Drug-driving is already illegal, but set at the level where it impairs your ability to drive safely, which is presumably the approach taken when setting the drunk-driving limit.
As I understand it THC for one hangs around for some time, why make it illegal for someone to drive who smoked a spliff a few days ago (yes I know the spliff is itself illegal but individual cannabis use is largely tolerated).
What is the effect likely to be if I take a few co-codamols for a cold? This is in danger of being a law I cannot comply with as i do not have the knowledge - I know that if I drink a pint and a half I am likely to be over the limit, so I don't. How many co-codamols can I take and drive?
This is exactly why I think this will blow up like a sloppy turd hitting a fan during the election campaign. The limits for illict drugs are not being set at safe driving limits but at "zero tolerance" limits. Taking Cannabis could stop you driving for weeks, due as you point out to THC persistence. Not something I would do in a million years (been subject to random drugs test for many years now for professional reasons) but I can see how it will ignite the whole police state/libertarian issue.
Prescription/over the counter drugs will have higher limits, but its not difficult to see how problems will arise. Then there is poppy seed rolls...
One "black swan" that could affect the Tories and Libdems in the runup to the election is a new law on Drug Driving.
This will make it illegal to drive with 16 prescription and abuse drugs over a (miniscule) limit whether it impairs your driving or not. I think this will ignite the whole police state/libertarian issue just as the election campaign ramps up and might well drive many libdem voters in particular to the Greens.
One of the drugs (morphine via codeine) is in many common over the counter medicines. There will be a defence if you have been allowed by a doctor to drive while taking as prescription drug or followed the leaflet instructions
The law is also being changed to allow roadside drug testing machines for the banned substances.
The limits are set at as near zero as they can get away with
"In March 2013, the department took expert advice from a medical panel on the potential drug limits that the government should consult on. The department accepted most of the recommendations made by the panel and has consulted on limits that are a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to deter people from taking drugs and driving.
The limits to be included in the new regulations are not set at 0 as drugs taken for medical conditions can be absorbed in the body to produce trace effects."
There has, Paul, been concern for many years over the effect of both prescribed and non-prescribed drugs on driving ability.
I fail to see how a sensible road safety measure could discourage people from voting in a particular way, although I believe that it’s alleged that some people intend to vote UKIP in the belief that they will support relaxation of the ban on smoking in pubs.
I think you have rather more confidence than I do that the police will behave sensibly with these new powers and not look for an easy cop, with consequent tabloid outrage when some dear old lady is arrested and frogmarched to the police station after being stopped and tested and failed due to eating poppy seed rolls for her tea, before driving to Evensong.
Your scernario is, I suspect, just a tad unlikely!
"It was mostly serious analysis and so taken seriously - one is allowed the odd joke. But just to satisfy my curiosity, to what is it a reference please??"
Ah, thank you (unless Mr antifrank has something else inn mind. Lena Riefenstahl, eh? Obviously (one trusts) post-ironic comment on some of the sentiments expressed on PB!
One "black swan" that could affect the Tories and Libdems in the runup to the election is a new law on Drug Driving.
This will make it illegal to drive with 16 prescription and abuse drugs over a (miniscule) limit whether it impairs your driving or not. I think this will ignite the whole police state/libertarian issue just as the election campaign ramps up and might well drive many libdem voters in particular to the Greens.
One of the drugs (morphine via codeine) is in many common over the counter medicines. There will be a defence if you have been allowed by a doctor to drive while taking as prescription drug or followed the leaflet instructions
The law is also being changed to allow roadside drug testing machines for the banned substances.
The limits are set at as near zero as they can get away with
"In March 2013, the department took expert advice from a medical panel on the potential drug limits that the government should consult on. The department accepted most of the recommendations made by the panel and has consulted on limits that are a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to deter people from taking drugs and driving.
The limits to be included in the new regulations are not set at 0 as drugs taken for medical conditions can be absorbed in the body to produce trace effects."
Although the limits may need tweaking, this seems like a rather good idea. The roadside testing machines are long overdue if they are reliable.
What makes you think the limits will be "tweaked" either before or after imposition? No government in this country ever reviews legislation, for fear that the Opposition will should it down, instead they will just bang on about how everything is rosy, even if it quite obviously isn't.
My question remains: how many co-codamols can I take and be fit to drive?
I didn't have the best experience in my first major post on this site running up against people whose political focus seemed to be totally distorted through an anti-Salmond/Scottish lens.
However can I now add how refreshing I have found the contributions from Gadfly and antifrank this morning.
Question to Gadfly would it not be possible to produce the same YouGov daily charts for Scotland using the cross breaks each day. I know they are just sub samples and thus vulnerable to daily error but they seem remarkably consistent. How about a chart with a five day moving average. Has anyone done this?
I know that it takes all sorts to make a website but am I alone in finding this material fundamentally more interesting than the anti-Salmond diatribes.
No, you aren't the only one! Which is why I made a point of thanking Mr antifrank also [edit].
Re charts - have a look at Scotgoespop as it may have what you want (though a different period for averaging IIRC).
To what extent is the media responsible for the murder of the two NYPD cops given their, at best disingenuous, coverage of Michael Brown and Eric Garner?
One "black swan" that could affect the Tories and Libdems in the runup to the election is a new law on Drug Driving.
This will make it illegal to drive with 16 prescription and abuse drugs over a (miniscule) limit whether it impairs your driving or not. I think this will ignite the whole police state/libertarian issue just as the election campaign ramps up and might well drive many libdem voters in particular to the Greens.
One of the drugs (morphine via codeine) is in many common over the counter medicines. There will be a defence if you have been allowed by a doctor to drive while taking as prescription drug or followed the leaflet instructions
The law is also being changed to allow roadside drug testing machines for the banned substances.
The limits are set at as near zero as they can get away with
"In March 2013, the department took expert advice from a medical panel on the potential drug limits that the government should consult on. The department accepted most of the recommendations made by the panel and has consulted on limits that are a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to deter people from taking drugs and driving.
The limits to be included in the new regulations are not set at 0 as drugs taken for medical conditions can be absorbed in the body to produce trace effects."
There has, Paul, been concern for many years over the effect of both prescribed and non-prescribed drugs on driving ability.
I fail to see how a sensible road safety measure could discourage people from voting in a particular way, although I believe that it’s alleged that some people intend to vote UKIP in the belief that they will support relaxation of the ban on smoking in pubs.
Typical and cretinous response of the "if you oppose unlimited detention without trial you must be in favour of terrorism" variety. Yes I am in favour of improved road safety and roadside drug testing (assuming the machines work) but it seems fair to set the levels at the level at which it would significantly impair your performance. Disagreeing with the detail of the proposal does not mean I wish to increase the danger of being a road user.
To what extent is the media responsible for the murder of the two NYPD cops given their, at best disingenuous, coverage of Michael Brown and Eric Garner?
The coalition bad blood created (largely by the Tories) in the AV campaign and Lord reform bill has seriously undermined their own government.
If the LDs are so weak, there is 23% of the centrist vote their for the taking. Cameron has completely ignored this opportunity. In fact he has almost actively alienated that vote. It is now (unsurprisingly) opposed to the coalition. But their was nothing inevitable about that.
As for UKIP, IMO they are as much the creation of Cameron as anyone else. Instead of starving them publicity by talking about domestic issues, he pours petrol on them by talking regularly about the EU and insulting them
Mr. Jonathan, the Kipper point is unfair. In 2010, UKIP were on a few percent. Now they're the third largest party in terms of polling share. The 45% rate cut was not especially clever in political terms.
Immigration is a failure, but the deficit (too hard too fast = not fast enough, say Labour) was affected by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. As for the NHS, funding has been flat, Labour promised to cut it in real terms. A completely unfair argument, and one the media should have called out.
It's probably not fair to compare 2010 with 2015, because of the wildly differing situation. Namely: strong SNP strong UKIP weak Conservatives/Labour seriously wounded Lib Dems a coalition government economy not in imminent risk of implosion
The Tories have won over a lot of ex-Lib Dems. But they've lost far more supporters to UKIP. Without the latter, they'd be nudging 40% in the polls.
