@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
So let a public broadcaster hold the debate and explore the merits of the case in front of the public, and if you are right demonstrate it for all to see. The worst thing about the left is all the "no platform" horsesh*t about anything they dont like the sound of, or that doesn't fit in with their world view.
Like a lot of people my age I consume my news through the internet where special interests carry no weight.
That's an interesting point. Arguably the internet age is making us all less exposed to other points of view (PB excepted!), because we increasingly choose to get our news (or "news") from internet sources who we trust. I used to only get tweets from the main media sources, but have signed up to various leftie blogs etc., so now my Twitter feed is reassuringly leftish. I do occasionally wonder if it's representative, and so should you.
The BBC annoys me just as much as it annoys Tories (I dislike all their Paxman/Neil etc. interviewers who think they're half the story themselves), but the stated objective to report the news neutrally is worth having. All the complaints relate to whether they achieve that, and in fairness it's difficult. Not having any organisation which has a statutory obligation to try to do it seems to me a really bad idea.
But I do have a reservation about prompting for localness. If you prompt for any factor, it hints to the voter that when he thinks about that factor, maybe he'd like to think again about his vote. If you imagine saying "Now, thinking about what the parties have said on the NHS/the deficit/immigration, who would you vote for?" you can imagine varying results. Isn't it possible that many people think about all kinds of things when they vote, and not especially about the constituency and candidates?
That's why Lib Dem target seat campaigns are so intensive. Their aim is to make sure that voters in that constituency are focussed on the local candidate and the local tactical position when they go to cast their vote.
Yes, I know. But the fact that the effect doesn't show up much in Q1 answers (when voters are simply asked how they'll vote) suggests that there's still work to do. If the target seat campaigns were really effective then voters would already say "I'm voting LibDem" when asked without prompting "OK, but what about when you think about your seat?"
You can argue that the effect only really happens in the election itself when voters get a mountain of LibDem leaflets. Maybe - but conversely in the election campaign the media focus is on Lab vs Con. It'd be better to nail it down now. (I'm writing as someone who would be sorry to see e.g. Norman Baker lose to the Tories.)
Whether or no the BBC overstepped the mark you can't call the IFS biased.
I don't think people mind the cuts as much as the left think. What they mind is cuts at the same time as spending many billions overseas.
The obsession with overseas aid that all the main parties seem to have is the least understandable thing about them.
Look on the threads below the articles on this topic in any newspaper. Overseas aid is mentioned time after time after time.
I think Overseas Aid is too high at the moment but I'm not sure how much is the right amount and it certainly doesn't doesn't mean I want it at zero (ideally I'd have Bill Easterly in charge of it).
But sadly or otherwise the Cons aren't about to get rid of it or even the 0.7% target (because if nothing else, looked at like that, 0.7% doesn't seem a helluva lot).
What they would gain in delighted Kippers they would lose in hold-their-nose Labourites.
The BBC have consistently ignored the precarious final situation the country is in since Labour created the mother of all boom to bust. A responsible public broadcaster would have presented the people with the reality of the situation as well as the different options available to put the public finances on a sustainable basis. Instead they have downplayed and ignored the problem.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
In 2009, Mr van Rompuy, 67, became the first occupant of this Brussels sinecure for which he was paid a salary approaching £250,000 a year, plus allowances. But it is in retirement that he has really hit the jackpot. In order to ease his passage back into the cold world beyond the gilded walls, he is to receive £133,723 a year – 55 per cent of his basic salary – until December 2017. On top of that, he will be given a one-off payment of £21,000 for reasons that are not immediately obvious; and he can also draw a lifetime EU pension worth £52,000 a year. His earnings over the next three years will be £578,000 – and he won’t have to leave home to earn it.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
The BBC have consistently ignored the precarious final situation the country is in since Labour created the mother of all boom to bust. A responsible public broadcaster would have presented the people with the reality of the situation as well as the different options available to put the public finances on a sustainable basis. Instead they have downplayed and ignored the problem.
The BBC's biggest problem is that the current licence fee system is unsustainable in the long term. Sometime in the next ten or twenty years it will have to change, and whatever that change is - direct taxation, subscription services, levy on t'Internet, will require political support.
If they're not careful, they're not going to get it.
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
They will be pushed to capture the Burberry's Betty's crowd.
What the Tories are offering is coming across as too extreme and will probably backfire.
The cuts themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that we are spending 11 billion on overseas aid and 12 billion on EU membership at the same time as those cuts.
Its just too easy to attack. And voters get simple stuff like this.
No, the cuts *are* the problem.
t.
