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.
Cameron stated that he is in favour of the Freedom of Movement, ergo he is in favour of anyone coming to our country from the EU no matter how unsuitable, how unlikely to contribute to the country, and how much of a security or health risk they are, since TFEU specifically excludes those as possible reasons why they might be excluded from a member country. We required even the spouses of British nationals that want to come to the UK from outside the EU to jump through a load of hoops to get a visa, it is therefore completely fair to say we "prefer" a beggar from the EU (automatic right of admission) to say my wife advanced degrees in Electronics and Communication Systems, but non-EU with a brown skin that had to jump through hoops to get a visa.
An understandable reaction, although these days I will at least look at what he is talking about, as I recall an interview with him many years ago talking about grooming gangs he said were operating and which were being ignored due to the ethnic issue, and I scoffed at the very idea, which clearly was a mistake.
Very quiet. Everyone must be partaking in pagan rituals to celebrate the Winter Solstice.
Human sacrifices are hard to prepare, particularly when people insist their was no such aspect to the original pagan rituals either, so it requires much concentration.
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.
Cameron stated that he is in favour of the Freedom of Movement, ergo he is in favour of anyone coming to our country from the EU no matter how unsuitable, how unlikely to contribute to the country, and how much of a security or health risk they are, since TFEU specifically excludes those as possible reasons why they might be excluded from a member country. We required even the spouses of British nationals that want to come to the UK from outside the EU to jump through a load of hoops to get a visa, it is therefore completely fair to say we "prefer" a beggar from the EU (automatic right of admission) to say my wife advanced degrees in Electronics and Communication Systems, but non-EU with a brown skin that had to jump through hoops to get a visa.
You are exaggerating. Cameron does not favour unlimited freedom of movement, he's doing his best to counter the problem within the constraints set by the EU. And we do not "favour" beggars. Don't let personal problems detract from the truth.
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.
Cameron stated that he is in favour of the Freedom of Movement, ergo he is in favour of anyone coming to our country from the EU no matter how unsuitable, how unlikely to contribute to the country, and how much of a security or health risk they are, since TFEU specifically excludes those as possible reasons why they might be excluded from a member country. We required even the spouses of British nationals that want to come to the UK from outside the EU to jump through a load of hoops to get a visa, it is therefore completely fair to say we "prefer" a beggar from the EU (automatic right of admission) to say my wife advanced degrees in Electronics and Communication Systems, but non-EU with a brown skin that had to jump through hoops to get a visa.
You are exaggerating. Cameron does not favour unlimited freedom of movement, he's doing his best to counter the problem within the constraints set by the EU. And we do not "favour" beggars. Don't let personal problems detract from the truth.
He said he supported Freedom of Movement, note the capital letters, one of the pillars of the EU, if he supports that, he gets the rest for free, if what he really means is he supports us being in the EU then he should say so and stop trying to triangulate with the kippers.
However, he has been dealt a set-back after a senior Polish minister ruled out agreeing to Mr Cameron's proposals to make EU migrants wait four years before qualifying for welfare payments and social housing.
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
tut tut
It is quite likely that 50 000 per year staying on permanently staying on is an underestimate:
I am sure that many students intermarry with locals, but many others bring spouses and children from other countries when they have established residence. More recently arrived migrants have stronger ties with their home country, and to be young and marriagable, so particularly likely to bring in family this way. I think the net effect of 100 000 per year is a reasonable estimate of the net effect of non EU students migrating here.
If UKIP are not planning to deal with this issue, then it seems hard for them to meet their implied target of massively reduced immigration.
It may well be that under UKIPs points system that migration may stay in 5 figures, but as it seems very opaque how these points are to be allocated and to whom it is very hard to know. UKIP is the party that puts stopping immigration as its core policy. It should spit out some answers.
But the Conservatives of course seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact.
"Craig Mackinlay, Conservative candidate for South Thanet, said: "Ukip is the party that just keeps on giving, there seems to be something every week. "Finding out what was actually said is the bit I'm looking forward to. "Ukip don't throw people out, they usually let them get away with it. "For her to have been thrown out this must have been very bad.""
Mr Mackinlay sounds very like some of our own dear pbtory numskulls.
But the Conservatives of course seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact.
"Craig Mackinlay, Conservative candidate for South Thanet, said: "Ukip is the party that just keeps on giving, there seems to be something every week. "Finding out what was actually said is the bit I'm looking forward to. "Ukip don't throw people out, they usually let them get away with it. "For her to have been thrown out this must have been very bad.""
