Out of interest what's the country you're thinking of where you think the residence card for foreigners is really easy to forge but the equivalent identity card for nationals is hard to forge?
Nationals have a EU passport.
People holding national ID cards from EU countries can enter the UK with that, no?
I know you are trying to be obtuse here, but lets make a little effort. As a result of this ruling a person from outside the EU can go to a country that has easy to forge National residence card, and get one forged, and then use that as the sole required document to enter the UK.
As I understand it we currently ask people at Heathrow and Gatwick to show their EU Passports (https://www.gov.uk/uk-border-control/at-border-control) to enter the country, otherwise they have to apply for the entry permit as described in the article, which would enable us to do checks to see if we felt there their ID might not be honest, we are now not able to do so, we not have to take their forged national residence card at face value.
One little item of interest in the Ashcroft tables is the very different LibDem attitudes in a place like Ealing and a place like Great Grimsby.In Earling, 97% of LibDems rule out voting for UKIP, but just 33% rule out voting Labour. In GG, the figures are 44% and 68%. Even among Tories, the picture isn't that different. 66% of Tories in Ealing rule out Labour, while 84% rule out UKIP; in GG, however, the figures are 72% and 70%. LibDems are far from homogenous, and we should expect the Red Liberal phenomenon much more in urban and university-related seats than in northern Labour bastions where the LibDems were often the main alternative. (It's why I think Labour is worth a punt in Cambridge - surely the archetypal seat for Red Liberals.)
By contrast, UKIP voters rule out everyone with comparable percentages in the 60-80 range.
Mark is probably unaware that the week's data so far puts the LDs 0.7% ahead of where they were last week in ELBOW (7.5%).
Presumably ARSE and ELBOW plus the others are trying to add to the sum of human knowledge as well as entertain. Doesn't Mark raise some valid points which could improve the accuracy of your ELBOW?
Well, in the New Year, Lord Sunil has resolved to add data for the Greens along with Lab, Con, UKIP and LDs. Though the editorial team were heavily divided.
Mark Commode (the Sunil's film critic) and Clair Fix (Page 3 Model Trains) were in favour. Mystic Smeg (resident clairvoyant) and Olie Jamiver (our "TV" chef) were adamantly opposed.
One little item of interest in the Ashcroft tables is the very different LibDem attitudes in a place like Ealing and a place like Great Grimsby.In Earling, 97% of LibDems rule out voting for UKIP, but just 33% rule out voting Labour. In GG, the figures are 44% and 68%. Even among Tories, the picture isn't that different. 66% of Tories in Ealing rule out Labour, while 84% rule out UKIP; in GG, however, the figures are 72% and 70%. LibDems are far from homogenous, and we should expect the Red Liberal phenomenon much more in urban and university-related seats than in northern Labour bastions where the LibDems were often the main alternative. (It's why I think Labour is worth a punt in Cambridge - surely the archetypal seat for Red Liberals.)
By contrast, UKIP voters rule out everyone with comparable percentages in the 60-80 range.
I am never sure how to judge these sorts of poll findings. If I was going to buy a car I would state my preference as buying a red one, if someone would ask me if I would rule out buying a black one, I would say no, if they asked me if I would rule out buying a pink one I would say yes. Pollsters would they announce that people in my house were red car voters, but had a 50% chance of buying black and a 0% chance of buying pink.... However despite all that if you looked in my driveway tomorrow you would find a red car.
Why man-bites-dog stories don't happen very often...
A man bit a dog during an altercation before running into a Cambridge convenience store where he died, it has emerged.
Police have confirmed the man, who is in his 40s, bit the animal, believed to be a Staffordshire bull terrier, near the One Stop shop in Ditton Lane.
The man, who lived in the area but has yet to be formally identified, had been involved in an altercation with a 45-year-old man in nearby Dudley Road.
It was there that he bit the dog before running in his socks into the convenience store, where he was later found dead in the doorway.
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
The standard bearer and catalyst for the SNP and independence is 'close to collapse'. This first of all rings alarm bells for the whole UK, but surely marks disaster for an independent Scotland.
You're fighting the last war here, the focus now is on GE2015 - "No" to independence was the best thing that could have possibly happened to the SNP.
I would like to think so, from a hammering of Labour point of view. Its an interesting concept that pulling the economic rug from under an independent Scotland and exposing the economic lies of the party peddling that independence and ending the ambitions underpinning the existence of that party is good for that party.
When the cuts come and people see that what Yes campaign said actually occurred, it will not be the SNP blamed. It will be the lying toerag unionist parties. Poverty beckons for the labour drones who helped the Tories and hopefully they enjoy their shafting when queuing in the rain at the foodbanks..