Ben - what did you think of my idea for a Labour policy.
Public better than private right ?
So why not a policy to expand the civil service and hire it out to private companies so they can leverage it's "better administration, project management and people skills" - extra revenue for the Treasury and less cuts ? Nationalisation by stealth - all the benefits with none of the hassle of buying the shares etc.
The Mail and Telegraph are full of stuff about Lefty BBC "asst political editor" journo Norman Smith and his biased reporting of the budget. Frankly one thinks that's par for the course. He was involved in a row at no 10 last yr methinks.
I listened to Smith yesterday morning - his reporting did strike me as a trifle apocalyptic - and can understand why Osborne was ratty in the 8.10 slot. Labour not having held his feet to the fire, I can understand his irritation!
expect more of the same.. the license fee deal runs out next yr...
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
They will be pushed to capture the Burberry's Betty's crowd.
Looks like the local council is 'all up' next year too.
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
Now he expects a good part of the fall in public borrowing to be made up, not by exporting abroad but by higher borrowing by households. The new forecasts show UK household debt rising even faster than previously thought in the next parliament (2015-20) to a record high of more than 180 per cent of gross domestic product. This is due partly to higher house prices but also an expectation that unsecured borrowing by households will grow faster than income.
Private debt to go up to 180% of GDP!
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
I wonder if this is going to be a case of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves.
Replace "wonder if" with "hope" for your true feelings?
I wouldn’t "hope". I’d rather see him defeated in a fair figjht. He seems an able chap, but I’m always suspicious of people who work for shadowy organisations such as the Taxpayers Alliance.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
What happened to that like button?
+lots.
About 18 months ago I was in York, and for some reason there were some cyclists reenacting a Queen video about bikes. All the cycling costumes were lovingly recreated. www.youtube.com/watch?v=olDLxq6quOw
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
I wish Mike would stop sitting on the fence about how he feels about the Greens.
I wonder if this is going to be a case of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves.
Replace "wonder if" with "hope" for your true feelings?
Or replace "wonder if" with "recent experience with UKIP suggests".....
UKIP do fine, until they start talking.
He's their GE candidate. Getting him some profile by taking a seat on the council is obviously a smart move. He's clearly not a nutjob and doesnt seem like the kind to have skeletons in his closet. He might be slightly disappointed with the margin of victory though.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
They will be pushed to capture the Burberry's Betty's crowd.
Looks like the local council is 'all up' next year too.
That might be what the Greens will be focussing on.
It’s already a 2.5 way marginal; could it turn into a 4 or even a 5 way one? If it did, then as many have opined, we could see some crazy results, in York and elsewhere.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
They will be pushed to capture the Burberry's Betty's crowd.
Looks like the local council is 'all up' next year too.
That might be what the Greens will be focussing on.
It’s already a 2.5 way marginal; could it turn into a 4 or even a 5 way one? If it did, then as many have opined, we could see some crazy results, in York and elsewhere.
It's not a 2.5 way marginal. It's a safe Labour hold. The Green party is interested in getting 2nds and 3rds to build on for 2020 and beyond. Personally I dont quite see it happening here.
This was seen as a test run for possible SPD/Green/Linke cooperation elsewhere and uncertain up to the last minute, since Linke members were uneasy that he'd agreed to a fresh look at the faults of the GDR and SPD/Green members were uneasy that he hadn't gone further in denouncing the GDR. In the event, the red/red/green coalition more or less held up - one member abstained on the first ballot but relented on the second ballot.
IMO it's still 10 years before this sort of coalition becomes seen as viable nationally, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
I note the promotion of the Green's in your demonology from "quasi-fascist" to "authoritarian fascist". Worrying.
@Patrick The "market" has no conscience,and is therefore not a panacea for all ills. Anyone who thinks that it is, is delusional.
The market also doesn't do sentimentality or mawkishness, which is to be greatly admired, as our politicians are drawn to sentimentality and mawkishness like moths to a flame. Usually at huge cost.
Sorry, but the entire discussion is pointless.
Does the electricity transmission grid have a conscience?
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
Read what I wrote: the BBC's licence fee is going to have to be replaced. Whatever that replacement is will be massively controversial politically and amongst the public. To get that change through, the BBC will need political support, especially as the replacement will cost the public dear.
Idiocy like the '1930s' meme will only hurt that political support.
The licence fee replacement is the elephant in the room when it comes to the BBC.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
The decline in smoking and increase in fire safety standards mean we just don't need as many firemen.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
True but only if every FRS adopt the same protect the back office strategy as your own Brigade. The problem is as much with the quality of management as it is with money.
