I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.
“I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.
And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
Fair comment but is it not possible that you haven't seen any evidence of it at all but she might do so and she's perhaps a bit different to you?
Having been involved in anti-racist groups all my life (and having spent time in hospital for my pains) I am acutely aware of racism in all its forms. Now of course there is a chance that she visited none of the UKIP branches I have been involved with and that there is some small enclave of UKIP in the East Midlands that is uniquely different to the rest of the party but given the two scenarios I am afraid I am more inclined to the idea that she is just making it up for impact.
If she had said that individuals had behaved in an unacceptable manner then I would have been quite willing to believe her. Smearing the whole party in the way she does just makes her look ridiculous.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
Since when has asking someone out for a date been regarded as a terrible thing to do?
From the front page of the Times, it sounds like the allegations suggest worse than that. Let's see. Whatever the credibility of this particular woman, sexual harassment is a serious matter and deserves to be investigated fully. Given the promptness of the suspension, it looks like UKIP agree.
What "sexual assault" is this woman claiming? From the sounds of things, she reported the guy last night, and UKIP promptly suspended him pending an investigation. What a contrast to the Lib Dems.
i do wonder if it was this brewing rather than immigrants inn the road that caused this:
I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.
“I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.
And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.
*cough* Labour plant *cough*
Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?
Reckless, Carswell, both?
Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
I said, you can never trust a pigdog defector.
I think that Carswell could defect back (if Cameron was replaced) but I think that Reckless has burnt too many boat. He is likely to get his P45 in May though, so it may not be an issue!
One of my friend's asked me recently what would I prefer next year
1) A Con Majority and Reckless holding his seat
or
2) A Lab Majority and Reckless losing his seat.
I still haven't worked out which option I would prefer.
My faculties maybe impaired when discussing Mark Reckless.
Daniel Finkelstein@Dannythefink·2 mins2 minutes ago So, I've read our (@thetimes) incredible Ukip story and one of my main reactions is....they are putting up Neil Hamilton as an MP. Really?
This is the inherent problem with coalitions: they deliver something not a single voter voted for and not a single party actually wanted to do.
So do single-party governments. Nobody asked for Iraq in 2001, Black Wednesday in early 1992, ... But coalitions at least mean that small minorities of voters (Blair 2005) are unlikely to run the government on their own.
Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.
I don't see that as an obstacle. You just have to buy them off.
That's how things work in hung parliaments, the New Politics, parties working together etc etc.
And the price demanded by the DUP, whilst no doubt exorbitant, would be less than that the SNP would demand.
SNP would demand an end to austerity as price for deal with Labour.
Does that mean borrowing 150Bn per year ?
Yup. But if it means prioritising ordinary British people and their wellbeing and their public services, ahead of just trying to keep random bond-market investors in Shanghai happy, then I'm all for it.
What about ordinary British pensioners whose savings are full of gilts?
The whole austerity/spending argument gets framed in a really bizarre way. As if it's a regular light switch, when in reality it's a dimmer.
If someone is really concerned about the welfare of "ordinary British people", reducing the deficit is very important, because anonymous investors hold their long-term welfare in the palm of their hand. No lending - or, more realistically for a generally well-off country like Britain, lending at a higher interest rate - and those people WILL suffer. And it will be the poorest plus the lower middle classes that will suffer the most, not those with greater resources to shield themselves from the pain.
However, the saving grace is that the last thing any investor wants is to lose money. It's better to keep a borrower hooked on borrowing (and paying back just enough to make you money). Just ask any payday loan company or even a traditional bank.
So it's perfectly possible to find a way of continuing to borrow in the long term, if you can temporarily convince investors that you'll be able to keep on repaying the interest despite any short-term troubles. The obvious way to do that it is moderate the total debt you run as a percentage of GDP. Keep that at a reasonable level, and you can keep borrowing forever. Go too high and you'll run into trouble through a combination of slowing growth and reducing bond market confidence pushing up interest rates.
Given how outrageously how our total debt as a percentage of GDP is at the moment, we need to give GDP time to catch up and so reduce the percentage. That is the only way to be able to keep borrowing enough in the future to keep all the balls in the air. By aiming high in terms of how much you shout internationally about trying to cut the deficit, you create enough a smokescreen to keep investors happy and keep borrowing while waiting for GDP to catch up. This is precisely why the UK has got away with missing initial targets for deficit reduction; the credibility bought by sounding tough let us pause in 2012/13 while the Eurozone crisis caused "unexpected" problems.
She must read this site, described the faux outrage and desperation to be offended perfectly
Faux outrage is of course utilized by every political party and their supporters across all mediums, it is the desperation and the fact it is not currently working against UKIP which makes the tactics against them stand out. The tactics that stand out for UKIP is their oftentimes absurd pretension they do not engage in the same political behaviours with plenty of professional politicians just like the rest of the parties.
Fortunately for them, they are still electorally on the outside (and even having a handful of MPs need not change that if they play their cards right), and the faux outrage directed at them remains overdone and certainly at the top Farage's style, including occasional genuine blunders, are not at all a hindrance and in cases as the article says reflect what a lot of people do think, and the opinion of the other parties is so low UKIP can get away with pretending they are not subject to inevitable aspects of being a political party for a bit longer yet. Times are looking promising for them, and whether it ends up imploding spectacularly or reaching yet new heights, we're all the better for it.
