Had a second call today from British Gas wishing to install a new smart meter. I don't want one in the house and told them so. They then on the call explicitly stated that from next year they are mandatory due to a change in the law and although they will remove me from the appointments list "for now" they will be " back next year when you have to have one" very threatening. That is an outright lie they are not compulsory and common advice from trusted sources is not to have one.
I have now placed notices on my external meters warning them off and I will be changing suppliers at earliest opportunity. I am also complaining to BG and the ombudsman about the threatening phone call.
Do your own research but these meters have known health issues, the requirements not resolved as yet and most certainly analogue are still useable. They will come out with many dirty tricks to get you to change but just be aware they monitor a wide range of energy uses while being hugely expensive and the costs passed onto the consumer.
Just want people to be aware as I know a number of people I have spoken too since have no idea the can say no.
uswitch agree with you - you do not have to change. They say they are not harmful to health however.
Why would a company try to force people into a technology which would cost the company money to install and at the same time encourage the user to use less energy?
Stunning really... Even with all the inbuilt advantages ( rightly or wrongly) being in opposition for 5 years while the worse decisions had to be made
They can only win " by a whisker"
Sorry no, Labour are going down to a catastrophic defeat. They just are.
The one that really stuck out for me was ICM guy.
"For me, Labour on 30 per cent will only fractionally nudge past their woeful 2010 showing behind the Tories on 33 per cent – but enough to secure more seats "
A result like this would require UKIP and SNP to get huge percentage of vote, and really be a landmark election.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
I agree that from a domestic point of view (and hence, overall) Miliband will be a disaster. But if you focus purely on our relations with the EU, I wouldn't expect him to do anything in the next five years as disastrous, from the ukip pov, as getting an in result in an in/out referendum
That's the bit I don't get. I think there will be a new treaty in the next 5 years. Spain are already agitating for one. Greece may precipitate one next week.
Miliband would sign it, with bells on.
In what Universe is that not as bad as a free vote?
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Must be that special kind of disaster, where it's clear they're destroying the country, but people keep electing them over and over again. It's quite common whenever your opponents are in office apparently.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Yeah, but this Labour party has repudiated the New Labour agenda, and listens to the unions much more.
That's a good thing? And the people at the forefront of Labour now are the same as when they were in power, minus Brown but including the first politician to privatize the NHS, and he is the shadow Health Minister.
Not forgetting Wales of course.
I would prefer a LibDem government, or continuity LD coalition, but would prefer a majority Lab government to a majority Con one.
And I think that I will be happier with it than the average kipper.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Why? Luck through others misfortune.
GE 2020, Milliband merely turns to the electorate, gestures towards a heavily divided opposition still knocking lumps off each other, and points out to the voter that the Tories et al are clearly not fit to govern. He'd be right too.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Must be that special kind of disaster, where it's clear they're destroying the country, but people keep electing them over and over again. It's quite common whenever your opponents are in office apparently.
If Gordon Brown hadn't so frit, this is exactly what would have happened.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Why? GE 2020, Milliband merely turns to the electorate, gestures towards a heavily divided opposition still knocking lumps off each other, and points out to the voter that the Tories et al are clearly not fit to govern.
I'm getting to the point where I think a military dictatorship might be the best for the country ;-)
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Why? GE 2020, Milliband merely turns to the electorate, gestures towards a heavily divided opposition still knocking lumps off each other, and points out to the voter that the Tories et al are clearly not fit to govern.
I'm getting to the point where I think a military dictatorship might be the best for the country ;-)
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Why do you think that Milliband would be simultaneously a disaster, and so brilliant that he'd dominate the political scene for 10-15 years?
Why? GE 2020, Milliband merely turns to the electorate, gestures towards a heavily divided opposition still knocking lumps off each other, and points out to the voter that the Tories et al are clearly not fit to govern.
I'm getting to the point where I think a military dictatorship might be the best for the country ;-)
No doubt the reason for cutting military spending and all those wasteful white elephant procurement issues. We thought it was just unbelievable incompetence from defence officials, but it's actually so they are too weak to step in and save us from ourselves.
Must be that special kind of disaster, where it's clear they're destroying the country, but people keep electing them over and over again.
That's the position we are in!
Labour were, are and would be a disaster, and yet enough people might well vote them in...
Concerning, no doubt, but in all seriousness, if Labour will not be so terrible that people have no choice but to see they are so terrible and vote for someone, anyone, else, then they will not have been a 'disaster' as far as I see it. I firmly believe they will merely be pretty crap, and that's really all I expect out of a government.
The BBC news tonight highlighted the failings in A & E in Wales which is run by labour and is much worse than England then went on to highlight Nick Robinson reporting on the Presidents warm words on his friendship with David Cameron and his complimentary comments on the way the UK economy was performing. Maybe this will surprise many on this forum.
Did they actually state it was run entirely by Labour?
Up to now even till a few days ago it's been rolled into the English report as an add on without making the responsibility clear.
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
This is of course where the Conservatives' real problems will begin. Just as Wilson tried to in 1975, Cameron will have to preside over the sight of seeing Tories arguing against each other publicly and all that will do is create the impression (accurately) that the Conservative Party is split from stem to stern.