Hello Mr g what a pathetic 'toerag' it is you are. The only liars were the SNP, ie you... who claimed the oil price was stable and called those who said it was not 'liars'. You should know that I regard everything about you and your warped nasty vitriolic politics as disgusting. Scotland has been saved I'm pleased to say by the unionists. And when we look at the utter and complete bigoted likes of you that its been saved from I think a big debt of gratitude is owed all round. Scotland is a nice place, you don't deserve it.
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
In the same way that when you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail, when you are a Labour politician holding HM Treasury, everything looks like something that needs public money. They need to find and articulate a left of centre reason for their existence that doesn't involve throwing large amounts of public money at people, because there won't be large amounts of spare public money for a long time, if ever.
The public know money is tight, they dont like it, but I think they largely accept it. They may indeed be looking for someone to articulate a "fairer" view of how the country should be run (for whatever your prefered value of "fairer" is), but currently Labour is just trying to be a softer cuddler version of the Tories, in effect "LabCuts - cutting spending with a conscience". Where are the towering intellects of the left, that can think of a different way to do things that doesn't involve spending money we dont have, and doesn't involve huge tax rises that will kill our economy in a global world.
Making obesity into a 'disability' is a ridiculous and dangerous precedent. Being grossly obese is a lifestyle choice pure and simple. I've seen enough TV documentary on the subject to know every single one of them without exception is superfat because of gross over-eating and nothing else. Cake addiction is not a disability. It may be a disease (as all addiction can become I suppose). But then all addictions should qualify. Will we know make minging, can't stand up, argue with a lamp-post drunkenness a 'disability'? Why the effing hell should the rest of society be obliged to accommodate the chronically weak willed?
Should society accommodate people that have become disabled as a result of the choices they have made? I don't know. But if you are 40 stone and cannot move it seems pretty obvious to me that you are not going to be physically able in the way you would be if you were 20 stone lighter. Thus, you are disabled.
If you cannot move due to being 40 stone , unless someone keeps shovelling food into you, it should not be long dropping off and you being able to move again. If you don't eat you don't put on weight or even stay the same weight.
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
They'll never get a major party acting more 'Green like' than Labour are at the moment. There's the mansion tax, (part) rail renationalisation, minimum wage rise, freezing energy bills, no privitization etc. Yet Greens are still at their highest point despite Labour totally pandering to this type of voter.
If Labour lose in 2015 and then go back to the New Labour strategy then there really will be nothing much between the two main parties for left/centre-left voters.
The standard bearer and catalyst for the SNP and independence is 'close to collapse'. This first of all rings alarm bells for the whole UK, but surely marks disaster for an independent Scotland.
You're fighting the last war here, the focus now is on GE2015 - "No" to independence was the best thing that could have possibly happened to the SNP.
I would like to think so, from a hammering of Labour point of view. Its an interesting concept that pulling the economic rug from under an independent Scotland and exposing the economic lies of the party peddling that independence and ending the ambitions underpinning the existence of that party is good for that party.
When the cuts come and people see that what Yes campaign said actually occurred, it will not be the SNP blamed. It will be the lying toerag unionist parties.
Fortunately, we in Scotland do not have to experience the results of the lies, bullying, distortions of truth and outright bluster of an independent Fantasy Scotland run by the Yestapo of the SNP under Alec Salmond.
The one question you will not like to answer is: Why did the membership of the SNP soar immediately after Salmond resigned? Hint: It wasn't as an outpouring of grief at His departure.
And as Nicola Sturgeon remarked, if (ever) Salmond returns to (the hated towers and chambers down in) England, the MP's in Westminster will certainly be shaking in their shoes. They will be laughing their socks off at him.
Ha Ha Ha , spoken as a true labour donkey , hee haw , hee haw
Making obesity into a 'disability' is a ridiculous and dangerous precedent. Being grossly obese is a lifestyle choice pure and simple. I've seen enough TV documentary on the subject to know every single one of them without exception is superfat because of gross over-eating and nothing else. Cake addiction is not a disability. It may be a disease (as all addiction can become I suppose). But then all addictions should qualify. Will we know make minging, can't stand up, argue with a lamp-post drunkenness a 'disability'? Why the effing hell should the rest of society be obliged to accommodate the chronically weak willed?
Should society accommodate people that have become disabled as a result of the choices they have made? I don't know. But if you are 40 stone and cannot move it seems pretty obvious to me that you are not going to be physically able in the way you would be if you were 20 stone lighter. Thus, you are disabled.
If you cannot move due to being 40 stone , unless someone keeps shovelling food into you, it should not be long dropping off and you being able to move again. If you don't eat you don't put on weight or even stay the same weight.
