Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : June 6th 2013

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited June 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : June 6th 2013

As I mentioned last time when we had a by-election in Newcastle, the council reflects precisely was has been happening with the Liberal Democrats post coalition and judging by what happened last time, I would expect more of the same.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Roll on Thursday night !
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Any sniff of a kipper about?
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    The Newcastle one looks possibly Ukippy depending on what type of LD voters they are.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2013
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    With apologies for going OT so soon. Saw this and thought it worth spreading around.

    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/06/lincoln-pcso-crawls-through-burning-flat-to-save-resident/

    PCSOs unfairly get a lot of stick for not being 'proper policemen'. To my mind the question of police resourcing is entirely separate from the great work these people do and they should get a lot more credit for helping to keep us safe.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    With apologies for going OT so soon. Saw this and thought it worth spreading around.

    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/06/lincoln-pcso-crawls-through-burning-flat-to-save-resident/

    PCSOs unfairly get a lot of stick for not being 'proper policemen'. To my mind the question of police resourcing is entirely separate from the great work these people do and they should get a lot more credit for helping to keep us safe.

    Great ! What is a PCSO ?
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    If that's a question, surbiton, then:

    "Police Community Support Officers are members of support staff employed, directed and managed by their Police Force. They will work to complement and support regular police officers, providing a visible and accessible uniformed presence to improve the quality of life in the community and offer greater public reassurance.
    PCSOs are not replacement police officers but are there to address some of the tasks that do not require the experience or powers held by police officers, which often take officers away from more appropriate duties."
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    surbiton said:

    With apologies for going OT so soon. Saw this and thought it worth spreading around.

    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2013/06/lincoln-pcso-crawls-through-burning-flat-to-save-resident/

    PCSOs unfairly get a lot of stick for not being 'proper policemen'. To my mind the question of police resourcing is entirely separate from the great work these people do and they should get a lot more credit for helping to keep us safe.

    Great ! What is a PCSO ?
    Police Community Support Officer. Introduced in 2002. They are effectively civilian PCs without the warrant.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    o/t sorry.

    This is an interesting day. Labour are obviously shining a bit of a light at their past nonsensical statements, but very few will spot that. However this is part of a plan, and if they get the other bits and pieces in line then good luck to them. I doubt it'll change their polling numbers by an iota, but some sort of connection with reality from Labour was long overdue, and perhaps if this trend continues they may go into the next GE without having to blatantly lie.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    AveryLP said:

    Any sniff of a kipper about?

    probably not. I had 3 at lunchtime and a jolly good job by Waitrose they were.

  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    Back on topic.

    The LDs vote is suffering because they are delivering what they promised... A voice in government if they had the mandate. They are suffering because the average voter doesn't understand the system. I apologise to the aforesaid average voter should he be reading this, but that has to be the conclusion.
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Mostly, I think the general tenor of EdM's comments is politically correct. What I do not understand is a move towards a contributory model (i.e. desert) of benefits, which is almost unheard of. The changes themselves could all be kept within the existing model of "need" model - rich pensioners do not need benefits, etc. The general principle that 'the level of benefit someone receives varies according to their history of work' (The Telegraph) is something I have opposed when the Tories have come close to suggesting something that amounts to it (without saying so), but the idea that large parts of the system should be visibly remodelled astounds me.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    Any sniff of a kipper about?

    probably not. I had 3 at lunchtime and a jolly good job by Waitrose they were.

    Well done, Sir.

    Three a day between now and the general election and we might have a Tory hold in Warwickshire.

  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,287
    What a fascinating few days in politics! The Balls and Miliband panic over the economy and welfare was a joy to behold. The Comeback Clegg surely can't believe his luck - all those juicy sandal wearers trooping back to his party before 2015. And fancy publicizing the Opposition manifesto two years in advance. I can't wait for Ozzy's next budget. The chamber will be stuffed to the rafters with shot foxes. Scrapping benefits for wealthy pensioners will feature heavily, and there's nothing now Labour can say.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    Omnium said:

    o/t sorry.