The 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to schism in Labour as you had the likes of Roy Jenkins and Peter Shore on opposing sides of the argument. Wilson tried benevolent neutrality but had the knowledge he wasn't going to be around to see the consequences at least in terms of being Prime Minister.
The legacy of a 2017 Referendum (whatever the result) is going to bedevil the remainder of the Cameron administration and ensure a divided Tory Party goes down to defeat in 2020. Major saw the consequences of Conservative division - Cameron, in his attempt to hold the Party together in the face of the rise of UKIP, has simply bought himself some time.
The most important thing every Tory can agree on is a referendum in 2017 or earlier if possible. The notion that this no matter what the result would lead to defeat in 2020 is a speculation too far. Defeat in 2020 is always a possibility for a start and the EU is only one of several factors. I lived through the 1975 referendum and do not recall any lasting labour splits. The EC/EU had nothing to do with people like Roy Jenkins leaving. 2020 can take care of itself.
if Labour will not be so terrible that people have no choice but to see they are so terrible and vote for someone, anyone, else, then they will not have been a 'disaster' as far as I see it. I firmly believe they will merely be pretty crap, and that's really all I expect out of a government.
Funnily enough there is an article in the Times tonight by a Labour peer that endorses the Kippers wet dream scenario.
Miliband is elected with a slim majority.
He faces rebellion within if he tries to implement any cuts of any sort. The Tories are reinvigorated (and Eurosceptic)
There is a snap GE shortly after in which Labour lose to UKIP in their heartlands and we exit the EU.
Lord Liddle called on Mr Miliband to strengthen Labour’s appeal among the business community and middle-class professionals who were “centre-ground” Lib Dem and Tory backers.
The BBC news tonight highlighted the failings in A & E in Wales which is run by labour and is much worse than England then went on to highlight Nick Robinson reporting on the Presidents warm words on his friendship with David Cameron and his complimentary comments on the way the UK economy was performing. Maybe this will surprise many on this forum.
Did they actually state it was run entirely by Labour?
Up to now even till a few days ago it's been rolled into the English report as an add on without making the responsibility clear.
@alstewitn: .@itvnews at Ten @rupertevelyn on the A&E crisis in Wales - worse even than England where response time have begun to improve.
Can't understand why that's not hammered home every possible moment " cost of living " style which Labour always get in even if talking about the lesser spotted fruit fly killing english bees in Patagonia.
@alstewitn: .@itvnews at Ten @rupertevelyn on the A&E crisis in Wales - worse even than England where response time have begun to improve.
Can't understand why that's not hammered home every possible moment " cost of living " style which Labour always get in even if talking about the lesser spotted fruit fly killing english bees in Patagonia.
It is something Labour are far far beter than the Tories at. Tories attacks are always too complex, too long winded and not repeated enough in soundbite form.
As far back as Tony / Bad Al were running the show, Labour have been fantastic on this. It doesn't matter what an MP is on a show for, they get their scripted soundbite in as often as possible and just ignore how hypocritical they may be or that they might have caused the mess in the first place.
If you actually watch a fair bit of politics shows, it is seems incredibly tedious (to put it kindly) and feeling like being treated like an idiot that can't store more than one thing a month, but 99% of people don't see more than a clip here and there.
The vast majority of Tories often just get bogged down in some nuanced arguments and often admitting some fault somewhere...and guess what ended up on the news...either garbled nonsense or them saying well it was us.
Cameron has done it on several occasions, where he gives a big announcement to HoC's and lots of people from all sides have said he has given a good honest speech, but contained in it is some minor admission of fault...and what gets on the news?
It doesn't matter what an MP is on a show for, they get their scripted soundbite in as often as possible.
The SNP minister on the Daily Politics today was brutal. Jo couldn't shut him up. He just gave a 10 min speech.
It was all bollocks but he just kept going.
A separate Scotland would have been rich and prosperous, even though oil has tanked (he said) but because they were still part of the UK they need a bung (er, because oil has tanked)
The BBC news tonight highlighted the failings in A & E in Wales which is run by labour and is much worse than England then went on to highlight Nick Robinson reporting on the Presidents warm words on his friendship with David Cameron and his complimentary comments on the way the UK economy was performing. Maybe this will surprise many on this forum.
Did they actually state it was run entirely by Labour?
Up to now even till a few days ago it's been rolled into the English report as an add on without making the responsibility clear.
That's the problem here. The left must know they handle things badly in the NHS there is so many examples of Labour mal-administration and failures. They even have the disaster in Wales running day by day and that's not just in A&E but across all medical services. Yet ?.? they seem to hide this from the British public as a whole even attempt to apportion even smear others not responsible. These are the same broadcasters and dead tree press who seem most indignant about the present situation champion a party that will do a lot worse.
In other words they really don't give a monkeys about the NHS as long as they eject the baby eaters. It's a frightening picture all round really.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Yeah, but this Labour party has repudiated the New Labour agenda, and listens to the unions much more.