And that's because Cameron and Osborne have acted as the Blair/Brown Tribute Act in office. On social and cultural issues, they're indistinguishable from the last government. Objectively, they're as pro-EU as the last lot, and they've lost control over immigration. They thought their supporters had nowhere else to go. That's turned out well for them.
Sums it up very neatly, Sean. In terms of my dealings with local and central government, I've noticed no change in public sector culture. This administration has been as hectoring, nannying and bossy as the last lot.
If you spun me round and round in 2003, transported me to today, and asked me what government the UK was living under, I'd answer Blair/Brown without hesitation.
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
The only card they have left to deploy is fear of a Milliband government, which may, in the end, just get them over the finishing line.
Although the limits may need tweaking, this seems like a rather good idea. The roadside testing machines are long overdue if they are reliable.
What makes you think the limits will be "tweaked" either before or after imposition? No government in this country ever reviews legislation, for fear that the Opposition will should it down, instead they will just bang on about how everything is rosy, even if it quite obviously isn't.
My question remains: how many co-codamols can I take and be fit to drive?
"What makes you think the limits will be "tweaked" either before or after imposition? "
From the gov website:
"In the consultation for amphetamine, the government has decided that the proposed limits need to be reconsidered so that patients who take medicine for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are not affected. The government will therefore look to re-consult on the new threshold later this year, with an agreed limit added in to the legislation at a later date."
LOL.
To know how many tablets you can take: follow the prescription and/or instruction leaflet that comes with the tablets.
This would have been a real bind to me in the past when I was on a codeine-based drug; then again, I wasn't in a fit state to drive because of the underlying condition. Despite this, I can see sense in it. IMO driving is not some form of inalienable human right, but a responsibility.
"Police warn pickpockets in the only language they understand... Romanian: Sign placed in Covent Garden during Christmas shopping rush Notice deterring Romanian pickpockets put up in busy shopping area The bright yellow sign has been placed in Covent Garden by police It warns 'plainclothes police officers operate in this area' Half of the pickpockets caught on the Tube this year were from Romania
A police notice deterring pickpockets has gone up in one of the busiest shopping areas in Britain – written in Romanian.
The bright yellow sign, outside Covent Garden Underground station in Central London, states: ‘Ofiteri de politie in civil opereaza in aceasta zona.’
Put up by the Metropolitan Police, it translates as ‘plainclothes police officers operating in this area,’ and is believed to be the first time a force has put up a warning sign of this nature in Romanian.
Covent Garden is a mile away from Hyde Park Corner – notorious for the scores of Romanian rough sleepers who have made the affluent area their home"
To answer Moses question 'why when labour are profligate do people vote for them rather than the Tories who are prudent?'......
I met three nurses the other day who in the course of conversation told me they did voluntary work at the food bank and they'd each be doing one day over the christmas period.......
Audreyanne warned yesterday not to follow the polls at this time of year because 3,000.000 people with children at private school will be abroad on holiday....
99 out of a 100 people would guess the nurses would be LABOUR. 100 out of 100 would guess the 3,000,000 will be TORY (indeed audreyanne thought so).
So there's your answer. It's all about image. The Tories are prudent and selfish Labour sleep with the angels but are profligate.........
...and as a majority want our leaders to have more noble values than we have ourselves the Tories are screwed.
You seriously think Labour have noble values?
LOL
Basically Labour try to bribe people with their money, Tories prefer that people kept most of their money.
"I must say the the Marr programme today, was full of main parties propaganda in the form of Ken Clark and Peter Mandelson, with the usual derision of UKIP."
The BBC reflect what they see as sensible opinion. If you counted the Ukip voters working for them, you'd only need one hand. The LDs would outnumber them many times over. Very difficult to remain unbiased but I suspect they try.
"I must say the the Marr programme today, was full of main parties propaganda in the form of Ken Clark and Peter Mandelson, with the usual derision of UKIP."
The BBC reflect what they see as sensible opinion. If you counted the Ukip voters working for them, you'd only need one hand. The LDs would outnumber them many times over. Very difficult to remain unbiased but I suspect they try.
They definitely try as they are obsessed with being called out for being biased, so at least they make an effort, even if they cannot be said to be 100% objective, it is at least a goal. I know there's a place for acknowledged one sided reporting, but I find the overtly partisan stuff offputting, and more likely to be lazy, knowing those reading will be happy with sticking to the script.
The coalition bad blood created (largely by the Tories) in the AV campaign and Lord reform bill has seriously undermined their own government.
As for UKIP, IMO they are as much the creation of Cameron as anyone else. Instead of starving them publicity by talking about domestic issues, he pours petrol on them by talking regularly about the EU and insulting them
Mr. Jonathan, the Kipper point is unfair. In 2010, UKIP were on a few percent. Now they're the third largest party in terms of polling share. The 45% rate cut was not especially clever in political terms.
Immigration is a failure, but the deficit (too hard too fast = not fast enough, say Labour) was affected by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. As for the NHS, funding has been flat, Labour promised to cut it in real terms. A completely unfair argument, and one the media should have called out.
It's probably not fair to compare 2010 with 2015, because of the wildly differing situation. Namely: strong SNP strong UKIP weak Conservatives/Labour seriously wounded Lib Dems a coalition government economy not in imminent risk of implosion
The Tories have won over a lot of ex-Lib Dems. But they've lost far more supporters to UKIP. Without the latter, they'd be nudging 40% in the polls.
And that's because Cameron and Osborne have acted as the Blair/Brown Tribute Act in office. On social and cultural issues, they're indistinguishable from the last government. Objectively, they're as pro-EU as the last lot, and they've lost control over immigration. They thought their supporters had nowhere else to go. That's turned out well for them.
Sums it up very neatly, Sean. In terms of my dealings with local and central government, I've noticed no change in public sector culture. This administration has been as hectoring, nannying and bossy as the last lot.
If you spun me round and round in 2003, transported me to today, and asked me what government the UK was living under, I'd answer Blair/Brown without hesitation.
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
The only card they have left to deploy is fear of a Milliband government, which may, in the end, just get them over the finishing line.
Cameron has been the only Conservative leader to have had the opportunity to win a majority, neither Hague nor Howard were great but the economic circumstances gave them no chance anyway, and he has singularly failed.
"I must say the the Marr programme today, was full of main parties propaganda in the form of Ken Clark and Peter Mandelson, with the usual derision of UKIP."
The BBC reflect what they see as sensible opinion. If you counted the Ukip voters working for them, you'd only need one hand. The LDs would outnumber them many times over. Very difficult to remain unbiased but I suspect they try.
On a R4 Today programme in the week they had two views on Europe on. One from a Europhile organisation and the other from Open Europe that "want to stay in Europe". With half the voters (that have an opinion) having the view that they want to leave, it is a completely biased viewpoint being delivered by the BBC. Now if the two people were 1 from each of the two largest HoC parties it could be justifiable (or 1 from the top two with MEPs), but R4 Today's choice was not.
Mr. Betting, reminds me of the Sachs affair (Brand-Ross) when Newsnight had a panel of 3 on, all of whom agreed the Daily Mail was whipping up a relatively small affair.
"And that's because Cameron and Osborne have acted as the Blair/Brown Tribute Act in office. On social and cultural issues, they're indistinguishable from the last government. Objectively, they're as pro-EU as the last lot, and they've lost control over immigration "
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
That's hard to reconcile with the actual performance of William Hague running on "Save the pound" or Michael Howard running on "Are you thinking what I'm thinking". And even quite right-wing mainstream parties have been losing support to the populist right over the past few years, so there's probably a limit to how far any Tory leader could have stopped the bleeding to UKIP.
Mr. Betting, reminds me of the Sachs affair (Brand-Ross) when Newsnight had a panel of 3 on, all of whom agreed the Daily Mail was whipping up a relatively small affair.
I wonder if brave revolutionary Brand would phone up and brag to Ray Winston if he slept with a member of his family
Driving whilst unfit through drugs may be illegal, but as a magistrate I have only seen one prosecution in the last 10 years.