Kevin Maguire on Sky News paper review repeating the silly argument that poor people can't afford to eat healthily. Nothing is further from the truth: the healthiest things to buy are often the cheapest.
Whoever first came up with the idea ought to win the Nobel Prize for successfully starting an erroneous meme.
This is the inherent problem with coalitions: they deliver something not a single voter voted for and not a single party actually wanted to do.
So do single-party governments.
Exactly. Many of the problems that exist with coalitions, or fixed term parliaments, or some other new scenario, are not unique to them and so are not inevitably bad as a result (though of course that is a possibility, and perhaps one could argue the risk is greater, but it would be open to debate).
And though of course I did not have sight of any coalition agreement at the time of my vote, when I voted I hoped it would contribute toward the possibility of a LD-Con Coalition, so there was at least one voter who voted for this government, if not necessarily the policy framework they stitched together, so maybe that argument can be retired, or at least qualified. Do I regret wanting that outcome? Eh, it may have ended up being an incompetent government, but out of the options available I don't think there would have been an extreme difference one way or another?
What "sexual assault" is this woman claiming? From the sounds of things, she reported the guy last night, and UKIP promptly suspended him pending an investigation. What a contrast to the Lib Dems.
i do wonder if it was this brewing rather than immigrants inn the road that caused this:
This is the inherent problem with coalitions: they deliver something not a single voter voted for and not a single party actually wanted to do.
So do single-party governments. Nobody asked for Iraq in 2001, Black Wednesday in early 1992, ... But coalitions at least mean that small minorities of voters (Blair 2005) are unlikely to run the government on their own.
To me there's a really big difference between being unhappy about how a party reacts to subsequent events, and the entire basis of the initial post-election government formed on Day One being different to what voters actually voted on the day before.
Generally, with majority governments, they aim to deliver most of their manifesto. Subsequent events may well blow them off course. And they can react to such events in ways that voters feel betray their party principles. But to me, that's very different from having to create a hybrid new manifesto to implement right from the start instead.
What "sexual assault" is this woman claiming? From the sounds of things, she reported the guy last night, and UKIP promptly suspended him pending an investigation. What a contrast to the Lib Dems.
i do wonder if it was this brewing rather than immigrants inn the road that caused this:
Daniel Finkelstein@Dannythefink·2 mins2 minutes ago So, I've read our (@thetimes) incredible Ukip story and one of my main reactions is....they are putting up Neil Hamilton as an MP. Really?
Will Finkelstein run naked down Whitehall on 8th May if Hamilton is elected?
Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.
I don't see that as an obstacle. You just have to buy them off.
That's how things work in hung parliaments, the New Politics, parties working together etc etc.
And the price demanded by the DUP, whilst no doubt exorbitant, would be less than that the SNP would demand.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
Sure, why not,stranger things have happened and much worse politicians have surely been reelected to office much sooner. I only know Neil Hamilton as a punchline, he could surely win over new converts who are similarly lacking a connection with the time when he was previously active, and it's plenty of time to convince those who do recall that time that things have changed.
She must read this site, described the faux outrage and desperation to be offended perfectly
Faux outrage is of course utilized by every political party and their supporters across all mediums, it is the desperation and the fact it is not currently working against UKIP which makes the tactics against them stand out. The tactics that stand out for UKIP is their oftentimes absurd pretension they do not engage in the same political behaviours with plenty of professional politicians just like the rest of the parties.
Fortunately for them, they are still electorally on the outside (and even having a handful of MPs need not change that if they play their cards right), and the faux outrage directed at them remains overdone and certainly at the top Farage's style, including occasional genuine blunders, are not at all a hindrance and in cases as the article says reflect what a lot of people do think, and the opinion of the other parties is so low UKIP can get away with pretending they are not subject to inevitable aspects of being a political party for a bit longer yet. Times are looking promising for them, and whether it ends up imploding spectacularly or reaching yet new heights, we're all the better for it.
To be honest, I have never claimed, and I don't think I have heard any UKIP politician claim, that they are that different to other parties in any way other than having different views on how to run the country.... it's not as if they are running the party in the style of Athenian democrats or drawing lots to see who is leader for the month
I couldn't care less if they were run just like every other party really, how else could they do it?
Kevin Maguire on Sky News paper review repeating the silly argument that poor people can't afford to eat healthily. Nothing is further from the truth: the healthiest things to buy are often the cheapest.
Whoever first came up with the idea ought to win the Nobel Prize for successfully starting an erroneous meme.
Personally have been on a big health kick recently, only eating clean, lots of raw veg "juiced" etc, no processed stuff etc, and hardly spending any money at all.
Lots of spring greens, kale, spinach, carrots, etc, really really cheap. You can get massive bags of spring greens for <£1.
No candy, no desserts, etc, just juiced cocoa + fruit + milk, works out at pennies.
It seems to me, the big cost (aside from processed stuff) these days is meat. If you insist on eating meat every day, you soon rack up quite a big bill at the store. Now I am by no means a vegetation, but cutting right down on meat intake has slashed my weekly bill.