Now he expects a good part of the fall in public borrowing to be made up, not by exporting abroad but by higher borrowing by households. The new forecasts show UK household debt rising even faster than previously thought in the next parliament (2015-20) to a record high of more than 180 per cent of gross domestic product. This is due partly to higher house prices but also an expectation that unsecured borrowing by households will grow faster than income.
Private debt to go up to 180% of GDP!
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
They thought that would happen the last few years, it didn't, the public deleveraged.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
"more people than is absolutely necessary"
They already do, since we don't have a fire station in every village and a dedicated fire-fighting team resident in every commercial or industrial premises. This is because we approach risk - and indeed death - on a cost-benefit basis.
Now obviously you know far more about the fire service than I; but in light of the substantial improvements in fire safety over the last few decades - smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, building regs, materials, fewer people smoking etc. etc. it seems perfectly reasonable that we would cut back on "front line" fire services to reflect the changed risk. And yes, that means more people might die.
I predict this will be yet another case where members of every other party say breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal, and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
Now he expects a good part of the fall in public borrowing to be made up, not by exporting abroad but by higher borrowing by households. The new forecasts show UK household debt rising even faster than previously thought in the next parliament (2015-20) to a record high of more than 180 per cent of gross domestic product. This is due partly to higher house prices but also an expectation that unsecured borrowing by households will grow faster than income.
Private debt to go up to 180% of GDP!
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
They thought that would happen the last few years, it didn't, the public deleveraged.
Quite. And if that continues, you won't get the growth!
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
The decline in smoking and increase in fire safety standards mean we just don't need as many firemen.
Very true, we've been outstanding in our initiatives in community fire safety. Still, we do actually need enough fire engines, adequately crewed, to respond to the ones who haven't got the message, or have just been plain unlucky. Over the next few years, there wont be enough.
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
Read what I wrote: the BBC's licence fee is going to have to be replaced. Whatever that replacement is will be massively controversial politically and amongst the public. To get that change through, the BBC will need political support, especially as the replacement will cost the public dear.
Idiocy like the '1930s' meme will only hurt that political support.
The licence fee replacement is the elephant in the room when it comes to the BBC.
A licence fee for television will sound as odd in a few years' time as a licence fee for listening to the radio sounds now.
If anyone is thinking of introducing an internet licence fee for the BBC incidentally, taxing the internet hasn't been a rip-roaring success elsewhere:
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
Read what I wrote: the BBC's licence fee is going to have to be replaced. Whatever that replacement is will be massively controversial politically and amongst the public. To get that change through, the BBC will need political support, especially as the replacement will cost the public dear.
Idiocy like the '1930s' meme will only hurt that political support.
The licence fee replacement is the elephant in the room when it comes to the BBC.
That ought to be true however I don't think any government of whatever stripe will have the nerve to address the issues surrounding the BBC, of which the undoubted bias in its news and current affairs output is only a small part. So I expect the licence fee settlement to be renewed and the can kicked down the road for another ten years.
Now he expects a good part of the fall in public borrowing to be made up, not by exporting abroad but by higher borrowing by households. The new forecasts show UK household debt rising even faster than previously thought in the next parliament (2015-20) to a record high of more than 180 per cent of gross domestic product. This is due partly to higher house prices but also an expectation that unsecured borrowing by households will grow faster than income.
Private debt to go up to 180% of GDP!
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
They thought that would happen the last few years, it didn't, the public deleveraged.
The curious question for me, is why if this didn't happen before, the OBR expects it to happen now?
I predict this will be yet another case where members of every other party say breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal, and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
For the baby breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal and confining a mother and child to a toilet or changing room (if one may be found) is the sort of nonsense one is becoming casually used to from male kippers.
Farage says women should not breast feed in a "ostentatious" fashion.
Personally I don;t think broody women are aggressive enough. People should be made to fall to their knees in tribute when faced with a 'baby on board' badge.
Quite how women managed to safely have babies before those lovely badges I'll never know.
Mr. Llama, I agree, but delaying the decision will just make it more difficult. Better to grasp the nettle.
Mr. Antifrank, that's where I think they'll try and shift it, but I think people would be pissed off (especially younger people) at having to pay the BBC for the right to use the bloody internet.
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
Mr. JS, the clustering of the mainstream parties has created huge areas of unclaimed ground for Farage and UKIP. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised they're polling so well.
Having lived in York Central that might be a smart choice for the Greens. If only they weren't authoritarian fascists who want to control every bit of our lives using the environment as a pretext.