This essentially boils down to the historic lack of roadside testing kits for the popular illicit drugs. Instead the police have to make suspects walk a straight line, or stand on one foot with a finger on their nose to identify impairment, which whilst informative, is not necessarily evidential. Prosecution can be very difficult, because it is then necessary to prove that any impairment was due to the presence of drugs. Moreover, very few police officers are trained to do the initial roadside test.
The one case I did see was a diabetic pensioner who had a hypo whilst driving along the motorway. It took the police forever to pull him over, as he swerved all over the motorway for many miles. The whole thing was recorded on video, and made fascinating viewing.
I cannot remember the precise outcome of that case, but events such as these are occasionally prosecuted to make elderly people recognise that their driving days are over.
To know how many tablets you can take: follow the prescription and/or instruction leaflet that comes with the tablets.
This would have been a real bind to me in the past when I was on a codeine-based drug; then again, I wasn't in a fit state to drive because of the underlying condition. Despite this, I can see sense in it. IMO driving is not some form of inalienable human right, but a responsibility.
Driving may not be an absolute right, but it is certainly not a responsibility, and it is an abuse of language to describe it as such. The subject is under no legal duty to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle. Quite the reverse.
Although following one's prescription will be a defence to a charge contrary to section 5A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is no defence to a charge, contrary to section 4(1)-(2) of the same (driving while unfit through drugs). All the Crown need prove is that the person in question's ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired through drugs. That is not a high standard, and suggests there will very often be criminal liability even if a person is merely taking such drugs as are prescribed to him from time to time.
Question to Gadfly would it not be possible to produce the same YouGov daily charts for Scotland using the cross breaks each day. I know they are just sub samples and thus vulnerable to daily error but they seem remarkably consistent. How about a chart with a five day moving average. Has anyone done this?
I will certainly look into this, but I suspect I will be up against the lack of downloadable data. Wading through hundreds of PDF files is a bridge too far. This is why I only incorporate the Greens within my 12 month chart.
To know how many tablets you can take: follow the prescription and/or instruction leaflet that comes with the tablets.
This would have been a real bind to me in the past when I was on a codeine-based drug; then again, I wasn't in a fit state to drive because of the underlying condition. Despite this, I can see sense in it. IMO driving is not some form of inalienable human right, but a responsibility.
Driving may not be an absolute right, but it is certainly not a responsibility, and it is an abuse of language to describe it as such. The subject is under no legal duty to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle. Quite the reverse.
Although following one's prescription will be a defence to a charge contrary to section 5A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is no defence to a charge, contrary to section 4(1)-(2) of the same (driving while unfit through drugs). All the Crown need prove is that the person in question's ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired through drugs. That is not a high standard, and suggests there will very often be criminal liability even if a person is merely taking such drugs as are prescribed to him from time to time.
Indeed, this is exactly the sort of issue that will arise.
I'm not greatly surprised that this law has been brought in now that technology exists to support it, but it does seem that they have gone further than prohibiting levels of drugs that would impair driving by setting levels at "zero tolerance" levels, ie making it another flank in the futile "war on drugs". It will increase the alienation of young people from the mainstream parties.
Generally while I wouldn't touch the stuff, I think drug prohibition has been an utter disaster that has split society, increased consqeuential crime from addicts and enriched illegal crime syndicates. I really don't see what business of the state it is if adults choose to posess or use such substances provided they don't cause a nuisance to others. I would legalise and tax drugs and introduce offences with stiff penalties for causing a nuisance or danger whilst under the influence.
From a politics point of view to bring the proposed "zero tolerance" law into effect during a general election campaign strikes me as utterly complacent and stupid. Suspect it is one of Gidiot's wheezes to cause differentiation between Tories and Libdems.
"All the Crown need prove is that the person in question's ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired through drugs."
OK but evidence of, say, co-codomal in the prisoners blood would not of itself be evidence that their driving ability was impaired. The Filth is going to have to come up with some additional evidence in order to obtain a conviction, or even a lawful arrest. Of course they might just lie, as used to happen with drink-driving but leaving aside misconduct the existence of these machines can only provide corroborating evidence of impairment.
No party seems to be suggesting a change in the law to implement drugs blood limit similar to that that exists for booze so the whole thing seems to be a storm in a tea-cup or a piece of spin by ACPO, take your pick.
I have no problem accepting 16 million Roma to England. Why should we perpetuate Mittel-Europa's Wagnanian decadence....?
The plastic German killed millions yet Austria is ignored of the culpability. Guilt should be held with those whom inflicted it - and they were not Roma - despite Al-Beeb's efforts...!
Gypsy-King William Jefferson Clinton can [MODERATED] off the [MODERATED] [MODERATED]!!!
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
That's hard to reconcile with the actual performance of William Hague running on "Save the pound" or Michael Howard running on "Are you thinking what I'm thinking". And even quite right-wing mainstream parties have been losing support to the populist right over the past few years, so there's probably a limit to how far any Tory leader could have stopped the bleeding to UKIP.
The Tories left it too late to address the immigration question with policies with teeth. They were bullied into submission by those who called discussion of immigration "racist", at a time when the majority of immigrants voted Labour and were a useful extra voting bloc.
"There’s always a temptation to see narratives in polls, to ignore those showing no movement, latch onto those showing exciting looking changes and build an explanation and a story around them. It’s normally wrong to do so."
haha if people read this and had any self awareness there'd be about 2000 fewer posts a week on here
Rob Ford (Britain) @robfordmancs · 7m7 minutes ago Manchester, England Judging from my twitter feed Mays foreign students "plan" alienated most of the centre right. Won't win a single ukipper either. Pointless.
Seems Theresa May's policy on immigration is to keep out bright students who have been here three years, and assimilate pickpockets by warning criminals in Romanian
Seems Theresa May's policy on immigration is to keep out bright students who have been here three years, and assimilate pickpockets by warning criminals in Romanian
Only an eejit would back Tessa May. Sadly this site is full-to-the-brim with such-like....
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
That's hard to reconcile with the actual performance of William Hague running on "Save the pound" or Michael Howard running on "Are you thinking what I'm thinking". And even quite right-wing mainstream parties have been losing support to the populist right over the past few years, so there's probably a limit to how far any Tory leader could have stopped the bleeding to UKIP.
The Tories left it too late to address the immigration question with policies with teeth. They were bullied into submission by those who called discussion of immigration "racist", at a time when the majority of immigrants voted Labour and were a useful extra voting bloc.
Not sure what you're getting at with the "bullied in submission" thing, they've been running on immigration since forever.
Their fundamental policy problem is that they can't do anything substantial without leaving the EU, but that really would lose them a chunk of their coalition, which is why they continue to be vague about it.
"I didn't have the best experience in my first major post on this site running up against people whose political focus seemed to be totally distorted through an anti-Salmond/Scottish lens."
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this particular race what I find interesting but what you probably haven't discovered yet is how the SNP posters (of which there are quite a lot) mirror in their posting style English UKIPers (of which there are even more) Both are the most passionate champions of their respective causes and neither will accept criticism from anyone.
The likes of Antifrank who take politics and betting seriously and without too much of an axe to grind are quite rare but the most appreciated. When you get to know where the different posters are coming from it's much easier to avoid taking offence and even being told to "take the leek out of your erchie" by everyone's favourite Nat can be informative
"The group of MPs, led by Tory David Davis and former Lib Dem Minister Norman Baker, are planning to table a Commons debate early in the New Year calling for Sir John Chilcot’s incendiary £10million report to be released before the General Election."
I wonder which party (if any) a damning report will affect? The class of 2000 are long gone and if anyone is seen as son of Blair it's Cameron. I think most people have to pinch themselves to remember that Tony wasn't a Tory.
All the leading figures of the Shadow Cabinet rose through the ranks of the Blair government.
Labour cannot deny its history if it wants to be taken seriously. Blair is an intriguing figure (now despised because of his mid east wars) but on domestic issues he was very astute. He won three elections and was in power longer than any other leader. He is the only Labour Leader to have won an election in 40 years.
Labourites tend to try to wipe out memories of every government since Attlee, then accuse kippers of fifties nostalgia!