Obesity isn't as simple as that. Part of the problem indeed, but by no means the whole story.
OT slightly..can anyone explain why Burnham called for an UQ this morning regarding the NHS..He had absolutely nothing to say and was rightly slaughtered for his efforts..a total Rodney.
The concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. The Court emphasises that this concept must be understood as referring not only to the impossibility of exercising a professional activity, but also to a hindrance to the exercise of such an activity. The directive has the object of implementing equal treatment and aims in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to or participate in employment. In addition, it would run counter to the aim of the directive if its application was dependent on the origin of the disability.
The CJEU, of course, is tasked with interpreting European law as laid out in various directives and regulations. It does not pluck its rulings out of nowhere.
It's bollocks. The human body evolved to cope within certain parameters for calories in, calories out, blood sugar levels, blood everything else levels etc. If you 'operate' your body outside its 'design parameters' it will malfunction. If you stop opertating it thus it will revert to normal.
Being greedy, physically lazy or both puts you 'outside' the envelope - and you get fat or dead. Live a healthy life and soon enough you revert to normal.
Drinking too much or too quickly puts you outside the envelope too -and you get drunk. Stop drinking though and soon enough you get sober again.
There's no conceptual difference between these self-inflicted disabilities - only the timeframe.
Cameron made a big deal of cutting the number of SpAds from 82 to 61. He now personally has 27. Twenty-f**king-seven spin doctors, bag carriers and wonky strategists. No. 10 now has almost half the number of SpAds as served the entire government just five years ago.
Nick Clegg now has twenty special advisers. Nearly double the amount that Jesus got by with.
OT slightly..can anyone explain why Burnham called for an UQ this morning regarding the NHS..He had absolutely nothing to say and was rightly slaughtered for his efforts..a total Rodney.
Got on the news though. Driving about at lunchtime, airwaves filled with doom about the NHS. Job done politically.
This is what the Tories don't really get. They might wipe the floor with their opponents in the HoC, but nobody is watching that. They get all their news via tiny soundbites delivered by the likes of the BBC.
So what did they get, bad news about waiting times at A&E.
The fact is is 93% rather than 95%, or whatever..i.e despite a massive increase in A&E visits (combo of GP contract (Labour fault), immigration (Labour fault / Tories not much better), and increasing aging population, nobodies fault) basically everybody is still getting seen and Labour controlled NHS in Wales is the worst, but in the game of politics what the public hears is
"UK A&E missing targets" = Tory led government fault
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
Is the answer "Labour don't really stand for anything?"
Cameron made a big deal of cutting the number of SpAds from 82 to 61. He now personally has 27. Twenty-f**king-seven spin doctors, bag carriers and wonky strategists. No. 10 now has almost half the number of SpAds as served the entire government just five years ago.
Nick Clegg now has twenty special advisers. Nearly double the amount that Jesus got by with.
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
They'll never get a major party acting more 'Green like' than Labour are at the moment. There's the mansion tax, (part) rail renationalisation, minimum wage rise, freezing energy bills, no privitization etc. Yet Greens are still at their highest point despite Labour totally pandering to this type of voter.
If Labour lose in 2015 and then go back to the New Labour strategy then there really will be nothing much between the two main parties for left/centre-left voters.
The general distrust of politicians is making pandering quite a hazardous occupation. The problem is that the people you're trying to pander to don't believe you, while the people who oppose the pander do. This has been a problem for both Cameron and Miliband on immigration: Labour have said enough to annoy pro-immigration people like myself (a British ESTA? FFS) without being remotely close to getting Isam back. They're in a similar position on austerity, and Cameron is in the same place on the EU.
I think we're seeing the limits of the approaches that served them well under two-party politics: Eg the Tories used to be able to say, "The EU is dreadful, let's stay in it but opt out of things occasionally", and Labour could say, "these cuts are outrageous, we'll reverse a tiny fraction of them". That doesn't work if the voters have the option of voting for a party that not only says X is bad, but also proposes to actually do something about it.
FU..which really means that the BBc is the political broadcast wing of the Labour party
Well you might think they are bias to Labour, I think they are bias to their collective overwhelming Liberal Metro Elite world view due to their intake and culture (as Humphreys pointed out the other day), but that is an aside.
The Tories know that this is the case, and there are other media outlet, who will be reporting exactly the same.
What the Tories don't seem to get is how to play the day to day game of using the media to get your message out.
Labour when in power was just outstanding at taking something and making sure even the least politically engaged individual, became aware of it. The policy might not really add up to much, but they would spin it and ram it home, relentlessly.
People don't watch the HoC, people don't really take more than a passing interest, and they forget. So your message has to be clear, concise and repeated ad-nauseam.