I like the Greens' support for wind farms, but the rest of their policies are not very attractive IMO.
there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
Not that large.....
...But a new poll undertaken this week shows that 80 per cent of people now think it is ok for a woman to bare the boob in a restaurant or bar in order to feed a hungry baby and 67 per cent of people polled believe that a woman should be able to breastfeed anywhere in public.
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
Read what I wrote: the BBC's licence fee is going to have to be replaced. Whatever that replacement is will be massively controversial politically and amongst the public. To get that change through, the BBC will need political support, especially as the replacement will cost the public dear.
Idiocy like the '1930s' meme will only hurt that political support.
The licence fee replacement is the elephant in the room when it comes to the BBC.
That ought to be true however I don't think any government of whatever stripe will have the nerve to address the issues surrounding the BBC, of which the undoubted bias in its news and current affairs output is only a small part. So I expect the licence fee settlement to be renewed and the can kicked down the road for another ten years.
There has been some talk of decriminalising non-payment of the TV licence fee.
Lord Pearson put forward a bill in the Lords, and since then both Labour and Conservative MPs have appeared to be sympathetic.
The vast majority of people would probably agree with him, including most women.
It's interesting how Farage keeps making statements that are common sense, but which the other party leaders would never utter in a million years.
How many women have you ever come across breastfeeding in an ostentatious fashion? I can't say I've ever seen any. Nigel is probably preaching to the converted again, which is only about 15%.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
True but only if every FRS adopt the same protect the back office strategy as your own Brigade. The problem is as much with the quality of management as it is with money.
I can't argue with that, but what are you going to do about it? It's your Fire Service, there to get you out of the shite, when things go badly tits up. Same as the Police and Ambulance Service. Doesn't it concern you that frontline Emergency Services are going to be operating on it's bare bones, not enough staff to do the job safely and efficently? You pay for it, but you're not getting the cover you need. You rightly blame the management of the public sector, but you all keep voting in national and local politicians, who perpetuate the culture. You should start to hold them to account more.
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
And then allow Lab -20 SNP +20 as usual for Fisher; the model will get discredited if he doesn't do something about Scotland soon [notwithstanding that it could swing back to Labour over the next 5 months].
Today's discussion on breastfeeding - and indeed Farage's ludicrous comment - could only be had by people who have never breastfed a baby.
You do not uncover your breasts for all to see. The baby's head covers the breast and the sight of a mother cuddling her feeding child is one of the most joyful in all creation.
The fact that some people react in disgust, horror or like sniggering schoolboys says more about them and not in a good way.
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
Fisher is completely off the wall allocating only 31 seats to "Others" and clearly believes the substantial increase in SNP support is a mirage.
I don't think he believes it, he just hasn't modelled it, because it didn't matter much when he built the model [so perfectly sensible modelling]. It is starting to matter quite a bit.
I predict this will be yet another case where members of every other party say breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal, and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
Does this "large" section also take their meals on the toilet?
The vast majority of people would probably agree with him, including most women.
It's interesting how Farage keeps making statements that are common sense, but which the other party leaders would never utter in a million years.
Here's the thing: I've never seen anyone ostentatiously breastfeeding. And I live in Hampstead, so if people were ostentatiously breastfeeding, I think I would have noticed.
People who breastfeed, I've noticed, tend to do it incredibly discreetly, because most woment don't want their - errr... - tits on display. Especially when they only recently gave birth.
So: is this a dog whistle to people who don't want *any* breastfeeding in public? Or does the site of a bit of naked tit send Mr Farage into a frenzy?
Today's discussion on breastfeeding - and indeed Farage's ludicrous comment - could only be had by people who have never breastfed a baby.
You do not uncover your breasts for all to see. The baby's head covers the breast and the sight of a mother cuddling her feeding child is one of the most joyful in all creation.
The fact that some people react in disgust, horror or like sniggering schoolboys says more about them and not in a good way.
Agreed 100%. How can feeding infant human beings be described as "ostentatious"?
Farage is leading a very peculiar sect of obstinate voters determined to stay marooned in some parochial 1950s hellhole of a country.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
"more people than is absolutely necessary"
They already do, since we don't have a fire station in every village and a dedicated fire-fighting team resident in every commercial or industrial premises. This is because we approach risk - and indeed death - on a cost-benefit basis.
Now obviously you know far more about the fire service than I; but in light of the substantial improvements in fire safety over the last few decades - smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, building regs, materials, fewer people smoking etc. etc. it seems perfectly reasonable that we would cut back on "front line" fire services to reflect the changed risk. And yes, that means more people might die.
