Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Have to smile at the Tories attempting to defend the explosion in foodbank use.
Under Labour foodbank use was minuscule, they are now commonplace.
As for comparisons to France - we are not France. Most of the UK electorate has no stomach for growing use of foodbanks. They are politically toxic for the Tories.
Remember back in the day they had another free food source for the working class ?
They were called allotments. Don't seem so popular now.
They are quite popular where I live. My Dad has one and we often eat the food he grows there.
Have to smile at the Tories attempting to defend the explosion in foodbank use.
Under Labour foodbank use was minuscule, they are now commonplace.
As for comparisons to France - we are not France. Most of the UK electorate has no stomach for growing use of foodbanks. They are politically toxic for the Tories.
Remember back in the day they had another free food source for the working class ?
They were called allotments. Don't seem so popular now.
They are quite popular where I live. My Dad has one and we often eat the food he grows there.
Big waiting lists though
Just planted some rhubarb and gooseberry bushes into ours the other day !
And yes I can imagine allotments have big waiting lists/change hands for decent sums under the table in the SE.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Because Tories like to keep a bankrupt political system that doesn't reflect the popular vote because they know they can't compete on an equal basis.
My issue though is with Ed Milliband. At last he is faced with an open goal. He has the opportunity to lead lead a campaign and show what Labour values really are but instead he chooses to join Farage in kicking immigrants.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
This always happens when discussing foodbank use - those with Right leaning sympathies ignore the human costs and drag up supply and demand curves from half remembered economic theory.
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
My issue though is with Ed Milliband. At last he is faced with an open goal. He has the opportunity to lead lead a campaign and show what Labour values really are but instead he chooses to join Farage in kicking immigrants.
Has Ed been stuck in traffic ?
Yes, apparently a bandwagon following Farage according to @Roger
"Have to smile at the Tories attempting to defend the explosion in foodbank use."
I couldn't agree with you more. It has the same toxic value for the Tories as the homeless did for them in the 80's when London became the begging capital of Europe and it became known as cardboard box city.
My issue though is with Ed Milliband. At last he is faced with an open goal. He has the opportunity to lead lead a campaign and show what Labour values really are but instead he chooses to join Farage in kicking immigrants.
I'm beginning to think he has the political instincts of a bluebottle
What is Labour's policy on this? Does it have a policy?
We can all agree that food banks are grotesque in a country as rich as ours. So why do they arise and what practical policies are needed?
I am puzzled as to how it is possible to go hungry when the benefits cap is £26,000 (net). I know people who live on far far less than that in a year and yet manage to feed themselves and their family.
I would genuinely like to understand how people find themselves in this position and what the best way of helping them to get out of it is/
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Even money for a grand that UKIP get more than a tenth of LD MPs?
It's strange that Populus has had weeks of narrow Labour leads without putting the Conservatives ahead
We saw something similar with YouGov last year and this year.
We saw Lab's lead around 2/3 and the occasional tie but no Tory lead.
Then boom.
"Boom" as in the occasional 1-point lead?
Just being picky really - I think we all agree that the current position is that Labour is a little ahead, with random variation around that from say Lab+5 to Con+1. My subjective impression is that the lead has notched up slightly in the last 10 days, but not enough to argue about.
Mr. M, it's not 'half remembered economic theory'. Foodbank use has risen every year. They first came into being here during the boom, under Labour. They can't be used as indicative of policy failure or success until their relentless increase stops.
You're just ignoring facts to bang a party political drum.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
The unpalatable evidence for Kippers is that Farage and his pomposity are a drag on the Kipper ticket. There is a large section of society which find his musings on women and traffic toxic. A leader with more modern views - Carswell/Flynn ? - would have better chance of attracting these voters.
That is bloody appalling for Plaid. Makes the recent SNP/PC combined figures in GB polls even more stunning as regards Scotland.
I would have expected them to be doing better. They may be paying for having been the smaller party in coalition in Wales with Labour. They have this problem of on the one hand being a Welsh language/nationalist party of rural Wales and at the same time trying post-Blair to fight to the left of labour in the valleys as a true socialist party.
This always happens when discussing foodbank use - those with Right leaning sympathies ignore the human costs and drag up supply and demand curves from half remembered economic theory.
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
I have to say that the only person who seems to be ignoring the human cost is you, so keen are you to castigate Tories - even though a pedant might point out that the government is a coalition government not a Tory one.
We're all well aware that you have to be referred to them. So it ought to be possible to find out what the circumstances are which result in such referrals happening and what sensible practical policies can be adopted to alleviate or remove the situations resulting in their need.
Shouting about "Tory sanctions" is neither use nor ornament.
The claim it's been well-communicated is a crock of shit. I'm sure larger firms were notified and engaged with, but the first I (and many others) heard of it was just over a month ago. He also doesn't address the central problem, which is that the law is ****ing stupid.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Both the Lib Dems and UKIP campaigned for the Alterntive Vote in the referendum but the British public decided to stick with first past the post by constituency.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
The unpalatable evidence for Kippers is that Farage and his pomposity are a drag on the Kipper ticket. There is a large section of society which find his musings on women and traffic toxic. A leader with more modern views - Carswell/Flynn ? - would have better chance of attracting these voters.
No the evidence is that since Farage became leader UKIP have risen to heights that were simply unimaginable four years ago
The evidence is the bets I have with PBers who are generally quite shrewd, that UKIP will poll over 10% at 6/4
You just keep selling UKIP every time they go up,"peak kipper" if you will. But as its for hot air rather than real money you can afford to keep doing it
It's strange that Populus has had weeks of narrow Labour leads without putting the Conservatives ahead
We saw something similar with YouGov last year and this year.
We saw Lab's lead around 2/3 and the occasional tie but no Tory lead.
Then boom.
"Boom" as in the occasional 1-point lead?
Just being picky really - I think we all agree that the current position is that Labour is a little ahead, with random variation around that from say Lab+5 to Con+1. My subjective impression is that the lead has notched up slightly in the last 10 days, but not enough to argue about.