    This is an interesting day. Labour are obviously shining a bit of a light at their past nonsensical statements, but very few will spot that. However this is part of a plan, and if they get the other bits and pieces in line then good luck to them. I doubt it'll change their polling numbers by an iota, but some sort of connection with reality from Labour was long overdue, and perhaps if this trend continues they may go into the next GE without having to blatantly lie.

    Do you see Cameron discovering reality regarding wealthy pensioners benefits anytime soon, or will he do what he did regarding child benefit before the last election and just lie?
    It is remarkable, tim.

    A few weeks ago and the left were wailing about the admission "We are all Thatcherites now".

    Now Miliband stands up and admits "We are all Cameroons".

    And not a ceremonial funeral in sight.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,624
    Omnium said:

    Back on topic.

    The LDs vote is suffering because they are delivering what they promised... A voice in government if they had the mandate. They are suffering because the average voter doesn't understand the system. I apologise to the aforesaid average voter should he be reading this, but that has to be the conclusion.

    In part, certainly.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    @tim
    "Do you see Cameron discovering reality regarding wealthy pensioners benefits anytime soon, or will he do what he did regarding child benefit before the last election and just lie? "

    I'd make two points

    1. I think it's really treading on dodgy ground to criticise overly that transition from opposition to government. Governments do have to face the true facts whereas in opposition they can (and in fact are forced to) guess.

    2. Wealthy pensioners. It's daft to imagine that they bother to claim their entitlement. It's also daft to somehow label wealthy pensioners as unworthy - within their midst they are likely to have the people that have really made a difference over the last 50 years.

    Actually I'll go on and make a further point

    Tim - Labour are not infallible. They get stuff wrong. (In my view virtually everything, but I'd never say absolutely everything). Today EdM made some statements that can't be reconciled with what has gone before. That's good isn't it? Change?
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,287
    I can't believe it. For all the wailing rhetoric about 'Tory Cuts' we now see Balls on his knees polishing Osborne's chopper. Ozzy was teetering only a month or so ago. Now, with the economy blossoming and emboldened by Balls, he will be absolutely unstoppable!
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    How is Labour's economic relaunch week going? Good headlines in friendly papers?

    @GdnPolitics: Ed Miliband benefactor admits donating shares to save on tax http://bit.ly/13e5uXN
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    OT: Tonights business.
    NOTTINGHAM - WOLLATON WEST COUNCIL BY ELECTION (CONS DIED)
    NOTTINGHAM - Wollaton West (Conservative died)

    2011 - Con 2870/2646/2593, Lab 2018/1938/1753, LD 770/601/506
    Aug 2008 by - Con 2769, Lab 1042, LD 424, UKIP 220
    2007 - Con 2670/2408/2305, Lab 1169/1097/1013, LD 805/744/667, Grn 498, UKIP 483, Elvis 115
    2003 - Con 2630/2563/2433, Lab 1197/1118/1087, LD 688/678/676

    Steve BATTLEMUCH (The Labour Party Candidate)
    David BISHOP (Militant Elvis Anti HS2)
    Katharina BOETTGE (Green Party)
    Chris CLARKE (UK Independence Party)
    Barbara PEARCE (Liberal Democrat)
    James SPENCER (The Conservative Party Candidate)
    ---------------------------------------

    NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE - WALKERGATE COUNCIL BY ELECTION (LAB RESIGNED)
    NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE - Walkergate (Labour resigned)

    2012 - Lab 1912, LD 646, Con 149, CPGB 102
    2011 - Lab 1682, LD 1580, Con 119
    2010 - Lab 2009, LD 1706, Con 346, BNP 303
    2008 - LD 1596, Lab 809, BNP 278, Con 195
    2007 - LD 1752, Lab 1005, Con 153
    2006 - LD 1770, Lab 1116, Con 155