It would actually be cheaper to let people die in accidents and fires, and just employ minimum wage staff to turn up and bollock water on a building to stop it spreading, with no thought of rescue, salvage, environmental or any of the other considerations that need to be taken into account.
I'm not arguing that we need more firefighters, I'm arguing that we just need enough, in the right places, with the right kit and training. We're heading down the route of not having that situation, and the police and ambos are heading in the same direction.
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
This is a reflection of the tories continuing to fail to make the progress anticipated in the original model based on average swingback in previous elections. Although Labour are falling away the Tories are finding it incredibly difficult to improve beyond the low 30s with most of Labour's fall going to other parties, notably the Greens in recent times.
If the Tories are going to win they need to start lifting their share of the vote and soon. It does not look as if the Autumn Statement is going to achieve that.
The vast majority of people would probably agree with him, including most women.
It's interesting how Farage keeps making statements that are common sense, but which the other party leaders would never utter in a million years.
So: is this a dog whistle to people who don't want *any* breastfeeding in public? Or does the site of a bit of naked tit send Mr Farage into a frenzy?
It just all seems... so absurd.
It was a radio phone-in show.
Asked about his views on the subject in his monthly LBC phone-in, Mr Farage said he was not "particularly bothered" by women breastfeeding in public.
But he added: "I know a lot of people do feel very uncomfortable. It isn't too difficult to breastfeed a baby in a way that's not openly ostentatious."
Asked if Claridge's had been wrong, Mr Farage, who has four children, said: "That's up to Claridge's. I think it should be. If you're running an establishment you should have rules."
The baby's head covers the breast and the sight of a mother cuddling her feeding child is one of the most joyful in all creation.
Quite. Personally I think that when girls are born, medals should be struck. Just for them being women. For me being female is enough in itself to be worthy of recognition.
More medals should be struck when women reach the sacred state of pregnancy. Actually they already are.
I predict this will be yet another case where members of every other party say breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal, and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
For the baby breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal and confining a mother and child to a toilet or changing room (if one may be found) is the sort of nonsense one is becoming casually used to from male kippers.
The vast majority of people would probably agree with him, including most women.
It's interesting how Farage keeps making statements that are common sense, but which the other party leaders would never utter in a million years.
So: is this a dog whistle to people who don't want *any* breastfeeding in public? Or does the site of a bit of naked tit send Mr Farage into a frenzy?
It just all seems... so absurd.
It was a radio phone-in show.
Asked about his views on the subject in his monthly LBC phone-in, Mr Farage said he was not "particularly bothered" by women breastfeeding in public.
But he added: "I know a lot of people do feel very uncomfortable. It isn't too difficult to breastfeed a baby in a way that's not openly ostentatious."
Asked if Claridge's had been wrong, Mr Farage, who has four children, said: "That's up to Claridge's. I think it should be. If you're running an establishment you should have rules."
tbf any male politician can often not give a right answer to' women's issues' because if they give an opinion there will be outrage at the cheek of basically having an opinion on the issue (usually faux ) whatever it is and if they say well I don't care really they get accused of ignoring women.
Male politicians should stick to talking about deficits and HS2 and energy requirements imo
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
FWIW I didn't offer any opinion on breastfeeding, just that I think many people aren't horrified by the thought of acknowledging some people are uncomfortable with it
Same as any other progressive style issue that people who are in favour of can only see one side of, and like to get their kicks by calling people who don't agree with them names
Same as it ever was, except the actors have changed sides
Anyway @TheScreamingEagles should have done this himself, and if he did I apologise, but yesterday he linked to a story about an anti semitic tweet from "NorthLondonLabour". It was criticising a Jewish UKIP candidate, but looked suspect from the outset...
It transpires to be another set up courtesy of the person responsible for the fake UKIP twitter accounts, Joshua Bonehill and nothing to do with the Labour Party at all
If you're running an establishment you should have rules."
Absolutely. IF you don't like it, don't go there. Millions of others will, if only to avoid, not your baby, but the stench of your self-righteousness.
Of course. I must have forgotten: when I was feeding my child I was being self-righteous. Not just trying to be a good mother and feed my child in the most natural and easiest way possible.
Far better for mothers to be locked away at home and keep their disgusting breasts and babies out of sight eh. After all we don't have pictures of breasts on show in newsagents and advertising hoardings. The very idea!
Of all the weird things in life to have a hang up about.
What's weird is why women wear them. What are they for, exactly??