Mr Mackinlay sounds very like some of our own dear pbtory numskulls.
Craig Mackinlay knows what he is talking about.
He is a former UKIP leader, who saw UKIP for what they really are and made the honest and principled decision to leave nasty UKIP and join the wonderful Tory party.
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
tut tut
It is quite likely that 50 000 per year staying on permanently staying on is an underestimate:
I am sure that many students intermarry with locals, but many others bring spouses and children from other countries when they have established residence. More recently arrived migrants have stronger ties with their home country, and to be young and marriagable, so particularly likely to bring in family this way. I think the net effect of 100 000 per year is a reasonable estimate of the net effect of non EU students migrating here.
If UKIP are not planning to deal with this issue, then it seems hard for them to meet their implied target of massively reduced immigration.
It may well be that under UKIPs points system that migration may stay in 5 figures, but as it seems very opaque how these points are to be allocated and to whom it is very hard to know. UKIP is the party that puts stopping immigration as its core policy. It should spit out some answers.
You are just making up numbers and adding on people here and there to fit your argument
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.
Who is lying?
A beggar from an EU country can come to this country if he likes, a bright student from Asia who has been studying here for three years is to be sent home
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.
That does not work as a way of randomising calls to landlines (entering broken record mode here). The problems are that phone numbers are assigned in blocks; people of different classes tend to live apart from each other; and posh people are more likely to be ex-directory. The polling companies prefer to fix bad samples with weighting.
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
tut tut
It is quite likely that 50 000 per year staying on permanently staying on is an underestimate:
I am sure that many students intermarry with locals, but many others bring spouses and children from other countries when they have established residence. More recently arrived migrants have stronger ties with their home country, and to be young and marriagable, so particularly likely to bring in family this way. I think the net effect of 100 000 per year is a reasonable estimate of the net effect of non EU students migrating here.
If UKIP are not planning to deal with this issue, then it seems hard for them to meet their implied target of massively reduced immigration.
It may well be that under UKIPs points system that migration may stay in 5 figures, but as it seems very opaque how these points are to be allocated and to whom it is very hard to know. UKIP is the party that puts stopping immigration as its core policy. It should spit out some answers.
Re the oil price, their view is that the medium term equilibrium for oil is in the $70-75 range, and while there will be spikes above and below that level, it should hover around there.
Having spent a week with tight oil players in Houston and Dallas at the beginning of the month, I think that sounds about right: capex budgets are being reigned in, and it's worth remembering that - come hell or high water - production from a lot of mature basins (like the British North Sea) will fall in 2015. This should mean equilibrium is reached a lot more quickly than people think.
While I wouldn't want to catch a falling knife (although I am thinking about possibly catching a falling knife...), the oil price could already have bottomed here.
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.
Who is lying?
A beggar from an EU country can come to this country if he likes, a bright student from Asia who has been studying here for three years is to be sent home
That's the truth x
Does this mean you'd end the Ireland/UK single working area block if we left the EU?
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.
I blame Fatcha.
As well you might.
"Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out." -- Mrs Thatcher, 1989.
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.
That does not work as a way of randomising calls to landlines (entering broken record mode here). The problems are that phone numbers are assigned in blocks; people of different classes tend to live apart from each other; and posh people are more likely to be ex-directory. The polling companies prefer to fix bad samples with weighting.
I wasn't suggesting that it does. I was challenged on the issue of landlines/mobiles so I pointed out that the split is 85/15.
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.
Who is lying?
A beggar from an EU country can come to this country if he likes, a bright student from Asia who has been studying here for three years is to be sent home
That's the truth x
Does this mean you'd end the Ireland/UK single working area block if we left the EU?
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
tut tut
It is quite likely that 50 000 per year staying on permanently staying on is an underestimate:
I am sure that many students intermarry with locals, but many others bring spouses and children from other countries when they have established residence. More recently arrived migrants have stronger ties with their home country, and to be young and marriagable, so particularly likely to bring in family this way. I think the net effect of 100 000 per year is a reasonable estimate of the net effect of non EU students migrating here.
If UKIP are not planning to deal with this issue, then it seems hard for them to meet their implied target of massively reduced immigration.
It may well be that under UKIPs points system that migration may stay in 5 figures, but as it seems very opaque how these points are to be allocated and to whom it is very hard to know. UKIP is the party that puts stopping immigration as its core policy. It should spit out some answers.