As was said on Yes Prime Minister "If you've got them by the purse-strings, their hearts and minds will soon follow"
The BBC news tonight highlighted the failings in A & E in Wales which is run by labour and is much worse than England then went on to highlight Nick Robinson reporting on the Presidents warm words on his friendship with David Cameron and his complimentary comments on the way the UK economy was performing. Maybe this will surprise many on this forum.
Did they actually state it was run entirely by Labour?
Up to now even till a few days ago it's been rolled into the English report as an add on without making the responsibility clear.
That's the problem here. The left must know they handle things badly in the NHS there is so many examples of Labour mal-administration and failures. They even have the disaster in Wales running day by day and that's not just in A&E but across all medical services. Yet ?.? they seem to hide this from the British public as a whole even attempt to apportion even smear others not responsible. These are the same broadcasters and dead tree press who seem most indignant about the present situation champion a party that will do a lot worse.
In other words they really don't give a monkeys about the NHS as long as they eject the baby eaters. It's a frightening picture all round really.
What you will also find is the drip drip drip nature. The BBC are the best at it (The Daily Rant use too much hyperbole when they try this kind of approach and blow their angles out too quickly), they will run a story on a particular topic every single day for weeks, even if it really doesn't add to anything said yesterday e.g. Today's A&E number in UK, no real change in the situation, and now we will get another 2-3 days talking about why it hasn't improved much, how much longer will this go on, etc etc etc.
FWIW, My daughter is attaining 18 this year and, reviewing the electoral roll last weekend, noticed she wasn't on it. She applied online and hey presto! she was 'on' within 24 hours, my ERO confirmed. Mind you, I seem to remember that I did register on the canvass... but was I mistaken? :frowns:
But here's a thing: I get to see the full register. Not many do. That's how I recognised she was missing.
When IER was introduced for completely understandable reasons, Councils validated their existing Electoral Rolls against other public datasets. In the Tory Districts about 90pc of electors simply rolled-over to the new IER roll - pensioners, child-benefit claimants, other benefit claimants, criminals - those with interactions with The State were mostly automatically matched.
The 10pc who failed to validate were written to on upton three occasions and asked to confirm personal information like DoB/NI number. This was to weed-out non-existent 'electors' that would undermine the democratic process. Many failed to respond.
[Nice story - one of the people who failed to validate was a former equity partner of one of the Big Four accountancy practices: He had never claimed benefits, had no kids, never been done for speeding etc - The State hardly knew he existed although I suppose he had paid his taxes :winks:]
The standard IER letter issued in July/August made it so easy for people to opt-out of the Public Register that most people have. So, when the casual observer looks to see whether they're listed by going to the Library, for example to check, most aren't - which means they're either 'on' the register but not-showing or 'off' the register - which isn't a lot of help, really.
So, unless you speak to your friendly political party agent with full access to the register [some chance - how many local parties publish their agent's details?] or hang-on the line through the Council's customer-portal, to speak to electoral services, it's going to be difficult for people to know whether they're registered. Or not.
Are you still with me?
Oh yes, and, in order to register online you need an NI number. Those attaining 18 this year have never received one of those clutsy plastic NI numbercards: When they were 15 they got a letter on photocopy paper with the NI number on it and, as most of them wont have had paid employment since then as they're at school, or paid tax since the threshold went up to £10k, so what's the chance of them knowing their NI number from the scrappy piece of paper to validate their application? I thought not.
Mind you, Labour can't claim they knew nothing of this: I attended a detailed Ministerial Briefing attended by all the parties in July 2013 when this was all discussed. #justsayin
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
I'm no defender of Cameron (as you know) but how on earth do you fathom his government is xenophobic? Because it claims to want to control immigration, or because it professes to stand up for British interests in the EU? (whilst not really doing either)
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
Amazing rate of change in the US over gay marriage in the last few months.
Date when gay marriage became legal:
Utah: 6th Oct 2014 Oklahoma: 6th Oct 2014 Virginia: 6th Oct 2014 Wisconsin: 6th Oct 2014 Indiana: 6th Oct 2014 Colorado: 7th Oct 2014 Nevada: 9th Oct 2014 West Virginia: 9th Oct 2014 North Carolina: 10th Oct 2014 Idaho: 15th Oct 2014 Alaska: 17th Oct 2014 Arizona: 17th Oct 2014 Wyoming: 21st Oct 2014 Montana: 19th Nov 2014 South Carolina: 20th Nov 2014 Florida: 6th Jan 2015
What you will also find is the drip drip drip nature. The BBC are the best at it (The Daily Rant use too much hyperbole when they try this kind of approach and blow their angles out too quickly), they will run a story on a particular topic every single day for weeks, even if it really doesn't add to anything said yesterday e.g. Today's A&E number in UK, no real change in the situation, and now we will get another 2-3 days talking about why it hasn't improved much, how much longer will this go on, etc etc etc.
Indeed. If a UK Fox news did this fine you can choose to walk and take your custom elsewhere to agree and choose to pay and stay. It's your choice. Yes I know you can refuse to pay but many people cannot do this as we cannot have any legal threats ( even toothless ones) hanging over us due to international travel, visas etc etc.
With the BBC you can't of course ( legally) so the public who do not like this output are locked into paying for this. Somewhere in there also is the BBC charter but that I feel went out in 1997 along with all the empty bottles of bubbly they collected from the corridors of Bush House.