Nevertheless the Blair Government was more right wing than all pre-Thatcher Tory administrations of the 20th century - way to the right of the likes of Heath and Macmillan.
I concur with the positive views of Antifrank's piece. You'll be disappointed that George Galloway takes a different view on SLab's chances.
George Galloway @georgegalloway 18h18 hours ago @bugmenot44@jimmurphymp I don't believe the SNP will take a single seat from Labour in 2015. You'll get good odds on that.
Seems someone is indulging in a few phantasies at UKIP GHQ (North Britain).
'UKIP's chairman in Scotland Arthur Thackeray reveals party SPIES on opponents
UKIP in Scotland has revealed it is using a variety of undercover measures to spy on its opponents. The party’s chairman north of the border Arthur Thackeray has made the shock revelations that private investigators were hired during the independence referendum and that protest groups against the party were “infiltrated”. And Thackeray described UKIP’s network as “‘a very good intelligence service” adding that the activities will “most definitely” continue ahead of May’s General Election. Thackeray, a former security firm boss, said the party has recruited private investigation industry contacts to monitor anti-Ukip protest groups; And to throw opponents off the scent, he revealed that “spotters” used to infiltrate anti-UKIP protest groups are being recruited from the Polisgh community - because it was felt they were the last people the mob would expect to be working for UKIP. ‘Decoy’ events have been set up by Ukip to take protesters away from the proper venues; Thackeray himself said he went undercover himself at a Radical Independence Campaign event.'
Shame that Thackeray appears to have dropped his nickname Misty. Seemed the only attractive thing about him.
Yes, he's saying that ICM and TNS and Opinium have all produced 1 in 20 rogue polls all at the same time. As YouGov are right according to Yougov the others must all be outliers.
There will of course be outliers - that there is a 10 point difference of opinion between MORI and both TNS/Opinium demonstrates this. But the odds of the 1 in 20 rogue hitting all three at the same!e time?
There has been a shift towards Labour since the OBR outed Osborne's austerity for ever numbers and The SpecToryTator declared the "no money for benefits or public services but plenty of money for tax cuts at the top" position to be ludicrous. I agree that 7% is at the extreme end of MOE, but the fact remains that we're suddenly seeing leads on that scale and its after the Autumn Statement.
Its swing back alright. Just not back in the direction so many on here assured us would happen.
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
That's hard to reconcile with the actual performance of William Hague running on "Save the pound" or Michael Howard running on "Are you thinking what I'm thinking". And even quite right-wing mainstream parties have been losing support to the populist right over the past few years, so there's probably a limit to how far any Tory leader could have stopped the bleeding to UKIP.
The Tories left it too late to address the immigration question with policies with teeth. They were bullied into submission by those who called discussion of immigration "racist", at a time when the majority of immigrants voted Labour and were a useful extra voting bloc.
Not sure what you're getting at with the "bullied in submission" thing, they've been running on immigration since forever.
Their fundamental policy problem is that they can't do anything substantial without leaving the EU, but that really would lose them a chunk of their coalition, which is why they continue to be vague about it.
Actually the Conservatives could have done quite a lot about non-EU immigration if they had wanted to. However, it would seem that they didn't want to and only seem to have started to think, and I use the term loosely, about the issue since UKIP started moving up in the polls. Now they are just panicing and have reduced themselves to the Politicians Syllogism:
I must do something This is something Therefore I must do this
Theresa May has been and still is in charge of this mess. Why anyone thinks she could be a good leader, and by extension PM, is beyond me.
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
The uptick in the Labour lead looks like it started after the Rochester and Strood by-election rather than the Autumn Statement, though maybe both contributed. Since Rochester and Strood a month ago Populus, Ashcroft, Opinium, ICM, YouGov and TNS have all shown a 5%+ lead in one of their polls. Hardly sample variation.
Roger Da Costa @rog_ukip Nov 26 Zac Goldsmith MP: "80% of the laws coming through Defra are not of Defra origin. They are imposed on Defra by the European Union".
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
This does seem to be pretty counter-productive, surely foreign graduates are exactly the sort of people we want.
A more orthodox and genuinely eurosceptic Conservative Party would probably have picked up fewer ex-Lib Dems, but would certainly have retained far more of its own supporters. They'd probably be currently polling 35-38%, rather than 29-34%.
That's hard to reconcile with the actual performance of William Hague running on "Save the pound" or Michael Howard running on "Are you thinking what I'm thinking". And even quite right-wing mainstream parties have been losing support to the populist right over the past few years, so there's probably a limit to how far any Tory leader could have stopped the bleeding to UKIP.
The Tories left it too late to address the immigration question with policies with teeth. They were bullied into submission by those who called discussion of immigration "racist", at a time when the majority of immigrants voted Labour and were a useful extra voting bloc.
Not sure what you're getting at with the "bullied in submission" thing, they've been running on immigration since forever.
Their fundamental policy problem is that they can't do anything substantial without leaving the EU, but that really would lose them a chunk of their coalition, which is why they continue to be vague about it.
Actually the Conservatives could have done quite a lot about non-EU immigration if they had wanted to. However, it would seem that they didn't want to and only seem to have started to think, and I use the term loosely, about the issue since UKIP started moving up in the polls. Now they are just panicing and have reduced themselves to the Politicians Syllogism:
I must do something This is something Therefore I must do this
Theresa May has been and still is in charge of this mess. Why anyone thinks she could be a good leader, and by extension PM, is beyond me.
What are you thinking of specifically? The right to be with your family is protected by international treaties and even there the rules are incredibly restrictive - eg strict minimum income requirements to get your spouse in, and what the spouse can earn doesn't count. They've killed off pretty much the entire low-end of long-duration English language courses, which they did early on - ironically this is causing an uptick in their pre-election net migration numbers, because the people they stopped coming are unable to leave. Gordon Brown had already pretty much stopped non-EU non-family low-skilled immigration. So apart from leaving the EU, what could they have done that they didn't do?
At the same stage in the last Parliament , the two polls conducted pre-Xmas 2009 were from Comres and Opinium. They showed Tory leads of 9% and 7% respectively – not all that far off the May 2010 outcome.
"A powerful cross-party move to end the ‘intolerable’ delay in the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry report into the Iraq War is being mounted by MPs who suspect it is part of a plot by allies of Tony Blair.
The group of MPs, led by Tory David Davis and former Lib Dem Minister Norman Baker, are planning to table a Commons debate early in the New Year calling for Sir John Chilcot’s incendiary £10million report to be released before the General Election."
"Simon Danczuk says Mr Farage is an 'interesting guy' after photographs of him sharing a drink with the Ukip leader fuel speculation of a defection."
Two Christmases in one! Could we be so lucky
My dear @Roger, if you are in the retail business you'll know what a Loss Leader is. Well you've got one. Only trouble as far as you and labour are concerned, he doesn't do his job and is a complete washout.
"Simon Danczuk says Mr Farage is an 'interesting guy' after photographs of him sharing a drink with the Ukip leader fuel speculation of a defection."
Two Christmases in one! Could we be so lucky
My dear @Roger, if you are in the retail business you'll know what a Loss Leader is. Well you've got one. Only trouble as far as you and labour are concerned, he doesn't do his job and is a complete washout.
Agree with Hitchens regarding the EU having a significant role in Ukraine's current woes, but the inflation is caused by low oil prices, not the sanctions.
The point Hitchens is making is that the decision of key OPEC members including Saudi Arabia and the USA, all of whom are opposed to the Syrian Regime to turn the spigots onto full blast, collapsing the oil price, may not be entirely unrelated to Russia supporting the Syrian Regime.
ie the oil price crash has been engineered to damage Russia.
Absurd and ridiculous.
The oil price has crashed for three reasons:
1. Saudi Arabia made the decision that supporting the oil price meant ceding market share to US shale players. If Saudi Arabia cut production 1m barrels to maintain an $80 price, then US production would just rise 1m barrels. Saudi would then have to cut *another* 1m barrels. The government in Riyadh realised this didn't work for them in the long term.
2. The Chinese government - which had been buying up 1m barrels a day to fill their strategic petroleum reserve - stopped buying. Their storage was largely full.
