the Rose Garden love-in to hard-core differentiation within a year, a shift which left voters confused about what we stood for and suspicious that we mostly wanted the trappings of power.
We have largely failed to demonstrate that Coalition is a grown-up and pragmatic way of doing business which leads to better, not worse, government. In 2010, a poll by ComRes found 46 per cent of voters wanted a hung parliament. Yet by 2013, the same pollster reported that 67 per cent wanted one party to win outright at the next general election rather than there being a Coalition. True, part of this is simply voters protesting the status quo (whatever that status quo happens to be at the time), but we haven’t exactly helped."
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/12/74036.html
Labour have cried wolf for so long that I switch off when they talk about the NHS, they have nothing serious to say about the it. "Weaponising the NHS" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.
I too have seen the NHS close-up several times during the last few years, and the service has been exemplary, and frankly we pay a bloody fortune for it, so it should be.
@MartynMcL: Councillors who burned #SmithCommission report are @magsmaclaren, @wmylet & Bill Lawson. Not regular tweeters (lack of opposable thumbs).
Labour are making a fetish of the NHS. It is not grown up politics and stands in the way of making sure we have as good a health service as possible given the amount spent on it.
"Loving" an institution is adolescent sentimentality. "Weaponising" it is pathetic. The only thing political parties should be thinking about is not teenage slogans but about how best to have a health service that works.
I know failure isn't a problem but can you really cope with hope?
Why does it take a week for me to get a GP appointment?
Why can I only have one during normal working hours (11am to 4pm monday to friday)
unless I want to take my chances of being the first x there at 9am on a morning
Why does my father have to ring them up every few months because they are meant to be doing regular checks for his cancer resurfacing considering the number of administrators they have
Why when my girlfriend was in labour did I have to threaten to start smashing up the place if the nurses didnt come and check on her after my third time in an hour of asking them to do so instead of gossiping about their holidays (when they did it to placate me all of a sudden it was panic stations)
The NHS frontline staff often do a good job but there are far too many on the payroll that are admin staff and far too many who believe the job they are paid to do is beneath them and this is mainly since nursing went degree based.
Now If I want to see a GP its at least a week to see my own Doctor, sometimes two. Its a disgrace. The Whole GP system needs changing, they all need to be employees as if not they just are out to maximise what they make. Patient care is secondary to that and that's why in my practise, to get your call answered often takes 40 mins.
I'll get me coat. Quick.
I'm certainly not saying the NHS is perfect, I've seen the bad side too, or that it does not face some serious challenges, but we are extremely fortunate to live in a country were generally the healthcare works very well, and nobody gets hit by a huge bill for using it.
Also be aware that one guy they had up got in trouble for "extreme porn" due to being in receipt of a joke email from a friend. The police could potentially bring a case against anyone that was browsing vanilla porn and had examples of this "extreme porn" on the same pages in their history.
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely
LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely
Tory - promised referendum in 2017, but only if they get a majority (which they won't have), and have a tendency of breaking several promises on the EU
UKIP - promised a referendum in 2015 and mean what they say
Particularly liked the way he just dug out the idiot who kept giving it the big one rather than try and be all friendly friendly
One of the "kids" was a guardian journo apparently
Labour - ruled out EU referendum entirely
LidDem - Ruled out EU referendum entirely
Tory - promised referendum in 2017, but only if they get a majority (which they won't have), and have a tendency of breaking several promises on the EU
UKIP - promised a referendum in 2015 and mean what they say but only if they get a majority (which they won't have)
?
I will try to veer the discussion back to polling by posting that there's a new poll for Le Figaro that shows the french left block (the presidential one: socialists, greens ect) getting just 56-66 seats in the french parliament, down from 338 they have today.
Now all of them could lose their seats, they have been PASOK-ed.
Are you the most authoritarian person ever on politicalbetting?
Is there any part of a person's daily life that you don't think needs official sanction from the state?
http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/
More now negative on the economy and fewer want tax cuts as a priority
http://comres.co.uk/poll/1338/itv-news-index-autumn-statement.htm
http://order-order.com/2014/12/02/45-of-satanists-vote-tory/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etwlk61NvCw
Having done this I still conclude that the EU remains one of the biggest (though not the only) bulwarks of elite power against the individual. With the active connivance of our governing class, it wields legislative power, and seeks military power, over member states. Its deadening impact on our economy is incalculable. I cannot fathom a movement which claims to represent independence, but advocates continued membership (and no opportunity to vote ourselves out) of this organisation. This is the organisation that imposed austerity on Greece ffs!
However, the UK scraped through the referendum. I certainly didn't expect a 'No' vote to herald a golden age -I expect the UK to get less and less popular for the time being. However, I do believe the worm will turn within a decade -let's all pray it does, because if decline continues at this rate, we are all screwed, indy or no indy.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6141844/Tories-plan-to-brand-Greens-new-Socialists.html
http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/a-quarter-cuts-come/29799
If the Tories are successful in pumping the Green party, in the next election both Labour and the Tories will be in the 20's, since although the Greens take twice as much support from Labour they still get support from the Tories.
No surprise there then.