I would be happy just to have some balance ....Problems with A&E in England under XXXX. but also in Wales under YYYY. I think most do not differentiate between England and Wales admins and think it's all the same admin. This is what and where a public broadcaster is expected to inform but they don't..... In fact they do the direct opposite and with malice
it will always be the fault of the Tories or the coalition or the Tory led coalition. Shhhhhhh .... Don't mention Wales Stafford and perm any hundreds of others. Even the left wingers on this site are totally guilty of this
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit .
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
I'm no defender of Cameron (as you know) but how on earth do you fathom his government is xenophobic? Because it claims to want to control immigration, or because it professes to stand up for British interests in the EU? (whilst not really doing either)
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
I do not think Cameron is a Xenophobe, but there elements within the Tory party that are. Not all have left for the kippers and I do not want the next five years of government to be wrangling and posturing over Europe.
I would not Trust a Tory majority government over the NHS, this one has been softened in its ambitions by needing to keep the LDs on board.
Previous post Lack of Freedom to pay or not to pay relates to BBC not Fox.
I wouldn't pay for either to be honest.
Having problems with text on Internet and many other apps.
I recently updated after 12 months to the new apple software on IPad and having done so have rendered my IPad almost Unusable. Off to Apple to resolve I guess
scandalous they can issue software that just destroys all operational capability.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
I'm no defender of Cameron (as you know) but how on earth do you fathom his government is xenophobic? Because it claims to want to control immigration, or because it professes to stand up for British interests in the EU? (whilst not really doing either)
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
I do not think Cameron is a Xenophobe, but there elements within the Tory party that are. Not all have left for the kippers and I do not want the next five years of government to be wrangling and posturing over Europe.
I would not Trust a Tory majority government over the NHS, this one has been softened in its ambitions by needing to keep the LDs on board.
I'm always interested to hear why people love Europe, please explain
"The SNP minister on the Daily Politics today was brutal. Jo couldn't shut him up. He just gave a 10 min speech.
It was all bollocks but he just kept going."
I applaud Stewart Ewing (son of the redoubtable Winnie Ewing of Hamilton by-election fame) for getting across his message. The main point was that the UK Treasury has garnered billions from the oil industry, upped the tax take mega-style as recently as 2011 at a moment's notice, but now wants to take to the end of March to reverse that 2011 increase.
Jo wasn't just asking Ewing questions, she was doing that BBC thing of campaigning against the SNP with her own views-frankly Scots have had more than enough of that, which is why the people of Scotland are shown in polls to me more convinced than the rest of the UK that the BBC political reporting is biased.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit .
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
I'm no defender of Cameron (as you know) but how on earth do you fathom his government is xenophobic? Because it claims to want to control immigration, or because it professes to stand up for British interests in the EU? (whilst not really doing either)
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
I do not think Cameron is a Xenophobe, but there elements within the Tory party that are. Not all have left for the kippers and I do not want the next five years of government to be wrangling and posturing over Europe.
I would not Trust a Tory majority government over the NHS, this one has been softened in its ambitions by needing to keep the LDs on board.
Thanks for responding. Putting aside the content of your response for a minute, that being the case, why did you vote Conservative in GE2010, rather than for Labour or Liberal Democrat?
..find is the drip drip drip nature. The BBC are the best at it (The Daily Rant use too much hyperbole when they try this kind of approach and blow their angles out too quickly), they will run a story on a particular topic every single day for weeks, even if it really doesn't add to anything said yesterday e.g. Today's A&E number in UK, no real change in the situation, and now we will get another 2-3 days talking about why it hasn't improved much, how much longer will this go on, etc etc etc.
Indeed. If a UK Fox news did this fine you can choose to walk and take your custom elsewhere to agree and choose to pay and stay. It's your choice. Yes I know you can refuse to pay but many people cannot do this as we cannot have any legal threats ( even toothless ones) hanging over us due to international travel, visas etc etc.
With the BBC you can't of course ( legally) so the public who do not like this output are locked into paying for this. Somewhere in there also is the BBC charter but that I feel went out in 1997 along with all the empty bottles of bubbly they collected from the corridors of Bush House.
I would be happy just to have some balance ....Problems with A&E in England under XXXX. but also in Wales under YYYY. I think most do not differentiate between England and Wales admins and think it's all the same admin. This is what and where a public broadcaster is expected to inform but they don't..... In fact they do the direct opposite and with malice
it will always be the fault of the Tories or the coalition or the Tory led coalition. Shhhhhhh .... Don't mention Wales Stafford and perm any hundreds of others. Even the left wingers on this site are totally guilty of this
Spot on Moses, and its not just the NHS, they're doing it on AGW. That article today which I won't give any of the AGW crowd on here the link was just pure and utter drivel, end of. There's been some sudden stratospheric warming, which affects the position of the jet stream so the 2nd half of January looks colder that I originally thought.