Jimmy Carr once explained that he wouldn't stand up on the tube because he would rather see a pregnant woman standing than a fat woman crying. Not a problem if someone is wearing that badge.
I forgot to mention I flicked through the Metro on the train yesterday, with an infographic of all the 'main party' responses to the Autumn statement. The Greens were there, UKIP wasn't. An absence so blatantly partisan as to be more or less an open provocation. UKIP need to stop expecting fair treatment from big media and start bypassing it.
and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
Anyone who is offended by the perfectly natural sight of a mother feeding her child can solve the problem by taking themselves off to the toilet to eat their meal.
Of all the weird things in life to have a hang up about.
What's weird is why women wear them. What are they for, exactly??
They are there so that, particularly in the earlier stages of pregnancy when often a woman can feel much fainter and sicker than later on, someone can offer their seat without feeling foolish. Unfortunately - and this has happened to me - even when very visibly pregnant I have had men stampede past me for the last seat or not offer up their seat. This is plain bad manners. The badge is there to try and nudge people into courteous behaviour.
I predict this will be yet another case where members of every other party say breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal, and pretend to be utterly confused by anyone thinking different, whereas there is a large section of the population who think it should be done in the toilet or changing room
For the baby breastfeeding anywhere is perfectly normal and confining a mother and child to a toilet or changing room (if one may be found) is the sort of nonsense one is becoming casually used to from male kippers.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't know about freezing to death, but if the cuts that LFRS want to implement come about, then more people than is absolutely necessary are going to burn to death, and that will be true for every county.
Presumably there comes a point in public service cuts where people start dying unnecessarly because of inadequate fire/paramedic etc supply?
Far better for mothers to be locked away at home and keep their disgusting breasts and babies out of sight eh
If that's your view of the Claridges position, don't go there. Patronise one of the very many restaurants that are very happy for you to breastfeed in front of their diners.
Personally I never buy Starbucks coffee because of their tax position.
Comments
The BBC annoys me just as much as it annoys Tories (I dislike all their Paxman/Neil etc. interviewers who think they're half the story themselves), but the stated objective to report the news neutrally is worth having. All the complaints relate to whether they achieve that, and in fairness it's difficult. Not having any organisation which has a statutory obligation to try to do it seems to me a really bad idea. Yes, I know. But the fact that the effect doesn't show up much in Q1 answers (when voters are simply asked how they'll vote) suggests that there's still work to do. If the target seat campaigns were really effective then voters would already say "I'm voting LibDem" when asked without prompting "OK, but what about when you think about your seat?"
You can argue that the effect only really happens in the election itself when voters get a mountain of LibDem leaflets. Maybe - but conversely in the election campaign the media focus is on Lab vs Con. It'd be better to nail it down now. (I'm writing as someone who would be sorry to see e.g. Norman Baker lose to the Tories.)
Wrong. They are the obsessions of the people who comment on the threads of the newspaper reports.
In other words, the voters.
http://order-order.com/2014/12/05/greens-target-york-as-labour-mp-quits/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/yorkcentral/
But sadly or otherwise the Cons aren't about to get rid of it or even the 0.7% target (because if nothing else, looked at like that, 0.7% doesn't seem a helluva lot).
What they would gain in delighted Kippers they would lose in hold-their-nose Labourites.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11269110/Herman-van-Rompuy-has-won-the-Euro-jackpot-but-were-paying.html
In 2009, Mr van Rompuy, 67, became the first occupant of this Brussels sinecure for which he was paid a salary approaching £250,000 a year, plus allowances. But it is in retirement that he has really hit the jackpot. In order to ease his passage back into the cold world beyond the gilded walls, he is to receive £133,723 a year – 55 per cent of his basic salary – until December 2017. On top of that, he will be given a one-off payment of £21,000 for reasons that are not immediately obvious; and he can also draw a lifetime EU pension worth £52,000 a year. His earnings over the next three years will be £578,000 – and he won’t have to leave home to earn it.
If they're not careful, they're not going to get it.
They're in trouble. And I say that as a supporter of the BBC.
Public better than private right ?
So why not a policy to expand the civil service and hire it out to private companies so they can leverage it's "better administration, project management and people skills" - extra revenue for the Treasury and less cuts ? Nationalisation by stealth - all the benefits with none of the hassle of buying the shares etc.
It's a winner no ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11274243/Once-again-the-BBC-shows-its-true-colours.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Council_election,_2011
That might be what the Greens will be focussing on.
The BBC isn;t in trouble. Its news and current affairs coverage is in trouble. Different thing.
Before the IFS report was put to the government it should itself have been challenged.