You are just making up numbers and adding on people here and there to fit your argument
Just pointing out, that turning people away is not so easy as kippers say.
Do you disagree with the Migration watch figures? Or do you envisage a system where permenantly settled migrants are forbidden from marrying a non-British resident?
It is the kippers who say there is no room at the inn!
Worth bearing in mind that if the infant Jesus and his family had not been given asylum in Egypt, then it is likely to have been murdered by Herod well ahead of time.
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.
Yet a recent increase in the number of British vineyards is all credited to creative entrepreneurship and climate change doesn't get a mention.
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.
Yet a recent increase in the number of British vineyards is all credited to creative entrepreneurship and climate change doesn't get a mention.
The venerable Bede records that grapes were grown in Northumberland in his time. The only constant thing about the climate is that it is always changing. The contentious bit is whether human activity is a significant factor in this change or whether other natural factors dwarf the effect of us releasing C02.
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.
I blame Fatcha.
As well you might.
"Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out." -- Mrs Thatcher, 1989.
"It may be inverted snobbishness but I don't want old style, Old Etonian Tories of the old school to succeed me and go back to the old complacent, consensus ways. John Major is someone who has fought his way up from the bottom and is far more in tune with the skilled and ambitious and worthwhile working classes than Douglas Hurd is." -Said to Woodrow Wyatt (23 November 1990), Sarah Curtis (ed.), The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt. Volume Two (Pan, 2000), pp. 401-402.
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.
I blame Fatcha.
As well you might.
Fatcha is *really* responsible for no tigers in my house? I knew she was the magnificent side of amazing but I'm even more in awe of Her now.
But the Conservatives of course seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact.
"Craig Mackinlay, Conservative candidate for South Thanet, said: "Ukip is the party that just keeps on giving, there seems to be something every week. "Finding out what was actually said is the bit I'm looking forward to. "Ukip don't throw people out, they usually let them get away with it. "For her to have been thrown out this must have been very bad.""
Mr Mackinlay sounds very like some of our own dear pbtory numskulls.
Craig Mackinlay knows what he is talking about.
He is a former UKIP leader, who saw UKIP for what they really are and made the honest and principled decision to leave nasty UKIP and join the wonderful Tory party.
I shared a taxi ride with Craig Mackinlay in 1999.
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
Labour from the 20s-50s had noble Christian socialist values, and were largely patriots. However, they were economically illiterate.
The Labour of today openly despises the very concept of nationhood, and are willing to betray their own country and people to advance their political interests, be that through gerrymandering, constitutional rigging, legislative force or mass immigration. They are less economically illiterate (intellectually, most senior Labour politicians probably now understand socialism doesn't work) but have to remain just as profligate - if not more so - to maintain their union funding and voter base.
I wouldn't vote Labour in a million years. They are professionals at ruining a nation, politically, socially, culturally and economically.
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
Labour from the 20s-50s had noble Christian socialist values, and were largely patriots. However, they were economically illiterate.
The Labour of today openly despises the very concept of nationhood, and are willing to betray their own country and people to advance their political interests, be that through gerrymandering, constitutional rigging, legislative force or mass immigration. They are less economically illiterate (intellectually, most senior Labour politicians probably now understand socialism doesn't work) but have to remain just as profligate - if not more so - to maintain their union funding and voter base.
I wouldn't vote Labour in a million years. They are professionals at ruining a nation, politically, socially, culturally and economically.
Absolutely.
Hence my amusement at Roger's comment.
Rose tinted specs and all that.
Wasn't it the Tories who boldly took us into Europe in 1973?
Great man Mr. Heath and I can never understand why Tories on here always seem to want to rubbish him.
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
Labour from the 20s-50s had noble Christian socialist values, and were largely patriots. However, they were economically illiterate.
The Labour of today openly despises the very concept of nationhood, and are willing to betray their own country and people to advance their political interests, be that through gerrymandering, constitutional rigging, legislative force or mass immigration. They are less economically illiterate (intellectually, most senior Labour politicians probably now understand socialism doesn't work) but have to remain just as profligate - if not more so - to maintain their union funding and voter base.
I wouldn't vote Labour in a million years. They are professionals at ruining a nation, politically, socially, culturally and economically.
Absolutely.
Hence my amusement at Roger's comment.
Rose tinted specs and all that.
Wasn't it the Tories who boldly took us into Europe in 1973?