And then comes the humdinger - February. With any luck the whole country is going to get some snow fall like you would not believe at times. I hope this long range forecast comes off, and lets see how prepared or not the government and the authorities are - how they deal or don't deal with it could potentially be an election turning moment. And I can't wait for Mukesh, Volcanopete and the other AGW apologists on here to see what they make of it if it happens. In reality its the start of a mini Ice age on the back of declining solar cycle 24, and we know that the sun is now going into its most inactive (least sunspot activity) phase in 300 years or more, on its regular cycle. And by 2020, anyone still clinging to global warming in a world of global cooling is going to look utterly ridiculous - the MetOffice and BBC included.
More ructions today in the markets in the fall out from the Swiss peg break yesterday. Spreads on EURCHF today ranged from 10-20bps when in a normal stable market they would be around 2bps on that highly liquid pair. Alpari, the forex broker that sponsors West Ham went bust (watch Match of the Day to see their shirts at their weekend Premiership game!) as well as a New Zealand forex broker. A lot of people were caught quite literally with their pants down expecting the peg to hold - but we know very well from history that all pegs come to an end at some point, as John Major found out to his great cost!
Labour are the scum of the earth. They would rather see the hospital shut down than be a success under privatization, hope the inquiry is before the election.
Labour are truly disgusting, I've noticed the NHS cheerleader is absent tonight, probably because he can't defend what is happening Wales, but fox is here, wonder what he has to say. Sorry I forgot he wants the unions to have more influence.
I've got a good idea, why not let the people who pay for it have more influence. Us.
If its true, and a big with the Mail, then its going to be interesting to see the political fallout from it all!
There wont be any, because the Tories aren't going to want to shout about this, because a) it failed and b) all the public will really hear is privatized NHS yadda yadda yadda....
"The SNP minister on the Daily Politics today was brutal. Jo couldn't shut him up. He just gave a 10 min speech.
It was all bollocks but he just kept going."
I applaud Stewart Ewing (son of the redoubtable Winnie Ewing of Hamilton by-election fame) for getting across his message. The main point was that the UK Treasury has garnered billions from the oil industry, upped the tax take mega-style as recently as 2011 at a moment's notice, but now wants to take to the end of March to reverse that 2011 increase.
Jo wasn't just asking Ewing questions, she was doing that BBC thing of campaigning against the SNP with her own views-frankly Scots have had more than enough of that, which is why the people of Scotland are shown in polls to me more convinced than the rest of the UK that the BBC political reporting is biased.
Not the first time that the wee canny Scots are ahead of the rest of public opinion! The sense of anticipation of the first election result from the Central Belt in the early hours of the 8th May I can feel building now! I can't wait to see the reaction of the BBC coverage if its something like a 20% Labour to SNP swing!
If its true, and a big with the Mail, then its going to be interesting to see the political fallout from it all!
There wont be any, because the Tories aren't going to want to shout about this, because a) it failed and b) all the public will really hear is privatized NHS yadda yadda yadda....
c) It's lunatic, guilt-by-association conspiracy-theory spinning by a tabloid
If its true, and a big with the Mail, then its going to be interesting to see the political fallout from it all!
There wont be any, because the Tories aren't going to want to shout about this, because a) it failed and b) all the public will really hear is privatized NHS yadda yadda yadda....
Its got its risks for sure, I still think the Tories best tack is to go on relentlessly about Welsh NHS underperformance relative to England, and to go on about Stafford happening under Burnham's watch as well - dirty game for sure but who said this election campaign was going to be anything but.
If its true, and a big with the Mail, then its going to be interesting to see the political fallout from it all!
There wont be any, because the Tories aren't going to want to shout about this, because a) it failed and b) all the public will really hear is privatized NHS yadda yadda yadda....
c) It's lunatic, guilt-by-association conspiracy-theory spinning by a tabloid
He shouldn't have been anywhere near a report on this, given he is standing as an MP, regardless of whether or not any wrongdoings took place.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). T and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Wow. And this is the sort of "Conservative" Cameron won over to his side in GE2010?
I am not a Conservative, just dislike Xenophobia, quite like the EU and do not want the NHS privatised. Mind you the latter now is UKIP policy too.
I'm no defender of Cameron (as you know) but how on earth do you fathom his government is xenophobic? Because it claims to want to control immigration, or because it professes to stand up for British interests in the EU? (whilst not really doing either)
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
I think ZenPagan summed it best for me today, not committed enough to a small state and the increasingly illiberal measures such as Cameron's desire to ban encryption - my local Tory MP will get a mouthful from me about that when I next see her. Its just such a brain dead idea, one of the worst ever a UK government has ever had.
'I'm always interested to hear why people love Europe, please explain'
Many people,myself included love Europe but hate the EU.
Well I absolutely adore places like Venice, Vienna and Stockholm plus the Alps but have got no truck whatsoever with the EU. The politicians who set up the Euro were completely ignorant of history - no single currency area without a single debt market has ever worked in history EVER. So few people get beyond ideology and actually look to see whether policies that they espouse have worked or not in the past. If only we could get past that mental block then I think humanity would be a great deal better for it.
Good night all, and good night the Euro - its days are numbered, and the Grexit when it happens - late this year, or early 2016?...will be the beginning of a long deserved end.
"I envy William Hague. Not the £2.5 million country house he’s just bought in Wales, although that would be nice. Rather, the fact that he plans to spend his retirement writing books.