On what basis is Britain going back to the 30s. Mortality rates? unemployment? Longevity? Nutrition? percentage of people with an outside toilet? health outcomes? Car ownership?
From the FT: Private debt to go up to 180% of GDP!
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
UKIP do fine, until they start talking.
+lots.
About 18 months ago I was in York, and for some reason there were some cyclists reenacting a Queen video about bikes. All the cycling costumes were lovingly recreated. www.youtube.com/watch?v=olDLxq6quOw
http://www.cicero.de/berliner-republik/thueringen-bodo-erster-linker-ministerpräsident-der-republik/58588
This was seen as a test run for possible SPD/Green/Linke cooperation elsewhere and uncertain up to the last minute, since Linke members were uneasy that he'd agreed to a fresh look at the faults of the GDR and SPD/Green members were uneasy that he hadn't gone further in denouncing the GDR. In the event, the red/red/green coalition more or less held up - one member abstained on the first ballot but relented on the second ballot.
IMO it's still 10 years before this sort of coalition becomes seen as viable nationally, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
I didn't claim to know, I asked.. the question mark was a giveaway... and I admitted being wrong twice already on this thread
Anything else you want to be wrong about? Have a think, I am just off for a run I'll be half an hour
Does the electricity transmission grid have a conscience?
Does the motorway network get sentimental?
So pole dancing whilst feeding the nipper is definitely out of the question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30342953
Idiocy like the '1930s' meme will only hurt that political support.
The licence fee replacement is the elephant in the room when it comes to the BBC.
Osborne's Autumn Statement growth forecasts are based on increased indebtedness.
They thought that would happen the last few years, it didn't, the public deleveraged.
They already do, since we don't have a fire station in every village and a dedicated fire-fighting team resident in every commercial or industrial premises. This is because we approach risk - and indeed death - on a cost-benefit basis.
Now obviously you know far more about the fire service than I; but in light of the substantial improvements in fire safety over the last few decades - smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, building regs, materials, fewer people smoking etc. etc. it seems perfectly reasonable that we would cut back on "front line" fire services to reflect the changed risk. And yes, that means more people might die.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4Fs0kHIAAAuXH1.jpg:large
Quite. And if that continues, you won't get the growth!
Checkmate George.
Still, we do actually need enough fire engines, adequately crewed, to respond to the ones who haven't got the message, or have just been plain unlucky. Over the next few years, there wont be enough.
If anyone is thinking of introducing an internet licence fee for the BBC incidentally, taxing the internet hasn't been a rip-roaring success elsewhere:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29846285
The curious question for me, is why if this didn't happen before, the OBR expects it to happen now?
Personally I don;t think broody women are aggressive enough. People should be made to fall to their knees in tribute when faced with a 'baby on board' badge.
Quite how women managed to safely have babies before those lovely badges I'll never know.
Mr. Antifrank, that's where I think they'll try and shift it, but I think people would be pissed off (especially younger people) at having to pay the BBC for the right to use the bloody internet.
It's interesting how Farage keeps making statements that are common sense, but which the other party leaders would never utter in a million years.
Based on the current polling averages, with Con 31%, Lab 33%, LibDems 8% and UKIP 16%, Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection (showing changes over the past week) is as follows:
Con ............... 292 (- 6 seats)
Lab ............... 298 ( + 5 seats)
Lib Dems ...... . 29 (+1 seat)
Others ............ 31 ( unchanged)
Total ............ 650 seats
Let's see how popular the proposition really is, and ally it to their election prospects!
...But a new poll undertaken this week shows that 80 per cent of people now think it is ok for a woman to bare the boob in a restaurant or bar in order to feed a hungry baby and 67 per cent of people polled believe that a woman should be able to breastfeed anywhere in public.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2729683/Breast-best-New-survey-shows-Brits-comfortable-breastfeeding-public-80-cent-people-think-acceptable-places-like-bars-restaurants.html#ixzz3L1as1srV
Lord Pearson put forward a bill in the Lords, and since then both Labour and Conservative MPs have appeared to be sympathetic.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463771/BBC-fear-increase-in-TV-licence-fee-dodging-amid-Government-plans-to-decriminalise-offence
That might make the BBC more responsive to public mores.
What exactly is "ostentatious breastfeeding" ?
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
True but only if every FRS adopt the same protect the back office strategy as your own Brigade. The problem is as much with the quality of management as it is with money.
I can't argue with that, but what are you going to do about it?