In contrast, I bet loads of low paid workers don't really understand or realise the impact of the Income Tax Threshold rise. The government do a terrible job of ramming that message home.
The Tories in general try to be too clever by half and I think often when they do have a good message to spread, they do an incredibly bad job of making it known.
Unemployment right down...I bet loads of people don't really know just quite how far it is fallen and pay rises above inflation. Now on here we can argue about quality of jobs, pay etc, but Labour in power would have been all over this and it would be relentless, every interview, every opportunity, day in day out for weeks / months on end.
@IsabelHardman: I’ve been passed an amusing email to Labour MPs advertising ‘quick and dirty’ report on Ukip that caused such a row http://t.co/2qHfOwLQk3
The bigger UK economy is able to withstand these oil shocks. It seems to me that one thing we might see in the Budget is an announcement of measures to help the Scottish economy.
The bigger UK economy is able to withstand these oil shocks. It seems to me that one thing we might see in the Budget is an announcement of measures to help the Scottish economy.
You will have to run that past me again. Are you suggesting that the tory party introducing measures to help Scotland is a waste of time? If there is a negative oil shock for Scotland its probably the right thing to do. I suppose if we accept the SNP position then help is not needed.
Like my husband keeps telling you, UKIP's blown its chance by not going anti-fracking. The Green surge continues and could yet eclipse UKIP. It's all down to fracking, GMOs and the environment. Fracker Farage is already fading.
Making obesity into a 'disability' is a ridiculous and dangerous precedent. Being grossly obese is a lifestyle choice pure and simple. I've seen enough TV documentary on the subject to know every single one of them without exception is superfat because of gross over-eating and nothing else. Cake addiction is not a disability. It may be a disease (as all addiction can become I suppose). But then all addictions should qualify. Will we know make minging, can't stand up, argue with a lamp-post drunkenness a 'disability'? Why the effing hell should the rest of society be obliged to accommodate the chronically weak willed?
Should society accommodate people that have become disabled as a result of the choices they have made? I don't know. But if you are 40 stone and cannot move it seems pretty obvious to me that you are not going to be physically able in the way you would be if you were 20 stone lighter. Thus, you are disabled.
It may seem like semantics, but it is important.
In the scenario you paint it is the co-morbidities that should trigger the disability status, not the obesity per se. It's wrong to classify "obesity" as a disability.
But where there is an underlying condition (mental or otherwise) that triggers the co-morbidity then I would make any assistance conditional on treatment of the underlying condition (usually psychological therapy and, if they show progress, potentially surgical intervention in those cases where it would be beneficial).
There's a fantastic little company that is working in this are by developing holistic approaches to transform the treatment paradigm
Like my husband keeps telling you, UKIP's blown its chance by not going anti-fracking. The Green surge continues and could yet eclipse UKIP. It's all down to fracking, GMOs and the environment. Fracker Farage is already fading.
Welcome to PB nevertheless.
Or maybe not - looks like his message disappeared into the ether...
Looking at these marginals, there is an interesting contrast between Ealing which has Labour gaining 10% and Harrow East, where they are making no progress at all. Any thoughts on why such a big difference between 2 nearby seats?
Shane - with the oil price tanking surely fracking will be off the agenda for now?
One little item of interest in the Ashcroft tables is the very different LibDem attitudes in a place like Ealing and a place like Great Grimsby.In Earling, 97% of LibDems rule out voting for UKIP, but just 33% rule out voting Labour. In GG, the figures are 44% and 68%. Even among Tories, the picture isn't that different. 66% of Tories in Ealing rule out Labour, while 84% rule out UKIP; in GG, however, the figures are 72% and 70%. LibDems are far from homogenous, and we should expect the Red Liberal phenomenon much more in urban and university-related seats than in northern Labour bastions where the LibDems were often the main alternative. (It's why I think Labour is worth a punt in Cambridge - surely the archetypal seat for Red Liberals.)
By contrast, UKIP voters rule out everyone with comparable percentages in the 60-80 range.
I am never sure how to judge these sorts of poll findings. If I was going to buy a car I would state my preference as buying a red one, if someone would ask me if I would rule out buying a black one, I would say no, if they asked me if I would rule out buying a pink one I would say yes. Pollsters would they announce that people in my house were red car voters, but had a 50% chance of buying black and a 0% chance of buying pink.... However despite all that if you looked in my driveway tomorrow you would find a red car.
Yes, I agree - it's a bit like those surveys asking "Would you emigrate if you had the chance" and 40% say yes, but never really consider it. But it's relevant here because the ENTIRE election strategy of the main parties depends on some of these potential defectors actually doing it. If they don't, then the election is over and Ed is PM with a minority government.