These days, you need a substantial private income – or a public sector pension – to be a full-time writer. Last year, a survey of 2,500 professional authors found that their median income in 2013 was £11,000. That’s a drop of 29 per cent since 2005 and significantly below the minimum salary required to achieve a decent standard of living."
The role of the local Labour Candidate in the CQC report is curious....
Dr Nik Johnson, a consultant paediatrician at Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Huntingdon, was stunned by today’s development.
He told the News: “To say I’m shocked is an understatement. My worry immediately is for the morale of the staff because it feels like we are going back five years.
increasingly illiberal measures such as Cameron's desire to ban encryption - my local Tory MP will get a mouthful from me about that when I next see her. Its just such a brain dead idea, one of the worst ever a UK government has ever had.
TBF there's a lot of competition there. Labour made a law that you can be imprisoned for possessing data that police think might be encrypted, and failing to provide them with the key, which if it isn't really encryted data in the first place you'll obviously be unable to do.
The role of the local Labour Candidate in the CQC report is curious....
Dr Nik Johnson, a consultant paediatrician at Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Huntingdon, was stunned by today’s development.
He told the News: “To say I’m shocked is an understatement. My worry immediately is for the morale of the staff because it feels like we are going back five years.
increasingly illiberal measures such as Cameron's desire to ban encryption - my local Tory MP will get a mouthful from me about that when I next see her. Its just such a brain dead idea, one of the worst ever a UK government has ever had.
TBF there's a lot of competition there. Labour made a law that you can be imprisoned for possessing data that police think might be encrypted, and failing to provide them with the key, which if it isn't really encryted data in the first place you'll obviously be unable to do.
Good old RIPA again. Particularly idiotic with modern cryptography as well, mostly systems use ephemeral session keys, so that you dont even know the key, it's generated as the message is sent and then discarded.
Spoken like a true Scottish Nationalist.... Now, when is Nicola Sturgeon going to own up to the myths peddled by Salmond and herself regards the future of the North sea Oil&Gas fields, both real and imagined during the Indy Referendum campaign? I am betting on both Anna Soubry and Douglas Alexander both hanging onto their seats at the next GE, it would seem that the nasty local Labour campaign in Broxtowe is finally making the news there....
Hello, you were obviously out of the country and totally missed the Indy Referendum up in Scotland over the last couple of years.....Wishful thinking from the Libdems here...
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
This is of course where the Conservatives' real problems will begin. Just as Wilson tried to in 1975, Cameron will have to preside over the sight of seeing Tories arguing against each other publicly and all that will do is create the impression (accurately) that the Conservative Party is split from stem to stern.
The 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to schism in Labour as you had the likes of Roy Jenkins and Peter Shore on opposing sides of the argument. Wilson tried benevolent neutrality but had the knowledge he wasn't going to be around to see the consequences at least in terms of being Prime Minister.
The legacy of a 2017 Referendum (whatever the result) is going to bedevil the remainder of the Cameron administration and ensure a divided Tory Party goes down to defeat in 2020. Major saw the consequences of Conservative division - Cameron, in his attempt to hold the Party together in the face of the rise of UKIP, has simply bought himself some time.
Comments
They say they are not harmful to health however.
Why would a company try to force people into a technology which would cost the company money to install and at the same time encourage the user to use less energy?
"For me, Labour on 30 per cent will only fractionally nudge past their woeful 2010 showing behind the Tories on 33 per cent – but enough to secure more seats "
A result like this would require UKIP and SNP to get huge percentage of vote, and really be a landmark election.
And I think that I will be happier with it than the average kipper.
GE 2020, Milliband merely turns to the electorate, gestures towards a heavily divided opposition still knocking lumps off each other, and points out to the voter that the Tories et al are clearly not fit to govern. He'd be right too.
Labour were, are and would be a disaster, and yet enough people might well vote them in...
Up to now even till a few days ago it's been rolled into the English report as an add on without making the responsibility clear.
Miliband is elected with a slim majority.
He faces rebellion within if he tries to implement any cuts of any sort. The Tories are reinvigorated (and Eurosceptic)
There is a snap GE shortly after in which Labour lose to UKIP in their heartlands and we exit the EU. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4326120.ece
....Wales (cough) worse...end of report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome
Sorry, I was overtaken by a fit of laughter so hard it prevented me from typing the rest of the name there.
As far back as Tony / Bad Al were running the show, Labour have been fantastic on this. It doesn't matter what an MP is on a show for, they get their scripted soundbite in as often as possible and just ignore how hypocritical they may be or that they might have caused the mess in the first place.
If you actually watch a fair bit of politics shows, it is seems incredibly tedious (to put it kindly) and feeling like being treated like an idiot that can't store more than one thing a month, but 99% of people don't see more than a clip here and there.
The vast majority of Tories often just get bogged down in some nuanced arguments and often admitting some fault somewhere...and guess what ended up on the news...either garbled nonsense or them saying well it was us.
Cameron has done it on several occasions, where he gives a big announcement to HoC's and lots of people from all sides have said he has given a good honest speech, but contained in it is some minor admission of fault...and what gets on the news?