Ed Balls @edballsmp · 4m 4 minutes ago Errr.. Hang on.. Pots? Kettles? RT @SarahVine: @agendaitv How did Ed Balls ever bag Yvette? That is the real question of the night
Snicker. Although is he insulting Gove or Sarah Vine?
This is the inherent problem with coalitbions: they deliver something not a single voter voted for and not a single party actually wanted to do.
So do single-party governments. Nobody asked for Iraq in 2001, Black Wednesday in early 1992, ... But coalitions at least mean that small minorities of voters (Blair 2005) are unlikely to run the government on their own.
To me there's a really big difference between being unhappy about how a party reacts to subsequent events, and the entire basis of the initial post-election government formed on Day One being different to what voters actually voted on the day before.
Generally, with majority governments, they aim to deliver most of their manifesto. Subsequent events may well blow them off course. And they can react to such events in ways that voters feel betray their party principles But to me that's different to having to create a hybrid new manifesto to implement right from the start instead.
The problem is that if the electorate doesn't want to give any one party more than (say) a third of the vote, then it's hard to say there is a true mandate for their manifesto.
Politics had fragmented. The UK had changed from the 1950s, when the Conservatives and Labour parties would amass 95% of the vote between them. Like it or not, we are probably returning to the political system of the mid 1800s, where you voted for an mp, and they used their discretion.
Why should it be? As long as Northern Ireland gets its bribe, why should they want to risk the UK economy getting into trouble?
OK, what if their price is no austerity for Northern Ireland. And do you think the rest of the UK, already reluctant about austerity to start off with, would accept that they should suffer from it while NI gets off scot-free just for the sake of the Tories keeping themselves in government?
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
If he was guilty of a crime that was unrelated to his position as an MP then one could accept a time limit. If he was guilty of a crime that was directly related to his position as an MP then I don't think there should be a time limit. He was found guilty by an inquiry of breaching one of the fundamental rules of Parliament and I don't consider he should be allowed back even after this length of time. The same would go for Mercer and anyone else who breaches those basic rules.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
Kevin Maguire on Sky News paper review repeating the silly argument that poor people can't afford to eat healthily. Nothing is further from the truth: the healthiest things to buy are often the cheapest.
Whoever first came up with the idea ought to win the Nobel Prize for successfully starting an erroneous meme.
Personally have been on a big health kick recently, only eating clean, lots of raw veg "juiced" etc, no processed stuff etc, and hardly spending any money at all.
Lots of spring greens, kale, spinach, carrots, etc, really really cheap. You can get massive bags of spring greens for <£1.
No candy, no desserts, etc, just juiced cocoa + fruit + milk, works out at pennies.
It seems to me, the big cost (aside from processed stuff) these days is meat. If you insist on eating meat every day, you soon rack up quite a big bill at the store. Now I am by no means a vegetation, but cutting right down on meat intake has slashed my weekly bill.</p>
you can buy 3 chickens for £10 in most UK supermarkets and pork leg or shoulder is available at prices as low as £2.99 a kilo on offer. i would call that cheap. have you tried buying meat in France?
Ms Bolter, 35, contrasted Ukip’s approach to her time with Labour, where she said she “campaigned alongside misogynists” and “found that female tokenism prevailed.”
To thunderous applause, she exhorted Ukip activists to recognise that their party “rises above gender politics in our fight to move Britain forward”.
Yesterday, barely two months later, Ms Bolter quit Ukip in disgust at what she claimed was a party riddled with racism, misogyny and sexual harassment. “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said. “I’ve complained about sexism on several occasions.”
The problem is that if the electorate doesn't want to give any one party more than (say) a third of the vote, then it's hard to say there is a true mandate for their manifesto.
Hmm, not sure about that argument. Why would plucking bits out of several manifestos, those bits chosen pretty much at random depending on which combination happens to be cobbled together in an agreement unpredictable before the election, have any more of a mandate?
To govern is to choose. At least if one party's manifesto has the support of a third of the electorate, it's an informed and hopefully consistent choice taking account of all the choices which have to be made. If there are three or four competing programmes, well, fair enough: it's clearly impossible for them all to win. One has to be chosen.
Apples are one of the healthiest things to eat. They're also one of the cheapest.
Someone needs to tell the likes of Kevin Maguire that.
Don't be silly, what you need first and foremost from your diet is calories. How many apples do you think you need to eat to get a days worth of calories? And independently of that what is so healthy about them anyway?
Modern high sugar varieties are also really, really bad for your teeth. So not really cheap when you factor in additional dentistry.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
Apples are one of the healthiest things to eat. They're also one of the cheapest.
Someone needs to tell the likes of Kevin Maguire that.
Maguire "the man of the people"...or so he likes to tell us.
Always quick to blast others for choices their parents made about their schooling, not so keen to engage in the same argument about him and his wife's backgrounds and currently extremely comfortable existence.
It is like he is embarrassed about being a good grammar school boy and his wife being a St Paul's alumni. Maybe that is why he overdoes the Tory toff's Eton / Bullingdon stuff.