So it's important to know how realistic it is to think they might change (would you buy a black car if they offered you £300 off?), and especially if it means deciding where to put their election resources.
(When I bought a Corsa 10 years ago they actually did offer me £400 off if I took a blue car rather than make them order a red car that they didn't have in stock. I took it.)
The bigger UK economy is able to withstand these oil shocks. It seems to me that one thing we might see in the Budget is an announcement of measures to help the Scottish economy.
You will have to run that past me again. Are you suggesting that the tory party introducing measures to help Scotland is a waste of time? If there is a negative oil shock for Scotland its probably the right thing to do. I suppose if we accept the SNP position then help is not needed.
Support from the other members of the Union to help Scotland in dealing with an external shock (such as a decline in the oil price) could be described as a "union dividend".
Phrasing it as I did was nothing more than a bit of gentle trolling.
It wouldn't be right for a candidate for *any* political party to have a regular TV slot, especially (as I assume) the next series will overlap with the election campaign period.
Genuine question: Do you fear an Ed administration in any way? Would one be good for Labour in the long run?
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Ed, for lack of a better word, is good. Ed is right, Ed works. Ed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Ed, in all of his forms; Ed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Ed, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
"by developing holistic approaches to transform the treatment paradigm."
I assume that is a piss-take? But definitely a holistic one.
I was quite proud of that!
Actually, though, it's not. The company's developed a system, in partnership with John Hopkins, that co-locates nutritionals, physicians, exercise specialists and surgeons with a view to developing a comprehensive strategy for tackling obesity with a single point of contact for the patient...
It wouldn't be right for a candidate for *any* political party to have a regular TV slot, especially (as I assume) the next series will overlap with the election campaign period.
Nothing to do with it being UKIP.
Yep. Only sensible thing to do. I would expect the same no matter what party he was standing for.
I can see the temptation of the Greens. Unless something happens soon Labour's USP of being the only serious opposition to a slew of rather unpleasant right wing parties won't exist.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
They'll never get a major party acting more 'Green like' than Labour are at the moment. There's the mansion tax, (part) rail renationalisation, minimum wage rise, freezing energy bills, no privitization etc. Yet Greens are still at their highest point despite Labour totally pandering to this type of voter.
If Labour lose in 2015 and then go back to the New Labour strategy then there really will be nothing much between the two main parties for left/centre-left voters.
But they're also committed to more major cuts at a time when "left-wing" people think the cuts have already gone too far, have said the last Labour government wasn't tough enough on immigration, and have promised to be "tougher than the Tories" on welfare.
I would personally welcome a move back to a "New Labour strategy" because, no matter how hard I look, all I can ever see when I examine Labour's current offering is a platform more right-wing than anything Blair ever stood on. (Miliband might be personally more left-wing than Blair but that hardly matters compared to what he's actually going to do.)
I would personally welcome a move back to a "New Labour strategy" because, no matter how hard I look, all I can ever see when I examine Labour's current offering is a platform more right-wing than anything Blair ever stood on. (Miliband might be personally more left-wing than Blair but that hardly matters compared to what he's actually going to do.)
If the leader doesn't want to do it, and yet is doing it anyway, the logical assumption is that he doesn't believe he has any choice. That being the case it's likely that if Blair was in his position and won the election he would probably do the same things as well - although with far greater elan and less failure in the bacon sandwich eating department.
The left have to accept the depressing possibility that the way they want to world to be run just isn't possible at the moment, to be fair the way the right want it to be run isn't possible either, I doubt very much if Cameron came into politics wondering what he could cut next.
Are we still talking about fatness being a disability?
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
I would personally welcome a move back to a "New Labour strategy" because, no matter how hard I look, all I can ever see when I examine Labour's current offering is a platform more right-wing than anything Blair ever stood on. (Miliband might be personally more left-wing than Blair but that hardly matters compared to what he's actually going to do.)
If the leader doesn't want to do it, and yet is doing it anyway, the logical assumption is that he doesn't believe he has any choice. That being the case it's likely that if Blair was in his position and won the election he would probably do the same things as well - although with far greater elan and less failure in the bacon sandwich eating department.
The left have to accept the depressing possibility that the way they want to world to be run just isn't possible at the moment, to be fair the way the right want it to be run isn't possible either, I doubt very much if Cameron came into politics wondering what he could cut next.
Perhaps Blair would be doing the same things as Miliband if he was leader now, but, irrespective of whether cuts are inevitable or not, it doesn't change the fact that Miliband is standing on a more right-wing platform than Blair did. So I just can't understand why people would be confused about left-wing voters being unhappy with Labour's offering, or for people to think that Labour's "austerity-lite" policies should be offering all potential Green voters everything they want, when that's patently not the case (though as I say, whether Miliband had any choice in committing to austerity is a different argument).