    Kevin BROWN (Liberal Democrats)
    Martin COLLINS (Green Party)
    Bobbie CRANNEY (Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts)
    Davy HICKS (Independent)
    Marian MCWILLIAMS (The Conservative Party Candidate)
    Olga SHORTON (It's Time to Put Newcastle First)
    Reg SIBLEY (Independent)
    Lorraine SMITH (UK Independence Party)
    Stephen WOOD (The Labour Party Candidate)

    I'm finger pointing. ;)
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Either Yorkies* have got really small or my hands have doubled in size since I last ate one.

    *the chocolate bar, not the dog.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,200
    tim said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: Prince Philip has been admitted to a London hospital for an exploratory operation for two weeks

    Must be a continent called Prince Philip, or at least a very large Island.

    Do you think he'll order anything from JML duirng his stay?
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    tim said:

    Grandiose said:

    Mostly, I think the general tenor of EdM's comments is politically correct. What I do not understand is a move towards a contributory model (i.e. desert) of benefits, which is almost unheard of. The changes themselves could all be kept within the existing model of "need" model - rich pensioners do not need benefits, etc. The general principle that 'the level of benefit someone receives varies according to their history of work' (The Telegraph) is something I have opposed when the Tories have come close to suggesting something that amounts to it (without saying so), but the idea that large parts of the system should be visibly remodelled astounds me.

    These stats tell you what's going on

    Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood
    Interesting that, excluding pensions, contributory benefits have gone down from a peak of 21% of total benefit spend in 1971 to 5% in 2012.

    Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood
    Late 1970s: 80% of housing spend = housebuilding, 20% = housing benefit. Now: 5% of housing spend = housebuilding, 95% = housing benefit.

    Osborne is clinging to the 1979-2015 model.
    Both housebuilding and housing benefit are two different ways of addressing need.

    I think the state pension is the only significant basis which people regularly describe themselves as *deserving* - "I've paid in under the impression I could retire at 65, which I deserve to be able to do", "after years of NI I deserve better than £110/week" etc.

    (As I recall Beveridge talked of 'desert' but only due to being a human/British citizen/equally wide things, which equates to need.)
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    @tim

    So your powerful ammunition consists of telling us that the wonderful machine that was the state in the 1970s has been rolled back?

    "Interesting that, excluding pensions, contributory benefits have gone down from a peak of 21% of total benefit spend in 1971 to 5% in 2012.

    Late 1970s: 80% of housing spend = housebuilding, 20% = housing benefit. Now: 5% of housing spend = housebuilding, 95% = housing benefit."

    Where were you in the 70s? They were beyond awful. The UK was a laughing stock. If you really think things were better in the 70s (do you?) then you have no judgement at all.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,200
    tim said:

    @Omnium.

    You're a housing benefit junky, I understand that.

    Is it true Labour are JML Junkies?
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    tim said:

    @Omnium.

    You're a housing benefit junky, I understand that.

    Would you care to share the basis of that statement? Or perhaps you'd care to retract?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,200
    Carola said:

    Either Yorkies* have got really small or my hands have doubled in size since I last ate one.

    *the chocolate bar, not the dog.

    Were you still a child the last time?

    :)
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    Tim, tim

    spending my time as I do in the leafy suburbs such as Primrose Hill - that Valhalla of your creed - I actually get to meet the people who make the policies that you superglue your tongue to on a daily basis. I can assure you that they blow in the wind and leave you and your poor tongue trying to play catch up.

    It'd be such a great game if only you'd make an effort to keep up! The 70s Tim! No, no, no! They were wrong. It must have been the wrong nanny state that got employed.. anyway we're now sure that even he best intentioned committee of the best intentioned wing of the best intentioned union got it totally wrong. Tony told us this after all.

    I could go on.. and on.. still though I'd be less dull than you Tim.