Might be some good betting opportunities with the current match between Argentina U20 vs Paraguay U20 since the underdogs are 1-0 ahead at half-time.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27339877
It was all bollocks but he just kept going.
A separate Scotland would have been rich and prosperous, even though oil has tanked (he said) but because they were still part of the UK they need a bung (er, because oil has tanked)
In other words they really don't give a monkeys about the NHS as long as they eject the baby eaters. It's a frightening picture all round really.
http://electionsetc.com/
@LabourList: The SNP have proved they're unfit to represent Scotland by collaborating with the Tories, writes @IanDavidsonMP http://labli.st/1CvZwmR
Meanwhile...
@PeteWishart: Here's the week in numbers for Scottish Labour. The number of Scottish Labour MPs who voted with the Tories for Tory austerity - 28.
You're a Tory! No, YOU'RE A TORY!!
The fightback begins #isitok @thelastleg
But here's a thing: I get to see the full register. Not many do. That's how I recognised she was missing.
When IER was introduced for completely understandable reasons, Councils validated their existing Electoral Rolls against other public datasets. In the Tory Districts about 90pc of electors simply rolled-over to the new IER roll - pensioners, child-benefit claimants, other benefit claimants, criminals - those with interactions with The State were mostly automatically matched.
The 10pc who failed to validate were written to on upton three occasions and asked to confirm personal information like DoB/NI number. This was to weed-out non-existent 'electors' that would undermine the democratic process. Many failed to respond.
[Nice story - one of the people who failed to validate was a former equity partner of one of the Big Four accountancy practices: He had never claimed benefits, had no kids, never been done for speeding etc - The State hardly knew he existed although I suppose he had paid his taxes :winks:]
The standard IER letter issued in July/August made it so easy for people to opt-out of the Public Register that most people have. So, when the casual observer looks to see whether they're listed by going to the Library, for example to check, most aren't - which means they're either 'on' the register but not-showing or 'off' the register - which isn't a lot of help, really.
So, unless you speak to your friendly political party agent with full access to the register [some chance - how many local parties publish their agent's details?] or hang-on the line through the Council's customer-portal, to speak to electoral services, it's going to be difficult for people to know whether they're registered. Or not.
Are you still with me?
Oh yes, and, in order to register online you need an NI number. Those attaining 18 this year have never received one of those clutsy plastic NI numbercards: When they were 15 they got a letter on photocopy paper with the NI number on it and, as most of them wont have had paid employment since then as they're at school, or paid tax since the threshold went up to £10k, so what's the chance of them knowing their NI number from the scrappy piece of paper to validate their application? I thought not.
Mind you, Labour can't claim they knew nothing of this: I attended a detailed Ministerial Briefing attended by all the parties in July 2013 when this was all discussed. #justsayin
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
The party truly is screwed.
Goodnight.
It is also not "privatising the NHS", but of course you know that.
This is why I disagree so fundamentally with Cameron's leadership of the party. As Sean Fear's said, it's been terminal for the party: he's succeeded in attracting a handful of people like your good self, who aren't Conservatives, whilst losing traditional Conservatives like myself. He stands for nothing, and will fall for nothing.
You've got to hand it to him. That's quite an achievement on one of the world's oldest and most successful political parties.
Date when gay marriage became legal:
Utah: 6th Oct 2014
Oklahoma: 6th Oct 2014
Virginia: 6th Oct 2014
Wisconsin: 6th Oct 2014
Indiana: 6th Oct 2014
Colorado: 7th Oct 2014
Nevada: 9th Oct 2014
West Virginia: 9th Oct 2014
North Carolina: 10th Oct 2014
Idaho: 15th Oct 2014
Alaska: 17th Oct 2014
Arizona: 17th Oct 2014
Wyoming: 21st Oct 2014
Montana: 19th Nov 2014
South Carolina: 20th Nov 2014
Florida: 6th Jan 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#2014
What you will also find is the drip drip drip nature. The BBC are the best at it (The Daily Rant use too much hyperbole when they try this kind of approach and blow their angles out too quickly), they will run a story on a particular topic every single day for weeks, even if it really doesn't add to anything said yesterday e.g. Today's A&E number in UK, no real change in the situation, and now we will get another 2-3 days talking about why it hasn't improved much, how much longer will this go on, etc etc etc.
Indeed. If a UK Fox news did this fine you can choose to walk and take your custom elsewhere to agree and choose to pay and stay. It's your choice. Yes I know you can refuse to pay but many people cannot do this as we cannot have any legal threats ( even toothless ones) hanging over us due to international travel, visas etc etc.
With the BBC you can't of course ( legally) so the public who do not like this output are locked into paying for this. Somewhere in there also is the BBC charter but that I feel went out in 1997 along with all the empty bottles of bubbly they collected from the corridors of Bush House.
I would be happy just to have some balance ....Problems with A&E in England under XXXX. but also in Wales under YYYY. I think most do not differentiate between England and Wales admins and think it's all the same admin. This is what and where a public broadcaster is expected to inform but they don't..... In fact they do the direct opposite and with malice
it will always be the fault of the Tories or the coalition or the Tory led coalition. Shhhhhhh .... Don't mention Wales Stafford and perm any hundreds of others. Even the left wingers on this site are totally guilty of this
I would not Trust a Tory majority government over the NHS, this one has been softened in its ambitions by needing to keep the LDs on board.