3. Demand in China and the Eurozone has tracked about 0.8m barrels (0.5m China, 0.3m the Eurozone) below forecasts.
The combination of these factors has led to the oil price crashing.
Furthermore, the the US government has no control over the output of companies in the US. Hard those this is to believe, hundreds (maybe thousands) of little oil companies, from EOG Resources, to Chesapeake Energy and the like, have all made independent decisions to invest in shale production. They all grossly misestimated future oil prices and are now seriously cash flow negative (and often highly indebted). The idea that the US government conspired to drive 100s of oil companies into bankruptcy and to hammer the US high yield bond market isn't just paranoid, it's delusional.
Neither the US government nor the EU can "unleash" hyper inflation on Russia. To think that we have this power (or, for that matter, that to manipulate the price of oil) is economic illiteracy of the highest order.
He lived there for years and knows the region and it's people very well. Dismiss him at your peril.
His most important point is that the Russians have far more ability to tolerate severe hardship than we do, which will be our undoing.
Your argument appears to be that we should do nothing ie appeasement.
"All the Crown need prove is that the person in question's ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired through drugs."
OK but evidence of, say, co-codomal in the prisoners blood would not of itself be evidence that their driving ability was impaired. The Filth is going to have to come up with some additional evidence in order to obtain a conviction, or even a lawful arrest. Of course they might just lie, as used to happen with drink-driving but leaving aside misconduct the existence of these machines can only provide corroborating evidence of impairment.
No party seems to be suggesting a change in the law to implement drugs blood limit similar to that that exists for booze so the whole thing seems to be a storm in a tea-cup or a piece of spin by ACPO, take your pick.
I think you have misread this. The new law coming in on 2nd March 2015 does exactly that. If you have more than a certain limit of 16 different drugs in your blood you are guilty, regardless of whether your driving is impaired or not.
If you have been taking prescription or over the counter legal drugs, the burden of proof is effectively reversed. You have to demonstrate that (a) you were not impaired in your driving skills (probably impossible if you have had an accident and get tested) and you have to demonstrate that the drugs were legal over the counter or prescribed drugs and that you took them in accordance with the instructions. Good luck with that.
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
This does seem to be pretty counter-productive, surely foreign graduates are exactly the sort of people we want.
Seems incredible that we should prefer beggars from one part of the world over clever kids from another based on.. what?
Obviously I don't think it is skin colour, but if UKIP had this policy I am sure we'd get a lot of passive aggressive smart arse innuendo implying it was
"Simon Danczuk says Mr Farage is an 'interesting guy' after photographs of him sharing a drink with the Ukip leader fuel speculation of a defection."
Two Christmases in one! Could we be so lucky
My dear @Roger, if you are in the retail business you'll know what a Loss Leader is. Well you've got one. Only trouble as far as you and labour are concerned, he doesn't do his job and is a complete washout.
My dear @Plato, you can have one just like it, however please use a different colour. Have a merry Christmas and a great New Year.
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
Net immigration by non EU students numbers 50 000 per year, and adds to migration of family members and dependants, as well as spouses later in settlement. Once we add these in we are probably close to 100 000 net immigrants per year.
It doesn't leave much scope for anyone else in a points system; or has UKIP decided that numbers in this range are now fine and dandy?
One last point regarding the oil price: I would point out that Raymond James, the US investment bank, has been absolutely spot on in their forecasts, and their reasoning, over the last few years.
Neither the US government nor the EU can "unleash" hyper inflation on Russia. To think that we have this power (or, for that matter, that to manipulate the price of oil) is economic illiteracy of the highest order.
He lived there for years and knows the region and it's people very well. Dismiss him at your peril.
His most important point is that the Russians have far more ability to tolerate severe hardship than we do, which will be our undoing.
Your argument appears to be that we should do nothing ie appeasement.
worked well enough last time we tried it.
No I'm suggesting that you dont go round goading bears with a sharp stick. If Crimea has no right to be part of Russia despite the population voting overwhelmingly in a referendum to join Russia, then what right do the UK have to have sovereignty over Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands?
Yesterday, the BBC Parliament channel was showing excerpts from 2014. One such excerpt was Cameron speaking about the renewed bombing of Iraq against ISIS.
IN one sentence he said that ISIS was selling oil to the Assad regime. Is this another Blair "45 minutes".
ISIS selling oil to Assad ???? One is a hard core Sunni , the other Alawite. They are trying to get rid of each other. ISIS selling oil to smugglers who then sell on to the international market or the black market, I can understand.
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
Net immigration by non EU students numbers 50 000 per year, and adds to migration of family members and dependants, as well as spouses later in settlement. Once we add these in we are probably close to 100 000 net immigrants per year.
It doesn't leave much scope for anyone else in a points system; or has UKIP decided that numbers in this range are now fine and dandy?
Don't know why you are mentioning UKIP?
Do I respond to everything (anything?) you say by referencing whoever it is you support?
What it does show is that the public prefer the ability to choose who is allowed to migrate here rather than an open door
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
Net immigration by non EU students numbers 50 000 per year, and adds to migration of family members and dependants, as well as spouses later in settlement. Once we add these in we are probably close to 100 000 net immigrants per year.
It doesn't leave much scope for anyone else in a points system; or has UKIP decided that numbers in this range are now fine and dandy?
Oh just rumbled that you arbitrarily doubled the 50,000 to make your point
Further investigation into Lockerbie bomber finds "not a shred of evidence" to indicate he was wrongly convicted. What they did find in the communications between Libya and UK during Blairs and Labours tenure was this....
Documents showed 'reprehensible' connections between the Labour government boosting business and freeing the man convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity. An email sent by the then UK ambassador in Tripoli to former premier Tony Blair explained how a prisoner transfer agreement will be signed once Libya 'fulfils its promise' to buy an air defence system.
One last point regarding the oil price: I would point out that Raymond James, the US investment bank, has been absolutely spot on in their forecasts, and their reasoning, over the last few years.
OT I bought myself a copy of Complete - Drop The Drop Donkey - and it's just as brilliant as ever. If you like news satire from the 90s - it'd be hard to beat it.
Seems Theresa May's policy on immigration is to keep out bright students who have been here three years, and assimilate pickpockets by warning criminals in Romanian
I think that the idea is that once a student has graduated he/she should go home because entry was based on study. He/she can return subject to the appropriate rules. Anyone with a good qualification and a good job offer can return. We must stop the idea that coming to Britain to study is a route to permanent residence in the UK.
OT I bought myself a copy of Complete - Drop The Drop Donkey - and it's just as brilliant as ever. If you like news satire from the 90s - it'd be hard to beat it.
I've got that too - brilliant stuff. Very easy to dip in and out of.
Mr. M, I read a BBC 'article' about global warming which said something similar. Climate change [handily vague and applicable to the entirety of this planet's history] will cause extreme weather to become more likely, but we will also see more predictable weather and some better weather.
In short, any and all weather is indicative of global warming, in much the same way the absence of tigers in my house is due to my anti-tiger rock.
Seems Theresa May's policy on immigration is to keep out bright students who have been here three years, and assimilate pickpockets by warning criminals in Romanian
I think that the idea is that once a student has graduated he/she should go home because entry was based on study. He/she can return subject to the appropriate rules. Anyone with a good qualification and a good job offer can return. We must stop the idea that coming to Britain to study is a route to permanent residence in the UK.
Why? The effect of this arbitrary piece of bureaucracy will be that demand for British education - a major foreign exchange earner - will drop, since the deal will be "Get a brilliant degree, get an offer from a British company, and then bugger off home and wait a few months to see if you get a visa before the offer expires".
We need to be clear what we're trying to achieve with the points system for non-EU people. Is it to admit (only) highly-qualified people to the UK? If so, the policy is nuts. Or is it to limit the number of people as much as possible? If so, it'd be even more effective to ban non-EU immigration altogether.
Mr. M, I read a BBC 'article' about global warming which said something similar. Climate change [handily vague and applicable to the entirety of this planet's history] will cause extreme weather to become more likely, but we will also see more predictable weather and some better weather.