    You have my wishes

    O
  • Options
    FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuNmIJSn5Kg

    In homage to Prince Philip :)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @frasernelson: As Cameron flies to Scotland, Alex Salmond's case for independence is falling apart.My Telegraph column: http://soa.li/SLFKDiH #AlbaGuBràth
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Omnium said:

    @tim

    So your powerful ammunition consists of telling us that the wonderful machine that was the state in the 1970s has been rolled back?

    "Interesting that, excluding pensions, contributory benefits have gone down from a peak of 21% of total benefit spend in 1971 to 5% in 2012.

    Late 1970s: 80% of housing spend = housebuilding, 20% = housing benefit. Now: 5% of housing spend = housebuilding, 95% = housing benefit."

    Where were you in the 70s? They were beyond awful. The UK was a laughing stock. If you really think things were better in the 70s (do you?) then you have no judgement at all.

    tim is right. in the 70's things were better. GDP adjusted for inflation rose about 20% per capita. This is a figure unlikely to be repeated for this decade. All that rising materialism (whatever happened to the Likely Lads?) did of course lead to the Thatcher revolution.

    It wasn't all bad. Cracking music too, and before AIDS and post-pill, the best time to be a teenager. Though for the benefit of TSE, the eighties were not bad either!
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    UKPollingReport — "What Gallup got wrong in the USA":

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
  • Options
    Because Tim is so often wrong, many on here are confused into thinking he's always wrong. He is castigated for pointing out the obvious truth that Osborne's subsidy for mortgages is economically inept. He and I also think it is bad politics, but at least that is arguable. Two years is not very long.

    He also poses the question: how do we reduce HB? His answer (though not his party's answer) is to encourage LA to build more council houses. Mine would be to reduce dramtically nett immigration by quitting the EU and tightening control of borders.

    A very important Q, to which the main parties are miles away from answering satisfactorily.





  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    in the 70's things were better.
    No-one that recalls the 70s would be so daft as to suggest such a thing.

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Omnium said:

    in the 70's things were better.
    No-one that recalls the 70s would be so daft as to suggest such a thing.



    I remember it well, of course there were crap bits, but very much a curates egg. Some bits were excellent.
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    edited June 2013

    Omnium said:

    in the 70's things were better.
    No-one that recalls the 70s would be so daft as to suggest such a thing.

    I remember it well, of course there were crap bits, but very much a curates egg. Some bits were excellent.

    Yorkies were massive* in the 70s.

    Edit: having googled (sad, I know) they were, in fact, at their chunkiest in 2002.
  • Options
    tim said:

    .





    Not sure you really want to be stopping pensioners leaving to retire in Spain and being replaced by economically active twenty something's if you want to control the benefit bill.
    A very fair point. But we need to regain control of borders before we can do anything. What about allowing more pensioners to emigrate than we allow immigrants to immigrate, for a period anyway?

  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    Scott_P said:

    How is Labour's economic relaunch week going? Good headlines in friendly papers?

    @GdnPolitics: Ed Miliband benefactor admits donating shares to save on tax http://bit.ly/13e5uXN


    Whatever spin line you're intending to fail on Surge,that's a pretty crappy one.

    When you get this

    He has so far won broad support for his carefully balanced plans from a remarkable spectrum including Frank Field, the former Labour welfare minister and Len McCluskie, the Unite general secretary.

    Guardian

    And this

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/how-ed-miliband-avoided-open-warfare-on-welfare/

    Even you should be able to see that you're going nowhere down that track.


    Emboldened by the near universal acclaim lavished upon his speech on the economy, from pundits as far apart as Left Field M.P. and Spike D. Beverage (dec'd), Ed Miliband has announced new proposals for saving money on the NHS.

    Our proposals to cut housing benefit and spend the savings on building new towns to house immigrant families at peppercorn rents have been broadly welcomed by the press, the people and academia.

    We will now apply the same cost saving principles to the NHS, which currently costs the country over £100 bn per year.