The trend is incredibly clear for anyone willing to see it. Labour are in big trouble, by May 2015 the marginal swing will be well below what is required to gain the most seats let alone a majority. Even though I think Osborne announcing a perpetual state of austerity was wrong, or he at least got the wrong tone of seeming happy about it, I think there have been enough tangible improvements in the economy for the Tories to claim a victory and with real wage rises now really coming through people will begin to "feel" the recovery in a personal sense and will be more willing to listen to the government arguments on economic stewardship. Not only has Osborne been lucky, but so has Dave, we are about to enter a new period of economic uncertainty with Russia and developing nations circling the drain along with the continued stagnation of the EU. It will be very easy to fight on the economy given that Balls and Miliband were in government when the last recession hit and it was the worst in our history.
I don't think it will be enough for the Cons to get a majority, I think UKIP will hurt them in the Midlands and allow Labour to hold on to too many marginals that they may otherwise have lost with Ed Miliband in charge, but they should remain at around 300 seats and definitely the largest party in the commons. The real question is who do they form a coalition with? I don't think the Lib Dems will be up for another 5 years of being on the wrong side of the austerity argument (at least where their voters and activists are concerned) and UKIP probably won't have the numbers. That leaves a minority government, minority coalition or rainbow alliance including Lab/Lib/SNP/PC vs Tory/UKIP on even numbers.
Are we still talking about fatness being a disability?
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
Pah.
Calma se! Nobody suggested denial of NHS treatment. Tbe issue was should companies be obliged to spend money on permament lard-arse accommodations such as sofa sized chairs or Arnold Stodgeman Going for the Magic Ton style belly trolleys (those in their late 40s may understand).
(...although I do wonder if eg gastric band operations should be considered elective surgery. All they do is limit the amount you can eat, which can also be done by simply not stuffing yer face...)
Are we still talking about fatness being a disability?
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
Pah.
Denying treatment isn't the same as saying it isn't a disability though is it?
I wouldn't deny treatment to a obese person who was obese through their own greed, but I wouldn't give them a disabled badge for parking etc etc
Are we still talking about fatness being a disability?
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
Pah.
Calma se! Nobody suggested denial of NHS treatment. Tbe issue was should companies be obliged to spend money on permament lard-arse accommodations such as sofa sized chairs or Arnold Stodgeman Going for the Magic Ton style belly trolleys (those in their late 40s may understand).
(...although I do wonder if eg gastric band operations should be considered elective surgery. All they do is limit the amount you can eat, which can also be done by simply not stuffing yer face...)
Ah. I see. Tricky one.
What if you played football, broke your leg and had to be in a wheelchair for a month. Or three.
They are saying that there shouldn't (or should) be a law to make your employer accommodate your injury. Or your obesity, albeit on a longer timeframe.
Hmm.
OK I have considered now this (very, very briefly) - the employer should assess the value an employee might bring to the firm and then employ them. Or not. If they employ them, they should accommodate their physical demands.
Should they be required to by law? Perhaps. It helps to swap "leg broken playing football" with "overweight/fat" I find.
Are we still talking about fatness being a disability?
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
Pah.
Calma se! Nobody suggested denial of NHS treatment. Tbe issue was should companies be obliged to spend money on permament lard-arse accommodations such as sofa sized chairs or Arnold Stodgeman Going for the Magic Ton style belly trolleys (those in their late 40s may understand).
Comments
As I understand it we currently ask people at Heathrow and Gatwick to show their EU Passports (https://www.gov.uk/uk-border-control/at-border-control) to enter the country, otherwise they have to apply for the entry permit as described in the article, which would enable us to do checks to see if we felt there their ID might not be honest, we are now not able to do so, we not have to take their forged national residence card at face value.
By contrast, UKIP voters rule out everyone with comparable percentages in the 60-80 range.
Mark Commode (the Sunil's film critic) and Clair Fix (Page 3 Model Trains) were in favour.
Mystic Smeg (resident clairvoyant) and Olie Jamiver (our "TV" chef) were adamantly opposed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-are-acceptable-travel-documents-for-entry-clearance-ecb08/ecb08-what-are-acceptable-travel-documents-for-entry-clearance
(Central forecast)
Con vote lead 9.4%
Con seat lead 90
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 99.9%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 26.2%
Chance of a Tory majority: 73.8%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%
A slight weakening of the strong Tory position from last month, probably just MOE
The figures would imply a Tory majority of about 20 with 335 seats.