In short, any and all weather is indicative of global warming, in much the same way the absence of tigers in my house is due to my anti-tiger rock.
Although I don't have an anti-tiger rock my house is similarly untroubled by tigers.
OT I bought myself a copy of Complete - Drop The Drop Donkey - and it's just as brilliant as ever. If you like news satire from the 90s - it'd be hard to beat it.
I've got that too - brilliant stuff. Very easy to dip in and out of.
Mr. M, I read a BBC 'article' about global warming which said something similar. Climate change [handily vague and applicable to the entirety of this planet's history] will cause extreme weather to become more likely, but we will also see more predictable weather and some better weather.
In short, any and all weather is indicative of global warming, in much the same way the absence of tigers in my house is due to my anti-tiger rock.
Although I don't have an anti-tiger rock my house is similarly untroubled by tigers.
OT I bought myself a copy of Complete - Drop The Drop Donkey - and it's just as brilliant as ever. If you like news satire from the 90s - it'd be hard to beat it.
I've got that too - brilliant stuff. Very easy to dip in and out of.
Agree about Neil Pearson being a talent but BTL series 3 was a shadow of the first two.
Following on from Anthony Wells's analysis, I thought this week's polling deserved some detailed investigation.
The majority of polls in the last week have shown between a Labour and Conservatives tie and Labour ahead by 3 (and half of them between a tie and a Labour lead of 2). But as usual it was those that differed significantly that got all the attention.
Of the 12 polls for which the fieldwork was carried out between December 12 and 19th:
– Six were in line with the recent range between a tie and Lab+2 (all conducted online) – Three of the 6 that weren’t, were phone polls and a fourth wasn’t past vote-weighted – One (Thursday’s YouGov) is completely out of line with the the other four YouGovs this week – The other (TNS) has atypical weights (2010 past vote proportions skewed far more towards Labour than other pollsters) and a huge proportion of 2010 non-voters, who are very Labour this month having been very Tory last month
Phone polls are considered more reliable by many people, because they are a random(ish) sample and not a statistical model, but remember, if people are doing their Christmas shopping or at office parties instead of being home to answer their landlines, even the mighty ICM can get a less-than-perfectly-random sample
"High value migrants" can already stay under the current rules. However to get a general visa you must have a Graduate level job with a minimum salary of £20,500, that prevents foreign students from taking basic entry level jobs, but seems a bit low to me. I'm sure there are British students who could fill these 20k a year Graduate jobs.
We need to be clear what we're trying to achieve with the points system for non-EU people. Is it to admit (only) highly-qualified people to the UK? If so, the policy is nuts. Or is it to limit the number of people as much as possible? If so, it'd be even more effective to ban non-EU immigration altogether.
Alternatively we could stop this racist idiocy where we admit any fool from the EU no matter how unqualified, and increasingly fewer people from outside the EU no matter how qualified or otherwise useful to the country. I know liberals like to dodge the issue, but the plain fact is we decide who gets unfettered access to our country based on their country of origin, or as it is otherwise known, their race.
If a person is useful and good for the country, they are useful and good for the country no matter where they come from, if they are a liability, or a potential terrorist, then they are a liability or a potential terrorist even if they come from inside the EU. People should be judged on their individual suitability for entering the country, just as most other sovereign countries do it - oh yes, I forgot we are not a sovereign country in any meaningful sense any more, so we have to accept EU malcontents, and reject useful people from outside the EU. Actually there's a thought, if we gave a UK passport to everyone who asked for one, from whatever country, the EU would soon start bleating as thousands of say Turkish immigrants with nice shiney EU passports starting pouring into France and Germany.
Following on from Anthony Wells's analysis, I thought this week's polling deserved some detailed investigation.
The majority of polls in the last week have shown between a Labour and Conservatives tie and Labour ahead by 3 (and half of them between a tie and a Labour lead of 2). But as usual it was those that differed significantly that got all the attention.
Of the 12 polls for which the fieldwork was carried out between December 12 and 19th:
– Six were in line with the recent range between a tie and Lab+2 (all conducted online) – Three of the 6 that weren’t, were phone polls and a fourth wasn’t past vote-weighted – One (Thursday’s YouGov) is completely out of line with the the other four YouGovs this week – The other (TNS) has atypical weights (2010 past vote proportions skewed far more towards Labour than other pollsters) and a huge proportion of 2010 non-voters, who are very Labour this month having been very Tory last month
Phone polls are considered more reliable by many people, because they are a random(ish) sample and not a statistical model, but remember, if people are doing their Christmas shopping or at office parties instead of being home to answer their landlines, even the mighty ICM can get a less-than-perfectly-random sample
Oliver Cooper @OliverCooper · 2h2 hours ago The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
This does seem to be pretty counter-productive, surely foreign graduates are exactly the sort of people we want.
Seems incredible that we should prefer beggars from one part of the world over clever kids from another based on.. what?
Obviously I don't think it is skin colour, but if UKIP had this policy I am sure we'd get a lot of passive aggressive smart arse innuendo implying it was
Who says 'we' prefer beggars? Building a policy on lies is hadly clever. Suddenly realising that a significant number of immigrants that you want to exclude are desirable students is hardly clever either.
Following on from Anthony Wells's analysis, I thought this week's polling deserved some detailed investigation.
The majority of polls in the last week have shown between a Labour and Conservatives tie and Labour ahead by 3 (and half of them between a tie and a Labour lead of 2). But as usual it was those that differed significantly that got all the attention.
Of the 12 polls for which the fieldwork was carried out between December 12 and 19th:
– Six were in line with the recent range between a tie and Lab+2 (all conducted online) – Three of the 6 that weren’t, were phone polls and a fourth wasn’t past vote-weighted – One (Thursday’s YouGov) is completely out of line with the the other four YouGovs this week – The other (TNS) has atypical weights (2010 past vote proportions skewed far more towards Labour than other pollsters) and a huge proportion of 2010 non-voters, who are very Labour this month having been very Tory last month
Phone polls are considered more reliable by many people, because they are a random(ish) sample and not a statistical model, but remember, if people are doing their Christmas shopping or at office parties instead of being home to answer their landlines, even the mighty ICM can get a less-than-perfectly-random sample
AS ICM also use mobile numbers your penultimate paragraph is false .
ICM use 15% mobiles:
"Sampling Method, RDD: Within each government office region, a random sample of telephone numbers was drawn from the entire BT database of domestic telephone numbers. Each number so selected had its last digit randomised so as to provide a sample including both listed and unlisted numbers. 850 interviews were conducted on land-lines.
Sampling Method, Mobile RDD: A random sample of mobile telephone numbers was generated in proportion to network provider market share. As with the landline process, seed telephone numbers are used to create the mobile RDD sample by randomising the last N digits of the seed number. A total of 150 interviews were conducted with people on their mobile phone.
Seems Theresa May's policy on immigration is to keep out bright students who have been here three years, and assimilate pickpockets by warning criminals in Romanian
I think that the idea is that once a student has graduated he/she should go home because entry was based on study. He/she can return subject to the appropriate rules. Anyone with a good qualification and a good job offer can return. We must stop the idea that coming to Britain to study is a route to permanent residence in the UK.
Why? The effect of this arbitrary piece of bureaucracy will be that demand for British education - a major foreign exchange earner - will drop, since the deal will be "Get a brilliant degree, get an offer from a British company, and then bugger off home and wait a few months to see if you get a visa before the offer expires".
We need to be clear what we're trying to achieve with the points system for non-EU people. Is it to admit (only) highly-qualified people to the UK? If so, the policy is nuts. Or is it to limit the number of people as much as possible? If so, it'd be even more effective to ban non-EU immigration altogether.
Demand for British education is quite high now - more students have been enrolled than for some time. Of course fewer foreigners may come but the education industry is doing very well. Not all foreign students are studying advanced subjects. There are many private colleges which, although lawful, seem to have low academic and attendance records. Not forgetting the Romanian and Bulgarian "students" who claim financial support and don't show up.
Comments
Prescription/over the counter drugs will have higher limits, but its not difficult to see how problems will arise. Then there is poppy seed rolls...