    When Labour return to government we will means test all pensioners seeking elective operations at NHS hospitals. This should reduce demand for free surgical interventions by over fifty per cent and enable us to replace a similar proportion of Doctors and Nurses with workfare placements for the long term unemployed.

    All savings made will be invested in building new hospitals and in providing new build A&E complexes at high street locations in all cities.

    "Pensioners seeking a hip replacement operation will no longer have to queue at A&E", claimed Labour leader, Ed Miliband, "We shall offer them a six month apprenticeship at the minimum wage on presentation".


    I'l-Ave -Another Blancmange, Chief Economist of the IMF, claimed in an interview with Sky News's Ed Conway that "this is just the kind of stimulus that the UK economy needs to allow it to achieve escape velocity".

  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    .





    Not sure you really want to be stopping pensioners leaving to retire in Spain and being replaced by economically active twenty something's if you want to control the benefit bill.
    A very fair point. But we need to regain control of borders before we can do anything. What about allowing more pensioners to emigrate than we allow immigrants to immigrate, for a period anyway?

    What does a fully comprehensive health cover cost for a 70 year old Brit moving to Spain once we're outside the EU?
    Less than the same thing costs in the UK.

    edit: I should add a question mark to that as i don't actually know but building sheltered housing in a warm country with lower average wages sounds like it might possibly be cheaper - especially with all that empty housing they have over there.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    P Collins in The Times
    I vividly remember the moment I learnt what would, for the outside world, come only later. We were gathered in the Cabinet Room waiting for Tony Blair whose meeting with Gordon Brown about a stable and orderly leadership transition had dragged on. Finally, on the point of us giving up, Mr Blair came through the adjoining door to his den, stopped and said, into the air as if to nobody: “He’s got nothing. I’ve seen the plan. He’s got nothing.”

    The mystery of how Mr Brown could prepare to be prime minister for a decade and yet arrive in Downing Street with nothing is still unsolved. But the trail leads to Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour Party and all the way towards the speech that he gave in Newham yesterday.

    This has not been a week the two Eds thought they would ever be forced to have. They imagined they would be proved right about austerity, allaying fears about Labour profligacy. They thought the political victory thus won would translate into anger at the cuts and a different mood towards their victims. If in October 2010 Mr Balls and Mr Miliband had been shown the texts they delivered this week, they would have reacted in a Brown-on- Blair way, dismissing them for conceding too much political ground to the right.

    Some of this was a hatred of ideas invented in the rival camp. Some of it was the expression of a character trait — deep caution being Mr Brown’s signature tune. But ultimately the cause of the paralysis was intellectual rather than psychological. Mr Brown analysed himself into nothingness because his own instincts collided with the country he aspired to rule. Finally, and only when the deadline loomed, would he do what he should have done all along. Brownism turned out to be Blairism, only extremely reluctant, highly anguished and very, very late.

    Mr Miliband is really late on the economy and welfare. This week could and should have happened long ago. Whether late is better than never remains to be seen.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2013
    Some Newcastle LibDems thinking UKIP will indeed poll well in Walkergate, possibly threatening Labour
    MrJones said:

    The Newcastle one looks possibly Ukippy depending on what type of LD voters they are.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    I'm sure you could arrange a bulk discount!
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    Where did you get those figures from?

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    Private cover has many exclusions, in particular for long term conditions. My private patients are often very disappointed when BUPA declines to cover them.