Great man Mr. Heath and I can never understand why Tories on here always seem to want to rubbish him.
If it wasn't your site I would think you are a troll!
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
Labour from the 20s-50s had noble Christian socialist values, and were largely patriots. However, they were economically illiterate.
The Labour of today openly despises the very concept of nationhood, and are willing to betray their own country and people to advance their political interests, be that through gerrymandering, constitutional rigging, legislative force or mass immigration. They are less economically illiterate (intellectually, most senior Labour politicians probably now understand socialism doesn't work) but have to remain just as profligate - if not more so - to maintain their union funding and voter base.
I wouldn't vote Labour in a million years. They are professionals at ruining a nation, politically, socially, culturally and economically.
Absolutely.
Hence my amusement at Roger's comment.
Rose tinted specs and all that.
Wasn't it the Tories who boldly took us into Europe in 1973?
Great man Mr. Heath and I can never understand why Tories on here always seem to want to rubbish him.
You mean Heath was the first Tory Pig-Dog Traitor? (only kidding!)
Comments
Tommy Robinson? No thanks.
Would you be more comfortable if MikeK had posted a tweet by another person but with the same words? Seems a bit messenger-attackish.
An understandable reaction, although these days I will at least look at what he is talking about, as I recall an interview with him many years ago talking about grooming gangs he said were operating and which were being ignored due to the ethnic issue, and I scoffed at the very idea, which clearly was a mistake. Human sacrifices are hard to prepare, particularly when people insist their was no such aspect to the original pagan rituals either, so it requires much concentration.
http://press.conservatives.com/post/103802921280/david-cameron-speech-on-immigration Incidentally you know that the Poles have basically vetoed Cameron's plans for restrictions on immigrant benefits:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/547856/David-Cameron-Poland-EU-migrants-benefits-red-line So that's all going well.
Ooooops
seems she used to be a Tory then switched to UKIP
But the Conservatives of course seem to have forgotten that inconvenient fact.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/2.25
I am sure that many students intermarry with locals, but many others bring spouses and children from other countries when they have established residence. More recently arrived migrants have stronger ties with their home country, and to be young and marriagable, so particularly likely to bring in family this way. I think the net effect of 100 000 per year is a reasonable estimate of the net effect of non EU students migrating here.
If UKIP are not planning to deal with this issue, then it seems hard for them to meet their implied target of massively reduced immigration.
It may well be that under UKIPs points system that migration may stay in 5 figures, but as it seems very opaque how these points are to be allocated and to whom it is very hard to know. UKIP is the party that puts stopping immigration as its core policy. It should spit out some answers.
"Finding out what was actually said is the bit I'm looking forward to.
"Ukip don't throw people out, they usually let them get away with it.
"For her to have been thrown out this must have been very bad.""
Mr Mackinlay sounds very like some of our own dear pbtory numskulls.
He is a former UKIP leader, who saw UKIP for what they really are and made the honest and principled decision to leave nasty UKIP and join the wonderful Tory party.
A beggar from an EU country can come to this country if he likes, a bright student from Asia who has been studying here for three years is to be sent home
That's the truth x
Re the oil price, their view is that the medium term equilibrium for oil is in the $70-75 range, and while there will be spikes above and below that level, it should hover around there.
Having spent a week with tight oil players in Houston and Dallas at the beginning of the month, I think that sounds about right: capex budgets are being reigned in, and it's worth remembering that - come hell or high water - production from a lot of mature basins (like the British North Sea) will fall in 2015. This should mean equilibrium is reached a lot more quickly than people think.
While I wouldn't want to catch a falling knife (although I am thinking about possibly catching a falling knife...), the oil price could already have bottomed here.
"Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out." -- Mrs Thatcher, 1989.
Do you disagree with the Migration watch figures? Or do you envisage a system where permenantly settled migrants are forbidden from marrying a non-British resident?
It is the kippers who say there is no room at the inn!
Worth bearing in mind that if the infant Jesus and his family had not been given asylum in Egypt, then it is likely to have been murdered by Herod well ahead of time.
-Said to Woodrow Wyatt (23 November 1990), Sarah Curtis (ed.), The Journals of Woodrow Wyatt. Volume Two (Pan, 2000), pp. 401-402.
I knew she was the magnificent side of amazing but I'm even more in awe of Her now.
Hence my amusement at Roger's comment.
Rose tinted specs and all that.
Great man Mr. Heath and I can never understand why Tories on here always seem to want to rubbish him.