The really irritating thing is it's never been easier to project a left of centre vision against this hodge podge of reactionary opponents but for whatever reason Labour just can't manage to spell out what they stand for
David Cameron has today launched a survey on getting English Votes for English Laws - please let us know your views
https://conservatives.com/englishvotes/
The only liars were the SNP, ie you... who claimed the oil price was stable and called those who said it was not 'liars'.
You should know that I regard everything about you and your warped nasty vitriolic politics as disgusting. Scotland has been saved I'm pleased to say by the unionists. And when we look at the utter and complete bigoted likes of you that its been saved from I think a big debt of gratitude is owed all round. Scotland is a nice place, you don't deserve it.
The public know money is tight, they dont like it, but I think they largely accept it. They may indeed be looking for someone to articulate a "fairer" view of how the country should be run (for whatever your prefered value of "fairer" is), but currently Labour is just trying to be a softer cuddler version of the Tories, in effect "LabCuts - cutting spending with a conscience". Where are the towering intellects of the left, that can think of a different way to do things that doesn't involve spending money we dont have, and doesn't involve huge tax rises that will kill our economy in a global world.
If you don't eat you don't put on weight or even stay the same weight.
If Labour lose in 2015 and then go back to the New Labour strategy then there really will be nothing much between the two main parties for left/centre-left voters.
Not if you read the CJEU judgement, you are not.
The concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive must be understood as referring to a limitation which results in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. The Court emphasises that this concept must be understood as referring not only to the impossibility of exercising a professional activity, but also to a hindrance to the exercise of such an activity. The directive has the object of implementing equal treatment and aims in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to or participate in employment. In addition, it would run counter to the aim of the directive if its application was dependent on the origin of the disability.
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_16799
The CJEU, of course, is tasked with interpreting European law as laid out in various directives and regulations. It does not pluck its rulings out of nowhere.
It's bollocks. The human body evolved to cope within certain parameters for calories in, calories out, blood sugar levels, blood everything else levels etc. If you 'operate' your body outside its 'design parameters' it will malfunction. If you stop opertating it thus it will revert to normal.
Being greedy, physically lazy or both puts you 'outside' the envelope - and you get fat or dead. Live a healthy life and soon enough you revert to normal.
Drinking too much or too quickly puts you outside the envelope too -and you get drunk. Stop drinking though and soon enough you get sober again.
There's no conceptual difference between these self-inflicted disabilities - only the timeframe.
Cameron made a big deal of cutting the number of SpAds from 82 to 61. He now personally has 27. Twenty-f**king-seven spin doctors, bag carriers and wonky strategists. No. 10 now has almost half the number of SpAds as served the entire government just five years ago.
Nick Clegg now has twenty special advisers. Nearly double the amount that Jesus got by with.
http://order-order.com/2014/12/18/what-the-helic-spad-bill-soars-to-8-4-million-no-10-stuffed-with-27-special-advisers-to-the-pm/
This is what the Tories don't really get. They might wipe the floor with their opponents in the HoC, but nobody is watching that. They get all their news via tiny soundbites delivered by the likes of the BBC.
So what did they get, bad news about waiting times at A&E.
The fact is is 93% rather than 95%, or whatever..i.e despite a massive increase in A&E visits (combo of GP contract (Labour fault), immigration (Labour fault / Tories not much better), and increasing aging population, nobodies fault) basically everybody is still getting seen and Labour controlled NHS in Wales is the worst, but in the game of politics what the public hears is
"UK A&E missing targets" = Tory led government fault
As I said, job done fur Burnham.
Byelection swingback: -0.5% up
Hanretty: 1.7% down
Fisher: 2.5% down
2009-2010 repeat: 3.3% down
Prosser: 5.0% n/c
L&N: 9.4% down
Covers most of it, wouldn't you agree?
I think we're seeing the limits of the approaches that served them well under two-party politics: Eg the Tories used to be able to say, "The EU is dreadful, let's stay in it but opt out of things occasionally", and Labour could say, "these cuts are outrageous, we'll reverse a tiny fraction of them". That doesn't work if the voters have the option of voting for a party that not only says X is bad, but also proposes to actually do something about it.
The Tories know that this is the case, and there are other media outlet, who will be reporting exactly the same.
What the Tories don't seem to get is how to play the day to day game of using the media to get your message out.
Labour when in power was just outstanding at taking something and making sure even the least politically engaged individual, became aware of it. The policy might not really add up to much, but they would spin it and ram it home, relentlessly.
People don't watch the HoC, people don't really take more than a passing interest, and they forget. So your message has to be clear, concise and repeated ad-nauseam.
In contrast, I bet loads of low paid workers don't really understand or realise the impact of the Income Tax Threshold rise. The government do a terrible job of ramming that message home.