The most baffling aspect of the government's response, to my mind at least, has been that of Children's Minister Edward Timpson.
Now Timpson did act initially by writing to Rotherham council and commissioning a special Ofsted report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28973589
What Rotherham council's response to Timpson was I don't know but the Ofsted report found that Rotherham's children's services 'remain inadequate':
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-11-19/child-services-in-rotherham-remain-inadequate-ofsted-finds/
Yet we don't seem to have any further action from Timpson.
Now Timpson seems like a reasonable man and he's noted for his interest in disadvantaged children, as indeed is the Timpson family generally. So surely he doesn't think that Rotherham council are suitable to take care of vulnerable children ?
Nor is Timpson averse to taking action - in July he took control of Slough's children's services department after they were discovered to be 'inadequate':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-28342785
So why no action yet regarding Rotherham ?
Does the government need more reports before it can do anything ? Does the government need more time to think about things ? To put the timescale into context you could fit the entire Falklands War into the period since the Jay Report on Rotherham was published.
"All Tories want to..."
"Lefties always detest..."
"UKippers are driven by..."
"Lib Dems just can't resist..."
...you know the rest.
The thing is - the only people they're really talking to are themselves. It doesn't appeal to those who they're traducing, the uninterested turn away in embarrassment, the neutral-but-interested feel disgust.
It's simply political masturbation. Feels good to those doing it, makes everyone seeing it feel uncomfortable.
It can be irritating when you try to have a sensible debate and partisans turn up frantically fapping away.
But they both seem to give some people some sort of 'meaning' to their lives.
My flip answer, by the way, is that the cleansing would be of the weaker members of society, irrespective of their ethnic mix.
My more serious answer is that I believe very strongly in limiting the powers of the state. I find this idea that - if 51% of people (or - what 25% in 2005?) vote for a party, then that party should have unbridled powers.
Over the course of human history, it is not wars, or murderers, or terrorists that have been the biggest (non-disease) killers of people - it is their own governments.
I sincerely believe that giving money and power to the government is like - in the words of PJ O'Rourke - giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
I believe that civil society has been irreparably damaged by allowing the government into areas of our lives that are better served by voluntary institutions (such as the Church, or volunteer fire departments, etc.).
I realise that not many share my views: but I think the real problem is that we have come to see the government as the solutions to our problems, when so often it is the cause of them. A naive belief that "it is somebody else's problem" and "somebody else should do something" hollows out us as individuals, and morally numbs us, and intellectually castrates us. I believe that so many of the problems of unemployment and crime come from too much government, not too little.
It would be pointless for me to quote AJP Taylor again (I'm sure Socrates at the very least is bored of me cutting and pasting him): But I genuinely believe that we should work harder to try and return to the limits of government we had in 1906.
I suppose we would have to give the big state authoritarians similar to try out theirs as well.
The Northstowe development comprises 10,000+ homes that are planned to be built on the site of the old Oakington airfield, to the north of Cambridge. First mooted in 2006 as an eco-town, there has been no meaningful development in the intervening years.
Today, Danny Alexander announced that the government will be building the development as a trial scheme. They will pay the builders to build the houses, which will then be sold on to the public. The government (hope) to regain its investment from those sales.
I cannot make up my mind whether this is genius or stupidity. It certainly promises to unblock the stalled development, but will the builders just take the government for a ride?
More importantly, will removing housebuilders from the planning of developments make for better communities, or will it just lead to faddy council-designed wastelands?
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Northstowe-pilot-government-plans-fasttrack-new/story-25025985-detail/story.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c488029a-7a0b-11e4-8958-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3KmKVlN42
The Satanist poll figures were taken from 1992 though when the Tories won over 40% diluting their significance a little
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/28/voters-across-europe-back-eu-migrant-curbs/
That sounds like it will be ripe for abuse.
I'd say the Scots want their own chance to negotiate directly with the EU before they make up their mind ultimately. Different priorities from London: the recent Coalition refusal to involve the Scottish Gmt in fisheries talks was unbelievably crass as it merely reinforces this for an industry largely in Scotland. And the cost/benefit balance in Scotland is different while the EU and related elements such as the ECHR are seen as a defence against uncontrolled London neoliberalism.
For the moment, the EU is seen as a good thing. As the polling shows. But I have a sense that it is on probation, which is a sensible view anyway.
I notice the Tories and Labour are now in the position of having to differ on whether to leave the EU after spending years claiming it would be a terrible thing for Scotland. If the Tories push exit from the EU that's a heck of a U-turn, and if Labour now try to preserve the Union in the teeth of Brexit ... Remember Labour politicians were praising the election of a Scottish UKIP MEP last spring. I take it you are familiar with Mr Coburn's striking utterances, such as his apparent opinion of late that the Glasgow Herald is (I paraphrase) a SNP propaganda sheet. (Did he confuse it with the National? Surely not.).
As for nationalism, I'd say that the indy side moved on from mere patriotism long ago. A very strong driver is simply to get away from London ( = Westminster elite) control before it drags us all down with it. Which ties in nicely with your viewpoint.
The NUS that ban UKIP from debates that is
...& Farage still won