Boom was more to the fact some of us had money on the exact time of a YouGov crossover, so it became fraught and looked like a losing bet.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Both the Lib Dems and UKIP campaigned for the Alterntive Vote in the referendum but the British public decided to stick with first past the post by constituency.
Ah but Socrates said it was "Because Tories like to keep a bankrupt political system that doesn't reflect the popular vote because they know they can't compete on an equal basis."
But as we have seen with their "no referendum until we can win" approach they don' trust the British voters to have a say.
If you were a left wing Lib Dem in Yeovil, who would you vote for next time? I have to say it is probably the one situation where I might actually vote for a Conservative.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
I feel sorry for you.. pompous and out of touch
An old man thinking he is on the money by cracking left wing jokes from 3 decades ago
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
I suppose you could attribute obesity to different types of *ignorance*. For instance you can eat cheaply and healthily if you know how, but eating crisps & other junk is not the way to go. Food banks need to be, and maybe are, monitored. In the short term at least---until we can find a better way---I think we should donate to them. I would be very interested to learn of references to the big big social question how people eat and shop for food.
Have to smile at the Tories attempting to defend the explosion in foodbank use.
Under Labour foodbank use was minuscule, they are now commonplace.
As for comparisons to France - we are not France. Most of the UK electorate has no stomach for growing use of foodbanks. They are politically toxic for the Tories.
Here's a little conundrum to chew over.
We have an explosion of foodbanks and yet the greatest rate of obesity is within the lowest decile of society.
Discuss.
Poor educational attainment resulting in low income and poor choice of food to eat.
We then have to try to understand the reasons for poor educational attainment.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
Foodbanks started under Labour during the boom. They've risen significantly every single year since. Supply has never matched demand. Until it does, and we then see rises and falls due to changes in the population's prosperity, they cannot be used as a political stick against either side.
Well, not legitimately.
Their use exploded under the Tories as a direct result of economically foolish austerity. No use trying to pretend otherwise.
One of the reasons why the Tory 2015 vote ceiling is roughly 34%.
No, the usage is not down to austerity but usually down to delays in DWP processing and in sanctioning - not down to cuts in welfare. To assume so is lazy and misses the issue.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
Well it wasn't a joke about a Kipper. Which are never funny ever apparently. Even Kim Jong takes a ribbing better than the purples.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
Well it wasn't a joke about a Kipper. Which are never funny ever apparently. Even Kim Jong takes a ribbing better than the purples.
The Kippers are the new Nats.
No matter what it is, it is great for UKIP and Farage.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
Raising petrol to £2 a litre would keep traffic (and hence immigration presumably) down.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
I feel sorry for you.. pompous and out of touch
An old man thinking he is on the money by cracking left wing jokes from 3 decades ago
*titter me not
I've been called much worse and by far better PBers than you.
Indeed Mrs JackW has a meaty turn of appropriate phrases for me and often most deserved.
The claim it's been well-communicated is a crock of shit. I'm sure larger firms were notified and engaged with, but the first I (and many others) heard of it was just over a month ago. He also doesn't address the central problem, which is that the law is ****ing stupid.
It's never going to be changed, sadly (and will affect me as well); the European Commission are rather inflexible on VAT (possibly because it provides one of there own income streams): If VAT has ever been charged on something, you may never zero-rate it again, pressure for VAT harmonisation and removal of all zero-rating, and stuff like this.
The claim it's been well-communicated is a crock of shit. I'm sure larger firms were notified and engaged with, but the first I (and many others) heard of it was just over a month ago. He also doesn't address the central problem, which is that the law is ****ing stupid.
It's never going to be changed, sadly (and will affect me as well); the European Commission are rather inflexible on VAT (possibly because it provides one of there own income streams): If VAT has ever been charged on something, you may never zero-rate it again, pressure for VAT harmonisation and removal of all zero-rating, and stuff like this.
It could be changed easily if we just left the EU.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
I feel sorry for you.. pompous and out of touch
An old man thinking he is on the money by cracking left wing jokes from 3 decades ago
*titter me not
I've been called much worse and by far better PBers than you.
Indeed Mrs JackW has a meaty turn of appropriate phrases for me and often most deserved.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
The benefits of economic growth outweigh those of increased traffic congestion.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
Poor frustrated JackW .... now that is funny.
Well it wasn't a joke about a Kipper. Which are never funny ever apparently. Even Kim Jong takes a ribbing better than the purples.
In this very thread I stated that Dan Hodges' joke about Kippers was funny. If you want to get away with intellectual dishonesty, at least wait until the evidence showing that what you're saying is a crock of shit isn't in direct view.
Mr. Socrates, alas, no. The VAT nonsense affects everyone globally, if you sell digital content directly, and a citizen in a (different) EU member state happens to buy it, because VAT will be charged, from 1 January 2015, based on the buyer's location.
So, if you're a Canadian granny selling knitwear patterns as PDFs, and a Frenchman buys one for $0.99*, you have to register for VAT. In France. There's a UK alternative called VATMOSS, which doesn't appear to be fit for purpose already. We'll see.
*The threshold is zero. Sell something for 10p and you have to pay VAT on it. Yes, the law is that appallingly stupid.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Is there no end to the Machiavellian masterstrokes of Nigel, it would appear not.
I'm hoping for a few Chrimbo corkers .... perhaps Polish elves taking indigenous jobs or Santa failing to clamber down new smaller EU approved chimneys.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Farage is utterly toxic to a large % of the population - he is a cap on Kipper support at large.
Given that you're one of the nastier posters on here, I don't think we need to hear any lessons from you on toxicity.
The polling evidence that matters is that UKIP will be taking an unprecedented share of the vote next year. You can scream and shout and throw your toys out of the pram with all your lies, smears and intellectual dishonesty, but UKIP are going from success to success and you can't change that.
No screaming here. Well TSE is I guess.
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Both the Lib Dems and UKIP campaigned for the Alterntive Vote in the referendum but the British public decided to stick with first past the post by constituency.
Ah but Socrates said it was "Because Tories like to keep a bankrupt political system that doesn't reflect the popular vote because they know they can't compete on an equal basis."