OK, what if their price is no austerity for Northern Ireland. And do you think the rest of the UK, already reluctant about austerity to start off with, would accept that they should suffer from it while NI gets off scot-free just for the sake of the Tories keeping themselves in government?
The rest of the UK will have to pay up and shut up. Of course it's not ideal, but that's what happens when you get weak governments. If voters don't like it, they have the solution right in front of them.
She must read this site, described the faux outrage and desperation to be offended perfectly
Faux outrage is o for it.
To be honest, I have never claimed, and I don't think I have heard any UKIP politician claim, that they are that different to other parties in any way other than having different views on how to run the country.... it's not as if they are running the party in the style of Athenian democrats or drawing lots to see who is leader for the month
I couldn't care less if they were run just like every other party really, how else could they do it?
Your attitude on that is very sensible and commendable, but there is no doubt in my mind that UKIP repeatedly imply and even outright state at times that they are totally unlike the other parties, and it is clear they do not always mean just on how the county should be run. It is of course taken to an extreme by idiot supporters, the official campaigns are generally less silly about such things, but you see endless tirades about LibLabCon for things like spinning, or suffering media bias, or other non-partisan behaviours, with the solution being to vote UKIP, the clear implication being they do not do things like spin, or launch opportunistic partisan attacks, or manufacture outrage.
It's not purely a UKIP thing, it's the same idea as Tories or Labour trying suggest they are morally better than the other somehow, but UKIP are able to be more blatant about it by virtue of being appreciably in a different category than the others electorally and in style. It's bloody irritating but any who genuinely believe it, and I hope they are few, will be disabused of the notion in time even if UKIP are able to be best among the rest in terms of such behaviour, and it's a legitimate tactic used by all and sundry, so I attach no blame to UKIP for pushing it. They just push it a bit far sometimes, probably due to over enthusiasm.
She wasn't a candidate. She was hoping to be selected for South Basildon, which is one of the places where the original UKIP candidate was unceremoniously removed.
The Times says - ''Ukip leaders were understood to have urged Ms Bolter as late as Sunday night to stand in the hustings. '' ''leaders'' ... who could that be?
She only defected in September, Bird is a quick worker.
Interesting in the new politics that the UKIP General Secretary has a 'London Club'. Now thats fine by me but well we hear so much about how the metropolitan elite are all to blame from kipper apologists... What will they make of these allegations in the Times ''She claimed, she was told by another prospective parliamentary candidate that her only job was “to look pretty and to get us votes”. On another occasion, a local party chairman allegedly told her that a woman with a young baby was a “f***ing Pole” who “hasn’t worked out the benefits system and how to get a free pushchair”. ''
There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.
I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.
I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.
The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.
Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.
One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
Germany was running out of oil too though. They needed to either take it from the Caucasus or the Middle East.
I thought throughout much of the war their main source of oil was Romania.
IIRC from reading Daniel Yergin, the Romanian oil fields and refinerires were repeatedly bombed and often sabotaged.
Although the really big raid against the Ploiesti oil wells wasn't until 1944.
The twitter account of Natasha Bolter seems a little odd...
She's been having a go at Farage for the breastfeeding and Road congestion stuff, all weekend, but was tweeting that it was crazy to call UKIP racist just a fortnight ago
Kevin Maguire on Sky News paper review repeating the silly argument that poor people can't afford to eat healthily. Nothing is further from the truth: the healthiest things to buy are often the cheapest.
Personally have been on a big health kick recently, only eating clean, lots of raw veg "juiced" etc, no processed stuff etc, and hardly spending any money at all.
I had just this discussion with a couple of colleagues the other day. They came out with the usual retorts: a) poor people lack the easy transport to get to the out-of-town supermarkets that sell fresh fruit & vegetables at low prices, b) advertising effectively brainwashes them into buying expensive processed or sweet crap instead, c) lack of education means they don't know what's healthy and what isn't.
I really don't buy the last point at all; I mean, who in the UK doesn't know it's healthier to eat vegetables than Big Macs? If you're that ill-informed, it's nothing to do with formal education or even intelligence, and everything to do with wilfully shutting yourself from the messages being shouted at you from the rooftops.
I would agree that advertising is extremely powerful, but it's still up to the individual to take personal responsibility for what they shove down their own throats. Sweets aren't a product like tobacco where there's no safe minimum, justifying (assuming that you believe in the role of the state in this sort of thing) anti-smoking measures. No matter how powerful the advertising message, consistent willpower can override it. It is true that the constant stress & pressure of making ends meet DOES make it harder to maintain willpower and good decision-making, but that's not a reason to abrogate the ongoing reality of personal responsibility in this matter, especially since it actually makes their lives easier to eat healthier by cutting their shopping bill.
The strongest argument was probably the first: it's more expensive to shop locally, and harder to find good fresh food. But the upsurge in Tesco Metro, Sainsbury Local, and the like now mean that it's certainly possible to get access to virtually the same deals locally. Even the more traditional convenience chains have invested in better/healthier product ranges. And that's leaving aside things like more traditional markets, grocers and the like.