Lack of Freedom to pay or not to pay relates to BBC not Fox.
I wouldn't pay for either to be honest.
Having problems with text on Internet and many other apps.
I recently updated after 12 months to the new apple software on IPad and having done so have rendered my IPad almost Unusable. Off to Apple to resolve I guess
scandalous they can issue software that just destroys all operational capability.
'Shocking evidence of how Labour and union figures had the first privately run NHS hospital declared a failure has been uncovered by the Daily Mail.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913987/Labour-s-private-hospital-stitch-Shocking-evidence-Left-sabotaged-NHS-success-story.html
"The SNP minister on the Daily Politics today was brutal. Jo couldn't shut him up. He just gave a 10 min speech.
It was all bollocks but he just kept going."
I applaud Stewart Ewing (son of the redoubtable Winnie Ewing of Hamilton by-election fame) for getting across his message. The main point was that the UK Treasury has garnered billions from the oil industry, upped the tax take mega-style as recently as 2011 at a moment's notice, but now wants to take to the end of March to reverse that 2011 increase.
Jo wasn't just asking Ewing questions, she was doing that BBC thing of campaigning against the SNP with her own views-frankly Scots have had more than enough of that, which is why the people of Scotland are shown in polls to me more convinced than the rest of the UK that the BBC political reporting is biased.
I'm interested in your reasoning.
Indeed. If a UK Fox news did this fine you can choose to walk and take your custom elsewhere to agree and choose to pay and stay. It's your choice. Yes I know you can refuse to pay but many people cannot do this as we cannot have any legal threats ( even toothless ones) hanging over us due to international travel, visas etc etc.
With the BBC you can't of course ( legally) so the public who do not like this output are locked into paying for this. Somewhere in there also is the BBC charter but that I feel went out in 1997 along with all the empty bottles of bubbly they collected from the corridors of Bush House.
I would be happy just to have some balance ....Problems with A&E in England under XXXX. but also in Wales under YYYY. I think most do not differentiate between England and Wales admins and think it's all the same admin. This is what and where a public broadcaster is expected to inform but they don't..... In fact they do the direct opposite and with malice
it will always be the fault of the Tories or the coalition or the Tory led coalition. Shhhhhhh .... Don't mention Wales Stafford and perm any hundreds of others. Even the left wingers on this site are totally guilty of this
Spot on Moses, and its not just the NHS, they're doing it on AGW. That article today which I won't give any of the AGW crowd on here the link was just pure and utter drivel, end of. There's been some sudden stratospheric warming, which affects the position of the jet stream so the 2nd half of January looks colder that I originally thought.
And then comes the humdinger - February. With any luck the whole country is going to get some snow fall like you would not believe at times. I hope this long range forecast comes off, and lets see how prepared or not the government and the authorities are - how they deal or don't deal with it could potentially be an election turning moment. And I can't wait for Mukesh, Volcanopete and the other AGW apologists on here to see what they make of it if it happens. In reality its the start of a mini Ice age on the back of declining solar cycle 24, and we know that the sun is now going into its most inactive (least sunspot activity) phase in 300 years or more, on its regular cycle. And by 2020, anyone still clinging to global warming in a world of global cooling is going to look utterly ridiculous - the MetOffice and BBC included.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913987/Labour-s-private-hospital-stitch-Shocking-evidence-Left-sabotaged-NHS-success-story.html
If its true, and a big with the Mail, then its going to be interesting to see the political fallout from it all!
Labour are truly disgusting, I've noticed the NHS cheerleader is absent tonight, probably because he can't defend what is happening Wales, but fox is here, wonder what he has to say. Sorry I forgot he wants the unions to have more influence.
I've got a good idea, why not let the people who pay for it have more influence. Us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913987/Labour-s-private-hospital-stitch-Shocking-evidence-Left-sabotaged-NHS-success-story.html
'I'm always interested to hear why people love Europe, please explain'
Many people,myself included love Europe but hate the EU.
Good night all, and good night the Euro - its days are numbered, and the Grexit when it happens - late this year, or early 2016?...will be the beginning of a long deserved end.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/11349865/These-days-writing-isnt-a-career.-Its-a-rich-mans-hobby.html
"I envy William Hague. Not the £2.5 million country house he’s just bought in Wales, although that would be nice. Rather, the fact that he plans to spend his retirement writing books.
These days, you need a substantial private income – or a public sector pension – to be a full-time writer. Last year, a survey of 2,500 professional authors found that their median income in 2013 was £11,000. That’s a drop of 29 per cent since 2005 and significantly below the minimum salary required to achieve a decent standard of living."
Dr Nik Johnson, a consultant paediatrician at Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Huntingdon, was stunned by today’s development.
He told the News: “To say I’m shocked is an understatement. My worry immediately is for the morale of the staff because it feels like we are going back five years.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Circle-talks-pull-Britain-s-privately-run-NHS/story-25830347-detail/story.html#ixzz3P2Otzxpn