But as we have seen with their "no referendum until we can win" approach they don' trust the British voters to have a say.
Except AV doesn't reflect the popular vote either, so the choice about switching to a popular vote system hasn't been asked, and the Tories won't let it be asked. You really are struggling today.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
The benefits of economic growth outweigh those of increased traffic congestion.
As do the benefits of uncontrolled European immigration.
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
The benefits of economic growth outweigh those of increased traffic congestion.
As do the benefits of uncontrolled European immigration.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Foodbanks started under Labour during the boom. They've risen significantly every single year since. Supply has never matched demand. Until it does, and we then see rises and falls due to changes in the population's prosperity, they cannot be used as a political stick against either side.
Well, not legitimately.
Their use exploded under the Tories as a direct result of economically foolish austerity. No use trying to pretend otherwise.
One of the reasons why the Tory 2015 vote ceiling is roughly 34%.
No, the usage is not down to austerity but usually down to delays in DWP processing and in sanctioning - not down to cuts in welfare. To assume so is lazy and misses the issue.
It's directly down to State inefficiency.
Austerity is both a financial (lunacy) and an ideological push. It means cutting benefits AND making it harder for them to be claimed in the first place.
So yes, it is down to the Tory ideological drive and, yes, its incompetence (cf Iain Duncan Smith).
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
Comedy doesn't have to be based on truth and I'm not sure exactly who appointed you Jester-In-Chief to PB.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
His "immigrant traffic jam utterance" was a master stroke. He's waited long enough that the story won't be combined with the breastfeeding nonsense, but has managed to keep UKIP in the headlines. Even if he is mocked in the short term, he is introducing the idea of traffic congestion being caused by rapid population rises, which is in turn caused by immigration. Our infrastructure can't keep up.
Presumably he's against economic growth too, as that's been known to correlate very strongly with traffic levels.
The benefits of economic growth outweigh those of increased traffic congestion.
As do the benefits of uncontrolled European immigration.
Not relative to controlled European immigration.
Yes: the idea that you can boost incomes by protecting people or industries from foreign competition is trivially false.
Imagine proposing that a British car company would produce better cars if British people didn't have the option of purchasing foreign models.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Not been updated since 7th of November. I note Kippers haven't been above 20% since they were in 2 polls in the week before...
Haha
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
An update of that graph would show a flatlining if not a dip. It matters not what I say - them's just the facts.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
The facts that thems just is are that Farage has transformed a party that got 3% and no seats in the last election into one that is odds on to get over 10% and 5 seats at the next one
This always happens when discussing foodbank use - those with Right leaning sympathies ignore the human costs and drag up supply and demand curves from half remembered economic theory.
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
I have to say that the only person who seems to be ignoring the human cost is you, so keen are you to castigate Tories - even though a pedant might point out that the government is a coalition government not a Tory one.
We're all well aware that you have to be referred to them. So it ought to be possible to find out what the circumstances are which result in such referrals happening and what sensible practical policies can be adopted to alleviate or remove the situations resulting in their need.
Shouting about "Tory sanctions" is neither use nor ornament.
I think it's reasonable to suggest that the markedly increased use of food banks is to a significant extent down to a tougher benefits regime - there is plenty of evidence that the largest single cause of people using them is that their initial claim has been either delayed or refused pending an appeal (around 45% of appeals succeed IIRC). We looked at doing a political campaign on this locally, but felt uneasy about it since we don't want people who would otherwise donate to a food bank to feel it's some sort of left-wing thing. But Ben is correct that the government's fingerprints are on it.
Of course, lots of people are in two minds about it - they say yes if you ask if the government should be tough on benefits and no if you ask them whether people should be short of food while their benefits claim is sorted out, yet refusing benefit pending an appeal is a way of being tough, which matters more when so many claims are initially refused as another form of toughness. Personally, I think that the system should be speeded up and conversely that benefits should be paid until appeals have finally failed - there are too many cases of people ultimately getting approval but suffering serious hardship while it chugs through the system. It is not the fault of the applicant that the system is slow.
And those who answer "yes but the previous government..." [whatever] are missing the point. If the system is wrong (and there is increasing evidence that it is) then it should be fixed.
Foodbanks started under Labour during the boom. They've risen significantly every single year since. Supply has never matched demand. Until it does, and we then see rises and falls due to changes in the population's prosperity, they cannot be used as a political stick against either side.
Well, not legitimately.
Their use exploded under the Tories as a direct result of economically foolish austerity. No use trying to pretend otherwise.
One of the reasons why the Tory 2015 vote ceiling is roughly 34%.
No, the usage is not down to austerity but usually down to delays in DWP processing and in sanctioning - not down to cuts in welfare. To assume so is lazy and misses the issue.
It's directly down to State inefficiency.
Austerity is both a financial (lunacy) and an ideological push. It means cutting benefits AND making it harder for them to be claimed in the first place.
So yes, it is down to the Tory ideological drive and, yes, its incompetence (cf Iain Duncan Smith).
Sigh. The level of benefits is not relevant to the food-bank use explosion; the austerity argument very strongly implies that they are. And, of course, the argument that changes in levels of austerity would correlate with changes in food-bank usage (outwith any changes in allocation efficiency, which is orthogonal to the argument) is palpably false.
(Not to engage in the claim that 'austerity is financial lunacy', which is ideological foolishness and blinkered shortsightedness and, if followed, would risk the well-being of millions of the most vulnerable, as they are the ones who get it worst when serious financial and economic damage hit.)
You accept, then, that the primary cause is State inefficiency? Ascribing that inefficiency to any particular party or Minister is rather beside the point if you wish things to be run by the State - you'll always have parties of which you disapprove and the issue of inefficient Ministers of all stripes.
By the way - do you support the idea that more should be run by the State?
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
The unpalatable evidence for Kippers is that Farage and his pomposity are a drag on the Kipper ticket.
The Sunday Times asked a "pomposity" type question.
"thinking specifically about the current party leaders, do you think they look down on ordinary people?"