Besides, maybe if some people knocked the alcohol, cigarettes & takeaways on the head for a few weeks, they might have a bit more money to splurge on higher quality food and not just basic healthy fare. If not, that's their choice to prioritise other pleasures over the longer-term issue of their health. I respect that choice; it's their life. But I would strongly disagree that I - and by extension the state - have any responsibilty for it.
Besides, maybe if some people knocked the alcohol, cigarettes & takeaways on the head for a few weeks,
The report out today had a small passage that said that those on lower income are more likely to smoke, drink and gamble. They only explored smoking, but said if a couple smoked 20 a day and had a income of £21k, 25% of their available money would be going on the ciggies.
Even if they bought knocked off stuff, it would be about ~15%.
That some food for thought..no pun intended...well maybe a bit.
Apples are one of the healthiest things to eat. They're also one of the cheapest.
Someone needs to tell the likes of Kevin Maguire that.
Don't be silly, what you need first and foremost from your diet is calories. How many apples do you think you need to eat to get a days worth of calories? And independently of that what is so healthy about them anyway?
Modern high sugar varieties are also really, really bad for your teeth. So not really cheap when you factor in additional dentistry.
Bollocks!
The poor in Britain are the fattest sub-group of one of the fattest countries in the world!
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
Fair play, the least bad option then.
But if the EU is what makes you hold your nose then surely the tories and ab actual referendum on the table is worth it even if Cameron surely wouldn't want brexit,hannan thinks he at least gets a gets a vote this way. Ukip could happily be opposition for years complaining and a pressure group.
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
If he was guilty of a crime that was unrelated to his position as an MP then one could accept a time limit. If he was guilty of a crime that was directly related to his position as an MP then I don't think there should be a time limit. He was found guilty by an inquiry of breaching one of the fundamental rules of Parliament and I don't consider he should be allowed back even after this length of time. The same would go for Mercer and anyone else who breaches those basic rules.
Its an absurd comparison with Thorpe who was found not guilty - although clearly embroiled in some scandal. Thorpe lost his seat at an election I think. The point about Hamilton is that he is an idiot. He may have been framed but if so it was by someone he had got involved with. He had already been pushed out of one seat hadn't he? Now he is being parachuted in?
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
If he was guilty of a crime that was unrelated to his position as an MP then one could accept a time limit. If he was guilty of a crime that was directly related to his position as an MP then I don't think there should be a time limit. He was found guilty by an inquiry of breaching one of the fundamental rules of Parliament and I don't consider he should be allowed back even after this length of time. The same would go for Mercer and anyone else who breaches those basic rules.
Life sentence? That sounds too harsh.
If a constituency votes him in then they've made their own decision. I think the fact that memories would have faded so much (and the expenses scandal) would mean that he's served his time in the wilderness.
The twitter account of Natasha Bolter seems a little odd...
She's been having a go at Farage for the breastfeeding and Road congestion stuff, all weekend, but was tweeting that it was crazy to call UKIP racist just a fortnight ago
UKIP have been a bit hasty accepting people into the party who weren't members a short time ago and then putting them in prominent positions. The young student woman who was on Channel 4 News about a year ago springs to mind.
Like it or not, we are probably returning to the political system of the mid 1800s, where you voted for an mp, and they used their discretion.
There's a tension there, isn't there... we vote for local MPs, knowing they're part of a large national organisation. When the crunch comes, will they vote local or national? Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other.
Personally, I never vote local/individual; instead I pick the party I view as least-worst nationally. I also rarely consider individual policy in too much detail, preferring to look at their general current approach to dealing with problems. My rationale is that ultimately, central party organisations will mostly tend to have more effective control over MPs than vice versa, and that too many unexpected events happen to prioritise policy over general approach/philosophy. Of course really extreme candidates or really extreme policies might sway me, but in general, looking at the system of government that we have, I like to pretend that my way is the least-worst approach to deciding the least-worst way to vote.
The twitter account of Natasha Bolter seems a little odd...
She's been having a go at Farage for the breastfeeding and Road congestion stuff, all weekend, but was tweeting that it was crazy to call UKIP racist just a fortnight ago
These occurrences will only get more frequent. It's ridiculously easy to plant people in any political party, especially a fast growing one like UKIP that constantly attracts new members. The political establishment simply will not tolerate a party like UKIP gaining power.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
a proportion of overseas aid should be conditional on implementing elementary education for girls
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
a proportion of overseas aid should be conditional on implementing elementary education for girls
Does "Overseas Aid" include the - shall we say - protection money we give to Brussels each year?
Oh, and I should say for the record -I think the traffic jam comment was ridiculous. We've all felt like saying unthinkable things when we've been stuck in traffic, so I will put it down to that, but I must admit I wasn't impressed. Total opposite to breastgate, which played into Farage's hands beautifully. (so to speak)
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
a proportion of overseas aid should be conditional on implementing elementary education for girls
Does "Overseas Aid" include the - shall we say - protection money we give to Brussels each year?
As far as I know, most Belgian girls are able to obtain state education
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
If he was guilty of a crime that was unrelated to his position as an MP then one could accept a time limit. If he was guilty of a crime that was directly related to his position as an MP then I don't think there should be a time limit. He was found guilty by an inquiry of breaching one of the fundamental rules of Parliament and I don't consider he should be allowed back even after this length of time. The same would go for Mercer and anyone else who breaches those basic rules.