The Tories in general try to be too clever by half and I think often when they do have a good message to spread, they do an incredibly bad job of making it known.
Unemployment right down...I bet loads of people don't really know just quite how far it is fallen and pay rises above inflation. Now on here we can argue about quality of jobs, pay etc, but Labour in power would have been all over this and it would be relentless, every interview, every opportunity, day in day out for weeks / months on end.
@IsabelHardman: I’ve been passed an amusing email to Labour MPs advertising ‘quick and dirty’ report on Ukip that caused such a row http://t.co/2qHfOwLQk3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30531761
Poor guy, through this drunken irritate stupor appears the blond locks of the Boris to tell him to "calm down, calm down" or "mitescere, mitescere".
In the scenario you paint it is the co-morbidities that should trigger the disability status, not the obesity per se. It's wrong to classify "obesity" as a disability.
But where there is an underlying condition (mental or otherwise) that triggers the co-morbidity then I would make any assistance conditional on treatment of the underlying condition (usually psychological therapy and, if they show progress, potentially surgical intervention in those cases where it would be beneficial).
There's a fantastic little company that is working in this are by developing holistic approaches to transform the treatment paradigm
http://www.easternhealthcare.com/
Shane - with the oil price tanking surely fracking will be off the agenda for now?
So it's important to know how realistic it is to think they might change (would you buy a black car if they offered you £300 off?), and especially if it means deciding where to put their election resources.
(When I bought a Corsa 10 years ago they actually did offer me £400 off if I took a blue car rather than make them order a red car that they didn't have in stock. I took it.)
Genuine question: Do you fear an Ed administration in any way? Would one be good for Labour in the long run?
Phrasing it as I did was nothing more than a bit of gentle trolling.
It wouldn't be right for a candidate for *any* political party to have a regular TV slot, especially (as I assume) the next series will overlap with the election campaign period.
Nothing to do with it being UKIP.
"by developing holistic approaches to transform the treatment paradigm."
I assume that is a piss-take? But definitely a holistic one.
Actually, though, it's not. The company's developed a system, in partnership with John Hopkins, that co-locates nutritionals, physicians, exercise specialists and surgeons with a view to developing a comprehensive strategy for tackling obesity with a single point of contact for the patient...
I would personally welcome a move back to a "New Labour strategy" because, no matter how hard I look, all I can ever see when I examine Labour's current offering is a platform more right-wing than anything Blair ever stood on. (Miliband might be personally more left-wing than Blair but that hardly matters compared to what he's actually going to do.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30533608
I can only assume that it's calculated as a % of income. Is that the system in Germany?
"The reasons I did it are something I really cannot understand"
The left have to accept the depressing possibility that the way they want to world to be run just isn't possible at the moment, to be fair the way the right want it to be run isn't possible either, I doubt very much if Cameron came into politics wondering what he could cut next.
How pathetic to want to deny treatment to anyone because they are fat or overweight.
What about bungee-jumpers or jockeys or skiers or footballers or people who text at the same time as crossing the road or do anything else where there is risk?
We don't deny treatment to any other group - why this one?
Pah.
I don't think it will be enough for the Cons to get a majority, I think UKIP will hurt them in the Midlands and allow Labour to hold on to too many marginals that they may otherwise have lost with Ed Miliband in charge, but they should remain at around 300 seats and definitely the largest party in the commons. The real question is who do they form a coalition with? I don't think the Lib Dems will be up for another 5 years of being on the wrong side of the austerity argument (at least where their voters and activists are concerned) and UKIP probably won't have the numbers. That leaves a minority government, minority coalition or rainbow alliance including Lab/Lib/SNP/PC vs Tory/UKIP on even numbers.
(...although I do wonder if eg gastric band operations should be considered elective surgery. All they do is limit the amount you can eat, which can also be done by simply not stuffing yer face...)
I wouldn't deny treatment to a obese person who was obese through their own greed, but I wouldn't give them a disabled badge for parking etc etc
What if you played football, broke your leg and had to be in a wheelchair for a month. Or three.
They are saying that there shouldn't (or should) be a law to make your employer accommodate your injury. Or your obesity, albeit on a longer timeframe.
Hmm.
OK I have considered now this (very, very briefly) - the employer should assess the value an employee might bring to the firm and then employ them. Or not. If they employ them, they should accommodate their physical demands.
Should they be required to by law? Perhaps. It helps to swap "leg broken playing football" with "overweight/fat" I find.
0 is 50/1
57, which they got in 2010, is 150/1
http://politicalbookie.com/2014/12/18/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win/
0 is 50/1
57, which they got in 2010, is 150/1
http://politicalbookie.com/2014/12/18/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win/