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Not been updated since 7th of November. I note Kippers haven't been above 20% since they were in 2 polls in the week before...
Haha
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
An update of that graph would show a flatlining if not a dip. It matters not what I say - them's just the facts.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
The facts that thems just is are that Farage has transformed a party that got 3% and no seats in the last election into one that is odds on to get over 10% and 5 seats at the next one
This always happens when discussing foodbank use - those with Right leaning sympathies ignore the human costs and drag up supply and demand curves from half remembered economic theory.
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
I have to say that the only person who seems to be ignoring the human cost is you, so keen are you to castigate Tories - even though a pedant might point out that the government is a coalition government not a Tory one.
We're all well aware that you have to be referred to them. So it ought to be possible to find out what the circumstances are which result in such referrals happening and what sensible practical policies can be adopted to alleviate or remove the situations resulting in their need.
Shouting about "Tory sanctions" is neither use nor ornament.
I think it's reasonable to suggest that the markedly increased use of food banks is to a significant extent down to a tougher benefits regime - there is plenty of evidence that the largest single cause of people using them is that their initial claim has been either delayed or refused pending an appeal (around 45% of appeals succeed IIRC). We looked at doing a political campaign on this locally, but felt uneasy about it since we don't want people who would otherwise donate to a food bank to feel it's some sort of left-wing thing. But Ben is correct that the government's fingerprints are on it.
That's not exactly what Ben is claiming. He's claiming that it's down to 'austerity' - that is, the shorthand for spending cuts decreasing the amount claimable in benefits when the system is working.
I agree that it's down to the system of delays in processing, but that's a rather different issue and one beside the point of how much benefits should be paid when eligible. I also completely agree that it should be sped up.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Not been updated since 7th of November. I note Kippers haven't been above 20% since they were in 2 polls in the week before...
Haha
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
An update of that graph would show a flatlining if not a dip. It matters not what I say - them's just the facts.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
The facts that thems just is are that Farage has transformed a party that got 3% and no seats in the last election into one that is odds on to get over 10% and 5 seats at the next one
Just last week I mentioned how a perfectly balanced and reasonable comment by Farage would be twisted round the left-wing echo chamber to the point where oh-so-witty PB posters would be making jokes about how Farage actually opposes breast-feeding, but that they'd combine it with other distortions so they couldn't all be fact checked at once.
And today we have JackW doing exactly that. It's pretty pathetic.
Some might consider that having a little fun at Ukip's expense is entirely within the British tradition of poking fun at politicians.
Is Ukip-land to be a laughter free zone - now that would be "pretty pathetic".
Except further down the thread I pointed out that Dan Hodges' tweet was funny. I'm not criticising poking fun at UKIP or any other party. I'm criticising poor attempts at jokes based on things that aren't true. You, and a bunch of other posters, make the same terrible joke every week. You just add the latest manufactured outrage to the list of things that UKIP are supposedly guilty of. It's just a transparent attempt to add such smears into the popular consciousness.
JackW , along with many other posters on here, is just using the same thought process that racists and bigots use. They want to crack a joke at someones expense to relieve their own frustrations at the world, and so they choose a victim after constructing justifications in their own mind. But really its no different to a bigot telling a joke about a minority.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
The unpalatable evidence for Kippers is that Farage and his pomposity are a drag on the Kipper ticket.
The Sunday Times asked a "pomposity" type question.
"thinking specifically about the current party leaders, do you think they look down on ordinary people?"
The Ghost of Will Self thinks Len McCluskey is the one telling Ed not to have an EU referendum, thinks Nigel Farage is a drag on UKIP, and thinks anyone not comfortable with ethnic slurs needs to man up
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Not been updated since 7th of November. I note Kippers haven't been above 20% since they were in 2 polls in the week before...
Haha
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
An update of that graph would show a flatlining if not a dip. It matters not what I say - them's just the facts.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
The facts that thems just is are that Farage has transformed a party that got 3% and no seats in the last election into one that is odds on to get over 10% and 5 seats at the next one
And you say he is a drag on their support
Thems just the facts
Opponents of UKIP do like to indulge in a lot of wishful thinking. Their support has peaked; Farage is dragging their support lower; their voters will all come home to the Tories etc.
And those who answer "yes but the previous government..." [whatever] are missing the point. If the system is wrong (and there is increasing evidence that it is) then it should be fixed.
They are not missing the point, because they say that in response to the partisan misrepresentation which tries to blame this on the policies of the government in contrast to those of Labour.
I think a realistic view is that any benefits system, even if super-efficient and well-designed, is always going to leave gaps. That's why foodbanks and other charitable provision are so important - charities can be more flexible and individual than a system designed to operate consistently according to a set of rules for millions of people.
Here is the graph of opinion polls this term, clearly showing the damage caused to UKIP by Farage's leadership, and the unholy gaffes caused the purple downfall
Not been updated since 7th of November. I note Kippers haven't been above 20% since they were in 2 polls in the week before...
Haha
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
An update of that graph would show a flatlining if not a dip. It matters not what I say - them's just the facts.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
The facts that thems just is are that Farage has transformed a party that got 3% and no seats in the last election into one that is odds on to get over 10% and 5 seats at the next one
And you say he is a drag on their support
Thems just the facts
Opponents of UKIP do like to indulge in a lot of wishful thinking. Their support has peaked; Farage is dragging their support lower; their voters will all come home to the Tories etc.
Mr. F, I do think Farage puts a lot of people off.
But the same is true of all party leaders. And Farage also speaks like a vaguely normal person, and brings more to his party than he takes from it (in terms of support).
Yes: the idea that you can boost incomes by protecting people or industries from foreign competition is trivially false.
Imagine proposing that a British car company would produce better cars if British people didn't have the option of purchasing foreign models.
You can certainly boost the incomes of a group of people by constraining supply. It's done in the UK legal system, for instance, by controlling the number of lawyers that exist. That helps lawyers at the expense of the customers of legal services and those trying to break into the profession.