Life sentence? That sounds too harsh.
If a constituency votes him in then they've made their own decision. I think the fact that memories would have faded so much (and the expenses scandal) would mean that he's served his time in the wilderness.
The twitter account of Natasha Bolter seems a little odd...
She's been having a go at Farage for the breastfeeding and Road congestion stuff, all weekend, but was tweeting that it was crazy to call UKIP racist just a fortnight ago
These occurrences will only get more frequent. It's ridiculously easy to plant people in any political party, especially a fast growing one like UKIP that constantly attracts new members. The political establishment simply will not tolerate a party like UKIP gaining power.
You are right there regarding planting people... I canvassed in Clacton with Suzanne Evans who is the deputy chairman of UKIP, and in all honesty I could have been anyone.. they didn't really check up who I was.. also met a few of the other UKIP people in Farage and Carswell, so could have caused mischief if I was a plant
Have to say no one was racist or sexist in front of me
On the Natasha Bolter story, call me old fashioned, but I read this and cant see what has happened that made her want to leave? Unless there is more to be revealed, hasn't an old man just tried his luck with a younger woman and got a knockback?
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
If he was guilty of a crime that was unrelated to his position as an MP then one could accept a time limit. If he was guilty of a crime that was directly related to his position as an MP then I don't think there should be a time limit. He was found guilty by an inquiry of breaching one of the fundamental rules of Parliament and I don't consider he should be allowed back even after this length of time. The same would go for Mercer and anyone else who breaches those basic rules.
Life sentence? That sounds too harsh.
If a constituency votes him in then they've made their own decision. I think the fact that memories would have faded so much (and the expenses scandal) would mean that he's served his time in the wilderness.
where's Kilroy these days?
I think this article on Veritas may need updating:
'The Tory MPs – who declined to be named ... One said: “There is a very wide frustration – most colleagues would agree that it would be much better to have an election this year rather than waiting til next.”'
Sounds like serious pessimism has taken hold. I wonder if Lab mps feel the same. If so, its only inertia and, of course, the office holders attachment to ministerial rank that's stopping it happening.
Interesting and impressive background (I can't claim any of that) but then it just amazes me more that you can be comfy with UKIP as a result - clearly you are close to the people in the local branches but when so much of their confirmed policy revolves around blaming outsiders, every frigging interview it's either Europe or immigration which is to blame for everything (other than the corporate parties too now as well).
what's their USP for you?
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
I entirely agree. Effective development of poor countries is the best long term way of stopping mass migration. I have seen some of the UK aid budget put into action and it genuinely does a lot of good.
Anti EU. And I share their belief that the EU is irredeemably bad for the UK. As such I will support them because they are the only non racist party campaigning for us to leave the EU.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
Ok thanks for that and yes if being in the single market is so bad, you could say those outside the club are missing out but in the view that you look at fairness for the bigger world not just members, how does slashing overseas aid to buttons fit with a more outward approach than the EU zone?
It doesn't. It is one of a number of policies I disagree with. I am a reluctant supporter of any party and unlike some of the fanatics on here from the three main parties will certainly not try and defend UKIP 'right or wrong'. I certainly believe the Overseas Aid budget needs radical reform but actually cutting the amount is not something I agree with.
I entirely agree. Effective development of poor countries is the best long term way of stopping mass migration. I have seen some of the UK aid budget put into action and it genuinely does a lot of good.
and some of it is used to pay for other country's space programs... it might not need cutting but it damn sure needs root-and-branch reform if it isnt going to lose its remaining credibility.
However, Mr Cameron on Monday faced criticism from Anna Soubry, the Tory defence minister, over the plans, which she warned could “prey to people’s prejudices”.
She told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme: “I want to know and understand why my Prime Minister, who I have huge amounts of respect for and has done an outstanding job, I want to know why he has come to that conclusion.
Comments
"Veteran BBC political producer Paul Lambert has joined the UK Independence Party as their communications director.
Mr Lambert, nicknamed "Gobby", is well known in Westminster for shouting questions to ministers on their way in and out of 10 Downing St.
He said he was "delighted" to add his experience to the UKIP team."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30366982
what's their USP for you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570
She alleges that Mr Bird told her that “loads of girls” slept with men in political parties.
Daniel Finkelstein@Dannythefink·2 mins2 minutes ago
So, I've read our (@thetimes) incredible Ukip story and one of my main reactions is....they are putting up Neil Hamilton as an MP. Really?
Should there be some sort of time limit on punishment of politicians?
I mean, he lost his seat 17 years ago.
Is there any chance of rehabilitation for a politician? Jeremy Thorpe I can understand, but Hamilton?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4XqUUhCAAAdA79.jpg
That's how things work in hung parliaments, the New Politics, parties working together etc etc.
And the price demanded by the DUP, whilst no doubt exorbitant, would be less than that the SNP would demand.
If someone is really concerned about the welfare of "ordinary British people", reducing the deficit is very important, because anonymous investors hold their long-term welfare in the palm of their hand. No lending - or, more realistically for a generally well-off country like Britain, lending at a higher interest rate - and those people WILL suffer. And it will be the poorest plus the lower middle classes that will suffer the most, not those with greater resources to shield themselves from the pain.