It's your Fire Service, there to get you out of the shite, when things go badly tits up. Same as the Police and Ambulance Service. Doesn't it concern you that frontline Emergency Services are going to be operating on it's bare bones, not enough staff to do the job safely and efficently? You pay for it, but you're not getting the cover you need.
You rightly blame the management of the public sector, but you all keep voting in national and local politicians, who perpetuate the culture. You should start to hold them to account more.
1 Lib Dem MPs are significantly more popular in their seats than MPs for other parties. (As polling shows.)
2 They are able to squeeze soft votes on both side.
You do not uncover your breasts for all to see. The baby's head covers the breast and the sight of a mother cuddling her feeding child is one of the most joyful in all creation.
The fact that some people react in disgust, horror or like sniggering schoolboys says more about them and not in a good way.
https://magnoliaforever.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-phantom-of-liberty1.jpg
People who breastfeed, I've noticed, tend to do it incredibly discreetly, because most woment don't want their - errr... - tits on display. Especially when they only recently gave birth.
So: is this a dog whistle to people who don't want *any* breastfeeding in public? Or does the site of a bit of naked tit send Mr Farage into a frenzy?
It just all seems... so absurd.
Farage is leading a very peculiar sect of obstinate voters determined to stay marooned in some parochial 1950s hellhole of a country.
I'm not arguing that we need more firefighters, I'm arguing that we just need enough, in the right places, with the right kit and training. We're heading down the route of not having that situation, and the police and ambos are heading in the same direction.
If the Tories are going to win they need to start lifting their share of the vote and soon. It does not look as if the Autumn Statement is going to achieve that.
Quite. Personally I think that when girls are born, medals should be struck. Just for them being women. For me being female is enough in itself to be worthy of recognition.
More medals should be struck when women reach the sacred state of pregnancy. Actually they already are.
They say 'baby on board'.
"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies."
He doesn't strike me as a man who fought shy of ostentation either.
tbf any male politician can often not give a right answer to' women's issues' because if they give an opinion there will be outrage at the cheek of basically having an opinion on the issue (usually faux ) whatever it is and if they say well I don't care really they get accused of ignoring women.
Male politicians should stick to talking about deficits and HS2 and energy requirements imo
Absolutely. IF you don't like it, don't go there. Millions of others will, if only to avoid, not your baby, but the stench of your self-righteousness.
Perfectly Natural: 63 (Highest score, cf France 36)
Embarrassing: 18 (France 41)
Perfectly natural: 17
Wrong: 2
http://blog.chron.com/momhouston/2014/09/surprising-findings-from-a-global-breastfeeding-survey/#26822101=0
Women might breastfeed in a corner, says UKIP's Farage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30342953
Why not behind the fridge? They could give it a good clean while they were at it.....
What's weird is why women wear them. What are they for, exactly??
(incumbent in brackets)
Odds-on FAV:
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale (Con) 4/11
Other prices under 50/1:
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk (LD) 11/10
West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine (LD) 5/2
Dumfries and Galloway (Lab) 7/1
Edinburgh South West (Lab) 12/1
Perth & North Perthshire (SNP) 12/1
Argyll & Bute (LD) 16/1
Edinburgh West (LD) 16/1
East Renfewshire (Lab) 20/1
Edinburgh South (Lab) 20/1
Angus (SNP) 20/1
Banff & Buchan (SNP) 20/1
Moray (SNP) 25/1
Aberdeen South (Lab) 33/1
Gordon (LD) 33/1
North East Fife (LD) 33/1
Looking to be yet another grim election for the Scottish Tories.
Dumfries looks a bit of value at 7/1
Same as any other progressive style issue that people who are in favour of can only see one side of, and like to get their kicks by calling people who don't agree with them names
Same as it ever was, except the actors have changed sides
Anyway @TheScreamingEagles should have done this himself, and if he did I apologise, but yesterday he linked to a story about an anti semitic tweet from "NorthLondonLabour". It was criticising a Jewish UKIP candidate, but looked suspect from the outset...
It transpires to be another set up courtesy of the person responsible for the fake UKIP twitter accounts, Joshua Bonehill and nothing to do with the Labour Party at all
Far better for mothers to be locked away at home and keep their disgusting breasts and babies out of sight eh. After all we don't have pictures of breasts on show in newsagents and advertising hoardings. The very idea!
Don't forget "healthiest"
Anyone who is offended by the perfectly natural sight of a mother feeding her child can solve the problem by taking themselves off to the toilet to eat their meal.
If that's your view of the Claridges position, don't go there. Patronise one of the very many restaurants that are very happy for you to breastfeed in front of their diners.
Personally I never buy Starbucks coffee because of their tax position.