If we constrain the supply of low skill labour in the UK, we boost the income of low skilled UK workers, at the expense of multinational companies and potential immigrants. It is entirely right that the UK government looks out for low wage British workers over a wealthy elite and foreigners.
I appreciate that people who want to turn the UK into a Dubai-type economy, with a frequently abused low wage immigrant work force with no welfare net serving a small wealthy elite, disagree. Interestingly the same tactic was tried in colonial South Africa. The local blacks get out of line and want to get a fairer share of the rising profits? Screw 'em. Import some Indians to keep wages down instead. No doubt you'd have approved.
Mr. F, I do think Farage puts a lot of people off.
But the same is true of all party leaders. And Farage also speaks like a vaguely normal person, and brings more to his party than he takes from it (in terms of support).
Mr. F, I do think Farage puts a lot of people off.
But the same is true of all party leaders. And Farage also speaks like a vaguely normal person, and brings more to his party than he takes from it (in terms of support).
Oh, I think he gets up the nose of loads of people. But, he gets enough people agreeing with him to grow his party's support base.
Mr. F, I do think Farage puts a lot of people off.
It's the people who he puts off that is important.
For some of the people who currently support Farage, the fact that he riles the metropolitan types is central to his appeal. If the strength of that cultural clash reduces then Farage's appeal would follow down.
Yes: the idea that you can boost incomes by protecting people or industries from foreign competition is trivially false.
Imagine proposing that a British car company would produce better cars if British people didn't have the option of purchasing foreign models.
You can certainly boost the incomes of a group of people by constraining supply. It's done in the UK legal system, for instance, by controlling the number of lawyers that exist. That helps lawyers at the expense of the customers of legal services and those trying to break into the profession.
If we constrain the supply of low skill labour in the UK, we boost the income of low skilled UK workers, at the expense of multinational companies and potential immigrants. It is entirely right that the UK government looks out for low wage British workers over a wealthy elite and foreigners.
I appreciate that people who want to turn the UK into a Dubai-type economy, with a frequently abused low wage immigrant work force with no welfare net serving a small wealthy elite, disagree. Interestingly the same tactic was tried in colonial South Africa. The local blacks get out of line and want to get a fairer share of the rising profits? Screw 'em. Import some Indians to keep wages down instead. No doubt you'd have approved.
Remember that the cheap foreign labour must be treated as 2nd class citizens as part of a two tier benefits system.. despite being part of a "union"
The LibDems are so obviously manufacturing their differences with the Tories when they are ready to go into coalition with them again and do their bidding again.LibDems and Tories go in the same column.They are both state shrinkers.
Chris Bryant on BBC2 Daily Pol show. Demonstrating no sign of Christianity in his attitudes. A nasty piece of work. How on earth was he once deemed to be suitable to be a CoE vicar?
Of course, lots of people are in two minds about it - they say yes if you ask if the government should be tough on benefits and no if you ask them whether people should be short of food while their benefits claim is sorted out, yet refusing benefit pending an appeal is a way of being tough, which matters more when so many claims are initially refused as another form of toughness. Personally, I think that the system should be speeded up and conversely that benefits should be paid until appeals have finally failed - there are too many cases of people ultimately getting approval but suffering serious hardship while it chugs through the system. It is not the fault of the applicant that the system is slow.
And those who answer "yes but the previous government..." [whatever] are missing the point. If the system is wrong (and there is increasing evidence that it is) then it should be fixed.
That's why the report is so useful because it does come up with some practical suggestions.
I do agree that people should not suffer hardship because the bureaucracy is slow and inefficient. If people are entitled to benefits (whatever level they are set at) they should get them promptly.
I take your point about people being in two minds. My view - for what it's worth - is that we make a decision about who should get benefits and we are generous to those who are in real need. But that does mean removing benefits from those who are either earning a good salary (e.g. child benefit to those on $50K or tax credits to such people) or those who are capable of doing so but don't. We spread welfare around too thinly. The wails of anguish from those on good salaries at the loss of child benefit was a grotesque example of a culture of entitlement from those who really should have known better.
We also need to decide whether benefits are based on contribution or need or a combination of both. Interestingly the woman (I did not catch her name) on the Today programme this morning was talking about paying benefits to people who had contributed and were entitled. What she didn't seem to realise was that the corollary of that is if you haven't contributed you're not entitled.
Also if you pay people the money pending their appeal and they lose what will you do then? Seek to recover or just give it up as a lost cause? That will likely lead to an increase in appeals and could just as easily infuriate those who feel that people are thereby getting something to which they are not entitled. There are no easy answers.
Chris Bryant on BBC2 Daily Pol show. Demonstrating no sign of Christianity in his attitudes. A nasty piece of work. How on earth was he once deemed to be suitable to be a CoE vicar?
He is an utter lowlife with his sole modus operandi being telling lies. Still as a liar, Labour is the best place for him.
The LibDems are so obviously manufacturing their differences with the Tories when they are ready to go into coalition with them again and do their bidding again.LibDems and Tories go in the same column.They are both state shrinkers.
Do you actually , really believe the drivel you have just posted ?
The claim it's been well-communicated is a crock of shit. I'm sure larger firms were notified and engaged with, but the first I (and many others) heard of it was just over a month ago. He also doesn't address the central problem, which is that the law is ****ing stupid.
The new EU VAT arrangements for UK microbusinesses who sell products over the internet to EU countries is both horrendous EU bureaucracy and damaging for UK exports.
Whilst there is a tax logic to the tax law, it should have been assessed back in 2008 for the cost to microbusinesses and the impact on UK exports - a black mark for Labour.
The fact that the government has not informed the bulk of businesses affected on Jan 1st, is a black mark for the coalition parties.
Yes: the idea that you can boost incomes by protecting people or industries from foreign competition is trivially false.
Imagine proposing that a British car company would produce better cars if British people didn't have the option of purchasing foreign models.
You can certainly boost the incomes of a group of people by constraining supply. It's done in the UK legal system, for instance, by controlling the number of lawyers that exist. That helps lawyers at the expense of the customers of legal services and those trying to break into the profession.