However, the saving grace is that the last thing any investor wants is to lose money. It's better to keep a borrower hooked on borrowing (and paying back just enough to make you money). Just ask any payday loan company or even a traditional bank.
So it's perfectly possible to find a way of continuing to borrow in the long term, if you can temporarily convince investors that you'll be able to keep on repaying the interest despite any short-term troubles. The obvious way to do that it is moderate the total debt you run as a percentage of GDP. Keep that at a reasonable level, and you can keep borrowing forever. Go too high and you'll run into trouble through a combination of slowing growth and reducing bond market confidence pushing up interest rates.
Given how outrageously how our total debt as a percentage of GDP is at the moment, we need to give GDP time to catch up and so reduce the percentage. That is the only way to be able to keep borrowing enough in the future to keep all the balls in the air. By aiming high in terms of how much you shout internationally about trying to cut the deficit, you create enough a smokescreen to keep investors happy and keep borrowing while waiting for GDP to catch up. This is precisely why the UK has got away with missing initial targets for deficit reduction; the credibility bought by sounding tough let us pause in 2012/13 while the Eurozone crisis caused "unexpected" problems.
Fortunately for them, they are still electorally on the outside (and even having a handful of MPs need not change that if they play their cards right), and the faux outrage directed at them remains overdone and certainly at the top Farage's style, including occasional genuine blunders, are not at all a hindrance and in cases as the article says reflect what a lot of people do think, and the opinion of the other parties is so low UKIP can get away with pretending they are not subject to inevitable aspects of being a political party for a bit longer yet. Times are looking promising for them, and whether it ends up imploding spectacularly or reaching yet new heights, we're all the better for it.
Whoever first came up with the idea ought to win the Nobel Prize for successfully starting an erroneous meme.
And though of course I did not have sight of any coalition agreement at the time of my vote, when I voted I hoped it would contribute toward the possibility of a LD-Con Coalition, so there was at least one voter who voted for this government, if not necessarily the policy framework they stitched together, so maybe that argument can be retired, or at least qualified. Do I regret wanting that outcome? Eh, it may have ended up being an incompetent government, but out of the options available I don't think there would have been an extreme difference one way or another?
Generally, with majority governments, they aim to deliver most of their manifesto. Subsequent events may well blow them off course. And they can react to such events in ways that voters feel betray their party principles. But to me, that's very different from having to create a hybrid new manifesto to implement right from the start instead.
Immigration bothers me only in so far as the current policy being both idiotic and fundamentally racist. Any immigration policy based on the principle that an unskilled European should find it easier to come and settle in the UK than a highly qualified non European is inherently unfair and racist. It is bad for both the country and for those who deserve to be allowed in. It also skews our whole immigration and asylum policy and makes the country as a whole less willing to accept those who genuinely need help.
In the end I am comfortable with the people I meet and work with in UKIP because they do not in anyway match the stereotype being portrayed by the party's opponents. I am less comfortable with the party as a whole simply because it is a party, trying to succeed in the political arena and I think that the sorts of people who get to the top in our current party system are not people to be either trusted or admired. That goes as much for Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Salmond as it does for Farage.
I couldn't care less if they were run just like every other party really, how else could they do it?
Lots of spring greens, kale, spinach, carrots, etc, really really cheap. You can get massive bags of spring greens for <£1.
No candy, no desserts, etc, just juiced cocoa + fruit + milk, works out at pennies.
It seems to me, the big cost (aside from processed stuff) these days is meat. If you insist on eating meat every day, you soon rack up quite a big bill at the store. Now I am by no means a vegetation, but cutting right down on meat intake has slashed my weekly bill.
Errr.. Hang on.. Pots? Kettles? RT @SarahVine: @agendaitv How did Ed Balls ever bag Yvette? That is the real question of the night
Snicker. Although is he insulting Gove or Sarah Vine?
Politics had fragmented. The UK had changed from the 1950s, when the Conservatives and Labour parties would amass 95% of the vote between them. Like it or not, we are probably returning to the political system of the mid 1800s, where you voted for an mp, and they used their discretion.
https://twitter.com/edballsmp/status/542101694075928576
Someone needs to tell the likes of Kevin Maguire that.
Something involving a Red Box.
I may need years of therapy now.
I've always thought he looks a bit like Robbie Williams...
Did I read that Roger Bird is 41? Looks a fair bit older than that
To govern is to choose. At least if one party's manifesto has the support of a third of the electorate, it's an informed and hopefully consistent choice taking account of all the choices which have to be made. If there are three or four competing programmes, well, fair enough: it's clearly impossible for them all to win. One has to be chosen.
Modern high sugar varieties are also really, really bad for your teeth. So not really cheap when you factor in additional dentistry.
Always quick to blast others for choices their parents made about their schooling, not so keen to engage in the same argument about him and his wife's backgrounds and currently extremely comfortable existence.
It is like he is embarrassed about being a good grammar school boy and his wife being a St Paul's alumni. Maybe that is why he overdoes the Tory toff's Eton / Bullingdon stuff.