My question remains: how many co-codamols can I take and be fit to drive?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxr6bQikRk0
Re charts - have a look at Scotgoespop as it may have what you want (though a different period for averaging IIRC).
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/head-stratfor-private-cia-says-overthrow-yanukovych-blatant-coup-history.html
George Friedman confirms what everyone knew anyway.
As for oil, it is dropping due to oversupply, weak demand and the winding down of huge net long positions.
Of course US sanctions are meant to weaken Russia, and to a lesser extent Europe.
The only card they have left to deploy is fear of a Milliband government, which may, in the end, just get them over the finishing line.
From the gov website: LOL.
To know how many tablets you can take: follow the prescription and/or instruction leaflet that comes with the tablets.
This would have been a real bind to me in the past when I was on a codeine-based drug; then again, I wasn't in a fit state to drive because of the underlying condition. Despite this, I can see sense in it. IMO driving is not some form of inalienable human right, but a responsibility.
"Police warn pickpockets in the only language they understand... Romanian: Sign placed in Covent Garden during Christmas shopping rush
Notice deterring Romanian pickpockets put up in busy shopping area
The bright yellow sign has been placed in Covent Garden by police
It warns 'plainclothes police officers operate in this area'
Half of the pickpockets caught on the Tube this year were from Romania
A police notice deterring pickpockets has gone up in one of the busiest shopping areas in Britain – written in Romanian.
The bright yellow sign, outside Covent Garden Underground station in Central London, states: ‘Ofiteri de politie in civil opereaza in aceasta zona.’
Put up by the Metropolitan Police, it translates as ‘plainclothes police officers operating in this area,’ and is believed to be the first time a force has put up a warning sign of this nature in Romanian.
Covent Garden is a mile away from Hyde Park Corner – notorious for the scores of Romanian rough sleepers who have made the affluent area their home"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2882202/Police-warn-pickpockets-language-understand-Romanian-Sign-placed-Covent-Garden-Christmas-shopping-rush.html
"I must say the the Marr programme today, was full of main parties propaganda in the form of Ken Clark and Peter Mandelson, with the usual derision of UKIP."
The BBC reflect what they see as sensible opinion. If you counted the Ukip voters working for them, you'd only need one hand. The LDs would outnumber them many times over. Very difficult to remain unbiased but I suspect they try.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/gb2s5b76rk/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-151214.pdf
ICM had it at 58% the other day in their long drawn out survey period.
This essentially boils down to the historic lack of roadside testing kits for the popular illicit drugs. Instead the police have to make suspects walk a straight line, or stand on one foot with a finger on their nose to identify impairment, which whilst informative, is not necessarily evidential. Prosecution can be very difficult, because it is then necessary to prove that any impairment was due to the presence of drugs. Moreover, very few police officers are trained to do the initial roadside test.
The one case I did see was a diabetic pensioner who had a hypo whilst driving along the motorway. It took the police forever to pull him over, as he swerved all over the motorway for many miles. The whole thing was recorded on video, and made fascinating viewing.
I cannot remember the precise outcome of that case, but events such as these are occasionally prosecuted to make elderly people recognise that their driving days are over.
Although following one's prescription will be a defence to a charge contrary to section 5A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is no defence to a charge, contrary to section 4(1)-(2) of the same (driving while unfit through drugs). All the Crown need prove is that the person in question's ability to drive properly was for the time being impaired through drugs. That is not a high standard, and suggests there will very often be criminal liability even if a person is merely taking such drugs as are prescribed to him from time to time.
I'm not greatly surprised that this law has been brought in now that technology exists to support it, but it does seem that they have gone further than prohibiting levels of drugs that would impair driving by setting levels at "zero tolerance" levels, ie making it another flank in the futile "war on drugs". It will increase the alienation of young people from the mainstream parties.
Generally while I wouldn't touch the stuff, I think drug prohibition has been an utter disaster that has split society, increased consqeuential crime from addicts and enriched illegal crime syndicates. I really don't see what business of the state it is if adults choose to posess or use such substances provided they don't cause a nuisance to others. I would legalise and tax drugs and introduce offences with stiff penalties for causing a nuisance or danger whilst under the influence.
From a politics point of view to bring the proposed "zero tolerance" law into effect during a general election campaign strikes me as utterly complacent and stupid. Suspect it is one of Gidiot's wheezes to cause differentiation between Tories and Libdems.
OK but evidence of, say, co-codomal in the prisoners blood would not of itself be evidence that their driving ability was impaired. The Filth is going to have to come up with some additional evidence in order to obtain a conviction, or even a lawful arrest. Of course they might just lie, as used to happen with drink-driving but leaving aside misconduct the existence of these machines can only provide corroborating evidence of impairment.
No party seems to be suggesting a change in the law to implement drugs blood limit similar to that that exists for booze so the whole thing seems to be a storm in a tea-cup or a piece of spin by ACPO, take your pick.
Dan Hodges retweeted
Patrick Wintour@patrickwintour·47 mins47 minutes ago
A corrective to those seeing Autumn Statement as a Tory polling disaster, despite large Lab leads in 3 recent polls. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9102 …
The plastic German killed millions yet Austria is ignored of the culpability. Guilt should be held with those whom inflicted it - and they were not Roma - despite Al-Beeb's efforts...!
Gypsy-King William Jefferson Clinton can [MODERATED] off the [MODERATED] [MODERATED]!!!
haha if people read this and had any self awareness there'd be about 2000 fewer posts a week on here
Rob Ford (Britain) @robfordmancs · 7m7 minutes ago Manchester, England
Judging from my twitter feed Mays foreign students "plan" alienated most of the centre right. Won't win a single ukipper either. Pointless.
Janan Ganesh @JananGanesh · 14m14 minutes ago
Conservatism at its most fat-headed. http://thetim.es/1JAwIyF
Danny Quah @DannyQuah · 2h2 hours ago
How to ruin a world-leading nation: First, reject the educated and talented who come to you http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1498758.ece …
Their fundamental policy problem is that they can't do anything substantial without leaving the EU, but that really would lose them a chunk of their coalition, which is why they continue to be vague about it.
"I didn't have the best experience in my first major post on this site running up against people whose political focus seemed to be totally distorted through an anti-Salmond/Scottish lens."
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this particular race what I find interesting but what you probably haven't discovered yet is how the SNP posters (of which there are quite a lot) mirror in their posting style English UKIPers (of which there are even more) Both are the most passionate champions of their respective causes and neither will accept criticism from anyone.
The likes of Antifrank who take politics and betting seriously and without too much of an axe to grind are quite rare but the most appreciated. When you get to know where the different posters are coming from it's much easier to avoid taking offence and even being told to "take the leek out of your erchie" by everyone's favourite Nat can be informative
George Galloway @georgegalloway 18h18 hours ago
@bugmenot44 @jimmurphymp I don't believe the SNP will take a single seat from Labour in 2015. You'll get good odds on that.
Seems someone is indulging in a few phantasies at UKIP GHQ (North Britain).
'UKIP's chairman in Scotland Arthur Thackeray reveals party SPIES on opponents
UKIP in Scotland has revealed it is using a variety of undercover measures to spy on its opponents.
The party’s chairman north of the border Arthur Thackeray has made the shock revelations that private investigators were hired during the independence referendum and that protest groups against the party were “infiltrated”.
And Thackeray described UKIP’s network as “‘a very good intelligence service” adding that the activities will “most definitely” continue ahead of May’s General Election.
Thackeray, a former security firm boss, said the party has recruited private investigation industry contacts to monitor anti-Ukip protest groups;
And to throw opponents off the scent, he revealed that “spotters” used to infiltrate anti-UKIP protest groups are being recruited from the Polisgh community - because it was felt they were the last people the mob would expect to be working for UKIP.
‘Decoy’ events have been set up by Ukip to take protesters away from the proper venues;
Thackeray himself said he went undercover himself at a Radical Independence Campaign event.'
Shame that Thackeray appears to have dropped his nickname Misty. Seemed the only attractive thing about him.