If we constrain the supply of low skill labour in the UK, we boost the income of low skilled UK workers, at the expense of multinational companies and potential immigrants. It is entirely right that the UK government looks out for low wage British workers over a wealthy elite and foreigners.
I appreciate that people who want to turn the UK into a Dubai-type economy, with a frequently abused low wage immigrant work force with no welfare net serving a small wealthy elite, disagree. Interestingly the same tactic was tried in colonial South Africa. The local blacks get out of line and want to get a fairer share of the rising profits? Screw 'em. Import some Indians to keep wages down instead. No doubt you'd have approved.
Remember that the cheap foreign labour must be treated as 2nd class citizens as part of a two tier benefits system.. despite being part of a "union"
What's curious is that, decades after the elite accepted colonial exploitation was wrong, they're now turning round and using the same tactics on the native British. They tell the native work force that the system is ok, because at least they have better rights than the imported labour, while telling the immigrants that the natives complaining about the system actually just hate them on race grounds. It's classic colonial divide-and-rule tactics.
Chris Bryant on BBC2 Daily Pol show. Demonstrating no sign of Christianity in his attitudes. A nasty piece of work. How on earth was he once deemed to be suitable to be a CoE vicar?
Chris Bryant on BBC2 Daily Pol show. Demonstrating no sign of Christianity in his attitudes. A nasty piece of work. How on earth was he once deemed to be suitable to be a CoE vicar?
Being a Christian has never been an essential part of being a clergyman.
Mr. Evershed, a very good post and I missed the impact on UK imports (that would, at least, be improved if we left the despicable nest of vileness that is the EU).
Edited extra bit: also, Cable's response (linked below) to the petition has not gone down well. The claim businesses have been told about it has provoked derision at best.
Apparently the Swing Back forecasting model now only predicts a 3pt Tory lead on May 7. Labour could be largest party with that. Populus is further evidence that the AS was a dud - the IFS/BBC assaulting cancelling out the early euphoria.
I think AVB has the potential to be a top manager in the EPL, however he was seriously undermined by Frank Lampard at Chelsea (I'm a Chelsea fan and saw it on one occasion) and no-one can work under Lunatic Levy at Spurs.
I doubt Liverpool will appoint another Mourinho underling but AVB will do well here one day.
The LibDems are so obviously manufacturing their differences with the Tories when they are ready to go into coalition with them again and do their bidding again.LibDems and Tories go in the same column.They are both state shrinkers.
Quite. The only people that should vote Lib Dem are those that are pro-EU, soft on criminals and small state.
This always happens when discussing foodbank use - those with Right leaning sympathies ignore the human costs and drag up supply and demand curves from half remembered economic theory.
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
I see Ben is completely ignoring the reasons why any of this is happening in the first place. Ben should rename himself Airbrush because that's what jhe does to any history before or after Tory governments. Those periods simply do not exist in left wing winter of discontent wonderland.
, Labour did everything right and year dot has now been moved from 1979 to 2010. No doubt after a further crippling 5 years of his scocialism year dot will then be moved to 2020. iDS will become the new Thatcher until 2050.
It is the way of the left wing fantasy world they seem to inhabit but meanwhile we will be a basket case as is always the case at the end of Laabour governments. I have seen the same thing same outcomes since the days of Wilson
As Scottish nobleman of some repute (I gather), I'm rather surprised at you taking the piss out of Ukip. It behoves you, as Mr Smithson has mentioned, to behave according to your state.
Noblesse Oblige and all that. Making fun of the peasants demeans you. Leave that to the Hoi Poloi like Mr Eagles.
Have to smile at the Tories attempting to defend the explosion in foodbank use.
Under Labour foodbank use was minuscule, they are now commonplace.
As for comparisons to France - we are not France. Most of the UK electorate has no stomach for growing use of foodbanks. They are politically toxic for the Tories.
Remember back in the day they had another free food source for the working class ?
They were called allotments. Don't seem so popular now.
They are quite popular where I live. My Dad has one and we often eat the food he grows there.
Big waiting lists though
We have an allotment where Herself does a spiffing job growing staple vegetables (haven't had to buy spuds, onions, shallots, garlic, etc for years) and soft fruits (jams and cordials). The two allotment patches in our village our also much oversubscribed with long waiting lists for both.
That said, as point pointed out up-thread allotment holding does seem to be a mainly middle-class hobby with very few holders coming from our council estate. That estate was built in the early fifties with houses of a high standard and large gardens (well large compared to any modern development). Gardens that are amply big enough for a vegetable patch yet very few residents have one.
We also have in the High Street a Co-Op, which as you would expect is quite expensive and which sells processed foods at what I would consider exorbitant prices. Almost bang opposite is a green-grocer that sells fruit and vegetables of good quality at reasonable prices and round the corner is a family butcher and a fishmonger both can be expensive but also cheap cuts.
Almost everyday I see young single mums (most of whom are seriously overweight) from the Estate buying expensive, crap, food in the Co-Op but never yet have I seen one of them in the green-grocers, the butchers or the fishmongers.
The problem would seem to be not of money but of education including basic skills. If the ladies shopped more wisely not only they would they and their children be better fed (last week one of them gave a tube of Pringles to her child for his breakfast - he was going to learn nothing useful at school that morning) but they would also have more money for the other vital staple of their lives - fags and vodka (both of which are available at cheaper prices within 50 yards of the Co_Op.
Must say I'm not entirely convinced by this. If the Scottish sub-set is 1,293 and overall sample size is just over 14,000, that suggests 14 polls which have an average of fewer than 100 Scottish respondents.
It's also just one pollster, so there's the potential for it to be too kind (or, indeed, harsh) to the relevant parties.
MD , on here it is modus operandi to ignore all known polling rules as long as it fits Tory/LD bilge. If not then sub samples must be ignored on pain of being banned.
As Scottish nobleman of some repute (I gather), I'm rather surprised at you taking the piss out of Ukip. It behoves you, as Mr Smithson has mentioned, to behave according to your state.