It's not purely a UKIP thing, it's the same idea as Tories or Labour trying suggest they are morally better than the other somehow, but UKIP are able to be more blatant about it by virtue of being appreciably in a different category than the others electorally and in style. It's bloody irritating but any who genuinely believe it, and I hope they are few, will be disabused of the notion in time even if UKIP are able to be best among the rest in terms of such behaviour, and it's a legitimate tactic used by all and sundry, so I attach no blame to UKIP for pushing it. They just push it a bit far sometimes, probably due to over enthusiasm.
Good night all.
She only defected in September, Bird is a quick worker.
Interesting in the new politics that the UKIP General Secretary has a 'London Club'.
Now thats fine by me but well we hear so much about how the metropolitan elite are all to blame from kipper apologists...
What will they make of these allegations in the Times
''She claimed, she was told by another prospective parliamentary candidate that her only job was “to look pretty and to get us votes”. On another occasion, a local party chairman allegedly told her that a woman with a young baby was a “f***ing Pole” who “hasn’t worked out the benefits system and how to get a free pushchair”. ''
She's been having a go at Farage for the breastfeeding and Road congestion stuff, all weekend, but was tweeting that it was crazy to call UKIP racist just a fortnight ago
@bnasa
I really don't buy the last point at all; I mean, who in the UK doesn't know it's healthier to eat vegetables than Big Macs? If you're that ill-informed, it's nothing to do with formal education or even intelligence, and everything to do with wilfully shutting yourself from the messages being shouted at you from the rooftops.
I would agree that advertising is extremely powerful, but it's still up to the individual to take personal responsibility for what they shove down their own throats. Sweets aren't a product like tobacco where there's no safe minimum, justifying (assuming that you believe in the role of the state in this sort of thing) anti-smoking measures. No matter how powerful the advertising message, consistent willpower can override it. It is true that the constant stress & pressure of making ends meet DOES make it harder to maintain willpower and good decision-making, but that's not a reason to abrogate the ongoing reality of personal responsibility in this matter, especially since it actually makes their lives easier to eat healthier by cutting their shopping bill.
The strongest argument was probably the first: it's more expensive to shop locally, and harder to find good fresh food. But the upsurge in Tesco Metro, Sainsbury Local, and the like now mean that it's certainly possible to get access to virtually the same deals locally. Even the more traditional convenience chains have invested in better/healthier product ranges. And that's leaving aside things like more traditional markets, grocers and the like.
Besides, maybe if some people knocked the alcohol, cigarettes & takeaways on the head for a few weeks, they might have a bit more money to splurge on higher quality food and not just basic healthy fare. If not, that's their choice to prioritise other pleasures over the longer-term issue of their health. I respect that choice; it's their life. But I would strongly disagree that I - and by extension the state - have any responsibilty for it.
Even if they bought knocked off stuff, it would be about ~15%.
That some food for thought..no pun intended...well maybe a bit.
The poor in Britain are the fattest sub-group of one of the fattest countries in the world!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2538708/Poor-children-likely-obese-Study-finds-weight-creating-class-divide.html
A bit of fruit and veg from the market is better than a takeaway pizza.
But if the EU is what makes you hold your nose then surely the tories and ab actual referendum on the table is worth it even if Cameron surely wouldn't want brexit,hannan thinks he at least gets a gets a vote this way. Ukip could happily be opposition for years complaining and a pressure group.
The point about Hamilton is that he is an idiot. He may have been framed but if so it was by someone he had got involved with.
He had already been pushed out of one seat hadn't he? Now he is being parachuted in?
No more needs to be said
If a constituency votes him in then they've made their own decision. I think the fact that memories would have faded so much (and the expenses scandal) would mean that he's served his time in the wilderness.
Personally, I never vote local/individual; instead I pick the party I view as least-worst nationally. I also rarely consider individual policy in too much detail, preferring to look at their general current approach to dealing with problems. My rationale is that ultimately, central party organisations will mostly tend to have more effective control over MPs than vice versa, and that too many unexpected events happen to prioritise policy over general approach/philosophy. Of course really extreme candidates or really extreme policies might sway me, but in general, looking at the system of government that we have, I like to pretend that my way is the least-worst approach to deciding the least-worst way to vote.
although I think Shettleston in less healthy despite having plenty of shops
Have to say no one was racist or sexist in front of me
On the Natasha Bolter story, call me old fashioned, but I read this and cant see what has happened that made her want to leave? Unless there is more to be revealed, hasn't an old man just tried his luck with a younger woman and got a knockback?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11281498/Ukip-star-woman-candidate-quits-over-sex-harassment-claims.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_(political_party)
I sense the Mail does not care much for her.
Sounds like serious pessimism has taken hold. I wonder if Lab mps feel the same. If so, its only inertia and, of course, the office holders attachment to ministerial rank that's stopping it happening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11281273/George-Osborne-Spending-cuts-are-a-price-worth-paying.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
"Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon 4h4 hours ago
Brent crude at $66.14. Wow, just wow. When I covered this on Newsnight last week it was $70."
twitter.com/DuncanWeldon/status/542075701118373888
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11280345/Ukip-will-hurt-Conservatives-more-than-Labour-in-2015-new-research-finds.html