There will of course be outliers - that there is a 10 point difference of opinion between MORI and both TNS/Opinium demonstrates this. But the odds of the 1 in 20 rogue hitting all three at the same!e time?
There has been a shift towards Labour since the OBR outed Osborne's austerity for ever numbers and The SpecToryTator declared the "no money for benefits or public services but plenty of money for tax cuts at the top" position to be ludicrous. I agree that 7% is at the extreme end of MOE, but the fact remains that we're suddenly seeing leads on that scale and its after the Autumn Statement.
Its swing back alright. Just not back in the direction so many on here assured us would happen.
I must do something
This is something
Therefore I must do this
Theresa May has been and still is in charge of this mess. Why anyone thinks she could be a good leader, and by extension PM, is beyond me.
Simon Danczuk says Mr Farage is an 'interesting guy' after photographs of him sharing a drink with the Ukip leader fuel speculation of a defection.
Even though Danczuk insists he is not defecting, is he getting ready for the big leap?
The British public overwhelmingly back foreign students and well-educated job-seekers coming to the UK. (via @YouGov) pic.twitter.com/0hr1nsl4h1
Zac Goldsmith MP: "80% of the laws coming through Defra are not of Defra origin. They are imposed on Defra by the European Union".
"Simon Danczuk says Mr Farage is an 'interesting guy' after photographs of him sharing a drink with the Ukip leader fuel speculation of a defection."
Two Christmases in one! Could we be so lucky
At the same stage in the last Parliament , the two polls conducted pre-Xmas 2009 were from Comres and Opinium. They showed Tory leads of 9% and 7% respectively – not all that far off the May 2010 outcome.
The oil price has crashed for three reasons:
1. Saudi Arabia made the decision that supporting the oil price meant ceding market share to US shale players. If Saudi Arabia cut production 1m barrels to maintain an $80 price, then US production would just rise 1m barrels. Saudi would then have to cut *another* 1m barrels. The government in Riyadh realised this didn't work for them in the long term.
2. The Chinese government - which had been buying up 1m barrels a day to fill their strategic petroleum reserve - stopped buying. Their storage was largely full.
3. Demand in China and the Eurozone has tracked about 0.8m barrels (0.5m China, 0.3m the Eurozone) below forecasts.
The combination of these factors has led to the oil price crashing.
Furthermore, the the US government has no control over the output of companies in the US. Hard those this is to believe, hundreds (maybe thousands) of little oil companies, from EOG Resources, to Chesapeake Energy and the like, have all made independent decisions to invest in shale production. They all grossly misestimated future oil prices and are now seriously cash flow negative (and often highly indebted). The idea that the US government conspired to drive 100s of oil companies into bankruptcy and to hammer the US high yield bond market isn't just paranoid, it's delusional.
worked well enough last time we tried it.
If sitting LD MPs really do as well as has been made out, the aggregate LD score cannot be 6%.
In the other 570 seats, the LDs would have to do awfully bad to end up with 6%. Some may even have to get "negative" votes !!!!!
If you have been taking prescription or over the counter legal drugs, the burden of proof is effectively reversed. You have to demonstrate that (a) you were not impaired in your driving skills (probably impossible if you have had an accident and get tested) and you have to demonstrate that the drugs were legal over the counter or prescribed drugs and that you took them in accordance with the instructions. Good luck with that.
Obviously I don't think it is skin colour, but if UKIP had this policy I am sure we'd get a lot of passive aggressive smart arse innuendo implying it was
It doesn't leave much scope for anyone else in a points system; or has UKIP decided that numbers in this range are now fine and dandy?
IN one sentence he said that ISIS was selling oil to the Assad regime. Is this another Blair "45 minutes".
ISIS selling oil to Assad ???? One is a hard core Sunni , the other Alawite. They are trying to get rid of each other. ISIS selling oil to smugglers who then sell on to the international market or the black market, I can understand.
Do I respond to everything (anything?) you say by referencing whoever it is you support?
What it does show is that the public prefer the ability to choose who is allowed to migrate here rather than an open door
The Lib Dems tell us it would be a disaster to leave.
Seems to me it would be a disaster to stay.
After the EU is working so well for ALL its members .... not
tut tut
Further investigation into Lockerbie bomber finds "not a shred of evidence" to indicate he was wrongly convicted. What they did find in the communications between Libya and UK during Blairs and Labours tenure was this....
Documents showed 'reprehensible' connections between the Labour government boosting business and freeing the man convicted of Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity. An email sent by the then UK ambassador in Tripoli to former premier Tony Blair explained how a prisoner transfer agreement will be signed once Libya 'fulfils its promise' to buy an air defence system.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2881724/Freed-Lockerbie-bomber-guilty-Al-Megrahi-inquiry-finds-not-shred-evidence-doubt-Libyan-s-conviction.html#ixzz3MXfIyzlv
Is it me, or has it been windy for about a month?
I think you'll find that it's evidence of global warming.
No wind is also global warming.
Some wind is also global warming.
In short, any and all weather is indicative of global warming, in much the same way the absence of tigers in my house is due to my anti-tiger rock.
We need to be clear what we're trying to achieve with the points system for non-EU people. Is it to admit (only) highly-qualified people to the UK? If so, the policy is nuts. Or is it to limit the number of people as much as possible? If so, it'd be even more effective to ban non-EU immigration altogether.
I blame Fatcha.
imdb.com/title/tt0103362/?ref_=nm_knf_t2
The majority of polls in the last week have shown between a Labour and Conservatives tie and Labour ahead by 3 (and half of them between a tie and a Labour lead of 2). But as usual it was those that differed significantly that got all the attention.
Of the 12 polls for which the fieldwork was carried out between December 12 and 19th:
– Six were in line with the recent range between a tie and Lab+2 (all conducted online)
– Three of the 6 that weren’t, were phone polls and a fourth wasn’t past vote-weighted
– One (Thursday’s YouGov) is completely out of line with the the other four YouGovs this week
– The other (TNS) has atypical weights (2010 past vote proportions skewed far more towards Labour than other pollsters) and a huge proportion of 2010 non-voters, who are very Labour this month having been very Tory last month
Phone polls are considered more reliable by many people, because they are a random(ish) sample and not a statistical model, but remember, if people are doing their Christmas shopping or at office parties instead of being home to answer their landlines, even the mighty ICM can get a less-than-perfectly-random sample
To summarise graphically:
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/546693586923053056
I'm not sure that polls taken at this time are the most representative. They certainly seem to have become more volatile.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/careers/aboutus/internationalstudents/ukaftergraduation
"High value migrants" can already stay under the current rules. However to get a general visa you must have a Graduate level job with a minimum salary of £20,500, that prevents foreign students from taking basic entry level jobs, but seems a bit low to me. I'm sure there are British students who could fill these 20k a year Graduate jobs.
If a person is useful and good for the country, they are useful and good for the country no matter where they come from, if they are a liability, or a potential terrorist, then they are a liability or a potential terrorist even if they come from inside the EU. People should be judged on their individual suitability for entering the country, just as most other sovereign countries do it - oh yes, I forgot we are not a sovereign country in any meaningful sense any more, so we have to accept EU malcontents, and reject useful people from outside the EU. Actually there's a thought, if we gave a UK passport to everyone who asked for one, from whatever country, the EU would soon start bleating as thousands of say Turkish immigrants with nice shiney EU passports starting pouring into France and Germany.
Laptop is in the kitchen covered in honey and egg
nourishedkitchen.com/turron-de-navidad/
Is this is it for the 2014 polling year then?
"Sampling Method, RDD: Within each government office region, a random sample
of telephone numbers was drawn from the entire BT database of domestic telephone
numbers. Each number so selected had its last digit randomised so as to provide a
sample including both listed and unlisted numbers. 850 interviews were conducted
on land-lines.
Sampling Method, Mobile RDD: A random sample of mobile telephone numbers
was generated in proportion to network provider market share. As with the landline
process, seed telephone numbers are used to create the mobile RDD sample by
randomising the last N digits of the seed number. A total of 150 interviews were
conducted with people on their mobile phone.
Sample size: 1,001"
http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2014_dec_guardian_poll.pdf