Noblesse Oblige and all that. Making fun of the peasants demeans you. Leave that to the Hoi Poloi like Mr Eagles.
It is Hoi Polloi, two L's, not one.
Jeez, you plebs are so uneducated, this is why you lot need the likes of me educating you on PB and Dave in charge of the country.
Comments
There will be screaming when the Kippers have a tenth of the number of MPs that the LDs have next May.
Big waiting lists though
And yes I can imagine allotments have big waiting lists/change hands for decent sums under the table in the SE.
The fact is Farage gives of himself so freely to ridicule. His immigrant traffic jam utterance being the latest in long and hopefully continuing line of material.
The other parties don't really dislike UKIP for ideological reasons, or they wouldn't have made the commitments on immigration and benefits that they have. Its just about anger over newcomers threat to their existing position of authority and power, which is the root cause behind racist and sexist jokes/smears as well
But that argument is easily killed off by pointing out that foodbank use is rationed - you to be referred to them.
So the demand is not coming from fabled market forces, it's coming from deliberate government sanction. Tory sanctions.
We can all agree that food banks are grotesque in a country as rich as ours. So why do they arise and what practical policies are needed?
I am puzzled as to how it is possible to go hungry when the benefits cap is £26,000 (net). I know people who live on far far less than that in a year and yet manage to feed themselves and their family.
I would genuinely like to understand how people find themselves in this position and what the best way of helping them to get out of it is/
Just being picky really - I think we all agree that the current position is that Labour is a little ahead, with random variation around that from say Lab+5 to Con+1. My subjective impression is that the lead has notched up slightly in the last 10 days, but not enough to argue about.
You're just ignoring facts to bang a party political drum.
So the demand was always there, but supply was rationed (or non-existent). As supply has been increased, more people are able to use them.
Glad you got there in the end.
We're all well aware that you have to be referred to them. So it ought to be possible to find out what the circumstances are which result in such referrals happening and what sensible practical policies can be adopted to alleviate or remove the situations resulting in their need.
Shouting about "Tory sanctions" is neither use nor ornament.
http://www.change.org/p/vince-cable-mp-uphold-the-vat-exemption-threshold-for-businesses-supplying-digital-products/responses/25596
The claim it's been well-communicated is a crock of shit. I'm sure larger firms were notified and engaged with, but the first I (and many others) heard of it was just over a month ago. He also doesn't address the central problem, which is that the law is ****ing stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-29914835
The evidence is the bets I have with PBers who are generally quite shrewd, that UKIP will poll over 10% at 6/4
You just keep selling UKIP every time they go up,"peak kipper" if you will. But as its for hot air rather than real money you can afford to keep doing it
But as we have seen with their "no referendum until we can win" approach they don' trust the British voters to have a say.
An old man thinking he is on the money by cracking left wing jokes from 3 decades ago
*titter me not
I would be very interested to learn of references to the big big social question how people eat and shop for food.
We then have to try to understand the reasons for poor educational attainment.
It's directly down to State inefficiency.
No matter what it is, it is great for UKIP and Farage.
Master stroke indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#mediaviewer/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Indeed Mrs JackW has a meaty turn of appropriate phrases for me and often most deserved.
It's ridiculous. That's as polite as I can be. I was a Better Off Out sort beforehand, but this kind of bullshit serves only to reinforce that view.
So, if you're a Canadian granny selling knitwear patterns as PDFs, and a Frenchman buys one for $0.99*, you have to register for VAT. In France. There's a UK alternative called VATMOSS, which doesn't appear to be fit for purpose already. We'll see.
*The threshold is zero. Sell something for 10p and you have to pay VAT on it. Yes, the law is that appallingly stupid.
I'm hoping for a few Chrimbo corkers .... perhaps Polish elves taking indigenous jobs or Santa failing to clamber down new smaller EU approved chimneys.
Ho Ho ....
In June you were saying "UKIP just don't get 15% anymore".. now you're defence is "UKIP just aren't getting 20% anymore"
See where this is going?
Looks like Nick Palmer set up his email account with aol in the early days of internet emails at a time when he could expect to be an MP permanently.
Including MP in your ISP address is of course a hostage to fortune. His voters may put things right at the next election.
This would be so even if we didn't fully sign up to EU VAT law, which frankly I think is inconceivable.
The number MPs after the GE is a more important number than "what they once polled in October. If it isn't you aint doing it right.
So yes, it is down to the Tory ideological drive and, yes, its incompetence (cf Iain Duncan Smith).
Imagine proposing that a British car company would produce better cars if British people didn't have the option of purchasing foreign models.
It's almost incomprehensible in its stupidity.
Arsene Wenger video: Footage emerges of Arsenal fans abusing long-serving manager after Stoke defeat
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsene-wenger-video-footage-emerges-of-arsenal-fans-abusing-longserving-manager-after-stoke-defeat-9910146.html
And you say he is a drag on their support
Thems just the facts
Mind you, countries throughout history have managed to do other incomprehensibly stupid things even without the help of the EU.
Of course, lots of people are in two minds about it - they say yes if you ask if the government should be tough on benefits and no if you ask them whether people should be short of food while their benefits claim is sorted out, yet refusing benefit pending an appeal is a way of being tough, which matters more when so many claims are initially refused as another form of toughness. Personally, I think that the system should be speeded up and conversely that benefits should be paid until appeals have finally failed - there are too many cases of people ultimately getting approval but suffering serious hardship while it chugs through the system. It is not the fault of the applicant that the system is slow.
And those who answer "yes but the previous government..." [whatever] are missing the point. If the system is wrong (and there is increasing evidence that it is) then it should be fixed.
The level of benefits is not relevant to the food-bank use explosion; the austerity argument very strongly implies that they are. And, of course, the argument that changes in levels of austerity would correlate with changes in food-bank usage (outwith any changes in allocation efficiency, which is orthogonal to the argument) is palpably false.
(Not to engage in the claim that 'austerity is financial lunacy', which is ideological foolishness and blinkered shortsightedness and, if followed, would risk the well-being of millions of the most vulnerable, as they are the ones who get it worst when serious financial and economic damage hit.)
You accept, then, that the primary cause is State inefficiency? Ascribing that inefficiency to any particular party or Minister is rather beside the point if you wish things to be run by the State - you'll always have parties of which you disapprove and the issue of inefficient Ministers of all stripes.
By the way - do you support the idea that more should be run by the State?
"thinking specifically about the current party leaders, do you think they look down on ordinary people?"
Farage: +41 / -36
Miliband: +46 / -34
Clegg: +49 / -30
Cameron: +63 / -21
By that metric, Mr Farage is seen as the least pompous.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/vibey5ti4y/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-281114.pdf
I agree that it's down to the system of delays in processing, but that's a rather different issue and one beside the point of how much benefits should be paid when eligible. I also completely agree that it should be sped up.
A desperate fool
I think a realistic view is that any benefits system, even if super-efficient and well-designed, is always going to leave gaps. That's why foodbanks and other charitable provision are so important - charities can be more flexible and individual than a system designed to operate consistently according to a set of rules for millions of people.
But the same is true of all party leaders. And Farage also speaks like a vaguely normal person, and brings more to his party than he takes from it (in terms of support).
If we constrain the supply of low skill labour in the UK, we boost the income of low skilled UK workers, at the expense of multinational companies and potential immigrants. It is entirely right that the UK government looks out for low wage British workers over a wealthy elite and foreigners.
I appreciate that people who want to turn the UK into a Dubai-type economy, with a frequently abused low wage immigrant work force with no welfare net serving a small wealthy elite, disagree. Interestingly the same tactic was tried in colonial South Africa. The local blacks get out of line and want to get a fairer share of the rising profits? Screw 'em. Import some Indians to keep wages down instead. No doubt you'd have approved.
Next theory....
For some of the people who currently support Farage, the fact that he riles the metropolitan types is central to his appeal. If the strength of that cultural clash reduces then Farage's appeal would follow down.
The Sunday Times reported that John W Henry has sounded out Andre Villas-Boas as a replace for Brendan
http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/07/liverpool-owners-fenway-sports-group-line-up-andre-villas-boas-as-potential-replacement-for-brendan-rodgers-4977633/
I do agree that people should not suffer hardship because the bureaucracy is slow and inefficient. If people are entitled to benefits (whatever level they are set at) they should get them promptly.
I take your point about people being in two minds. My view - for what it's worth - is that we make a decision about who should get benefits and we are generous to those who are in real need. But that does mean removing benefits from those who are either earning a good salary (e.g. child benefit to those on $50K or tax credits to such people) or those who are capable of doing so but don't. We spread welfare around too thinly. The wails of anguish from those on good salaries at the loss of child benefit was a grotesque example of a culture of entitlement from those who really should have known better.
We also need to decide whether benefits are based on contribution or need or a combination of both. Interestingly the woman (I did not catch her name) on the Today programme this morning was talking about paying benefits to people who had contributed and were entitled. What she didn't seem to realise was that the corollary of that is if you haven't contributed you're not entitled.
Also if you pay people the money pending their appeal and they lose what will you do then? Seek to recover or just give it up as a lost cause? That will likely lead to an increase in appeals and could just as easily infuriate those who feel that people are thereby getting something to which they are not entitled. There are no easy answers.
The new EU VAT arrangements for UK microbusinesses who sell products over the internet to EU countries is both horrendous EU bureaucracy and damaging for UK exports.
Whilst there is a tax logic to the tax law, it should have been assessed back in 2008 for the cost to microbusinesses and the impact on UK exports - a black mark for Labour.
The fact that the government has not informed the bulk of businesses affected on Jan 1st, is a black mark for the coalition parties.
It's a gift to UKIP. Wait for the fireworks.
Edited extra bit: also, Cable's response (linked below) to the petition has not gone down well. The claim businesses have been told about it has provoked derision at best.
I doubt Liverpool will appoint another Mourinho underling but AVB will do well here one day.
I see Ben is completely ignoring the reasons why any of this is happening in the first place. Ben should rename himself Airbrush because that's what jhe does to any history before or after Tory governments. Those periods simply do not exist in left wing winter of discontent wonderland.
, Labour did everything right and year dot has now been moved from 1979 to 2010. No doubt after a further crippling 5 years of his scocialism year dot will then be moved to 2020. iDS will become the new Thatcher until 2050.
It is the way of the left wing fantasy world they seem to inhabit but meanwhile we will be a basket case as is always the case at the end of Laabour governments. I have seen the same thing same outcomes since the days of Wilson
As Scottish nobleman of some repute (I gather), I'm rather surprised at you taking the piss out of Ukip. It behoves you, as Mr Smithson has mentioned, to behave according to your state.
Noblesse Oblige and all that. Making fun of the peasants demeans you. Leave that to the Hoi Poloi like Mr Eagles.
That said, as point pointed out up-thread allotment holding does seem to be a mainly middle-class hobby with very few holders coming from our council estate. That estate was built in the early fifties with houses of a high standard and large gardens (well large compared to any modern development). Gardens that are amply big enough for a vegetable patch yet very few residents have one.
We also have in the High Street a Co-Op, which as you would expect is quite expensive and which sells processed foods at what I would consider exorbitant prices. Almost bang opposite is a green-grocer that sells fruit and vegetables of good quality at reasonable prices and round the corner is a family butcher and a fishmonger both can be expensive but also cheap cuts.
Almost everyday I see young single mums (most of whom are seriously overweight) from the Estate buying expensive, crap, food in the Co-Op but never yet have I seen one of them in the green-grocers, the butchers or the fishmongers.
The problem would seem to be not of money but of education including basic skills. If the ladies shopped more wisely not only they would they and their children be better fed (last week one of them gave a tube of Pringles to her child for his breakfast - he was going to learn nothing useful at school that morning) but they would also have more money for the other vital staple of their lives - fags and vodka (both of which are available at cheaper prices within 50 yards of the Co_Op.
Jeez, you plebs are so uneducated, this is why you lot need the likes of me educating you on PB and Dave in charge of the country.