    In order to be covered by the Spanish NHS, a pensioner needs to register locally, and be a local taxpayer. The EHIC system is for emergency treatment of temporary visitors only, not for long term or planned care.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I also see the EU wants to move regulation of LIBOR to Paris, because French government is so famously non-corrupt:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10102025/London-threatened-by-plans-to-move-Libor-regulation-to-Paris.html
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:

    I also see the EU wants to move regulation of LIBOR to Paris, because French government is so famously non-corrupt:

    The French government would have no role in the regulation of LIBOR.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    France is also now coming crying to us and Germany after they forced us into a trade war with China:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/10101317/France-demands-emergency-EU-summit-over-Chinas-wine-tax-threat.html

    Perhaps we can agree to help them in exchange for them dropping their blocks on the US-EU deal?
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Scott_P said:

    P Collins in The Times

    Sometimes I am amazed by how good our political journalism can be (when it's not bloody awful). That's one of the goodies.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited June 2013
    Neil said:

    Socrates said:

    I also see the EU wants to move regulation of LIBOR to Paris, because French government is so famously non-corrupt:

    The French government would have no role in the regulation of LIBOR.
    No, but French eurocrats would, and they come from the same political culture. All old boys' club types that come out of the Ecole Nationale D'Administration, getting on well with their mates who hang out with African dictators.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    An abortion of a QT tonight. It's getting worse week by week.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:


    No, but French eurocrats would, and they come from the same political culture. All old boys' club types that come out of the Ecole Nationale D'Administration, getting on well with their mates who hang out with African dictators.

    Yes - look at that French dominated Management Board of this organisation. The African dictators they like to hang out with are just out of shot.

    http://www.esma.europa.eu/mb
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    What does, or more to the point, doesn't that cover?
    It will not cover chronic conditions, nor will it cover existing conditions, and private medical insurance does not cover A&E.

    That £200 for a 70 year old is rubbish.

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    O/T Why has the Guardian decided to go ballistic today particularly on the monitoring of US phone records? It's no secret that the US intelligence services have been looking for patterns in phone (and of course email, Facebook and Twitter) traffic for years, as have intelligence services in most other countries.
  • Options
    carlcarl Posts: 750

    Because Tim is so often wrong, many on here are confused into thinking he's always wrong.

    Speak for yourself.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2013
    Labour won Walkergate with 412 votes majority. UKIP strong second. LD third. Con 5th
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Labour won Walkergate with 412 votes majority. UKIP good second. LD third. Con 5th

    Details?

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Northumberland results by division:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDk0QUtnUTNmRmtKUWJGM1dwTjMxRFE#gid=0

    This was almost certainly the only council area where the Conservative vote increased compared to the 2010 general election, I assume mainly due to differential turnout.

    Changes since 2010 GE:

    Con +1.74%
    Lab +5.55%
    UKIP +4.38%
    LD -11.80%
    Green +0.14%
    Ind +3.78%
    Others -3.78%
  • Options
    BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    MikeK said:

    An abortion of a QT tonight. It's getting worse week by week.

    Is it really necessary to use that sort of analogy to express your displeasure?
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Bobajob said:

    MikeK said:

    An abortion of a QT tonight. It's getting worse week by week.

    Is it really necessary to use that sort of analogy to express your displeasure?
    It's kipperish, Bobajob.

    Stop being a snob.

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Evening all. The Wallace collection is still marvellous. I can report that after a very pleasant evening spent there.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    O/T Why has the Guardian decided to go ballistic today particularly on the monitoring of US phone records? It's no secret that the US intelligence services have been looking for patterns in phone (and of course email, Facebook and Twitter) traffic for years, as have intelligence services in most other countries.

    IIUC it's news that they're doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way under the Obama administration. We knew that it was happening under Bush, and we also knew that they've been making phone companies provide data on specific numbers since forever.

    The political impact is that recently Republicans have been allowing themselves to get riled up against Obama over civil liberties, which is great news for Rand Paul, and by extension Mike Smithson.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    AndyJS said:

    Northumberland results by division:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDk0QUtnUTNmRmtKUWJGM1dwTjMxRFE#gid=0

    This was almost certainly the only council area where the Conservative vote increased compared to the 2010 general election, I assume mainly due to differential turnout.

    Changes since 2010 GE:

    Con +1.74%
    Lab +5.55%
    UKIP +4.38%
    LD -11.80%
    Green +0.14%
    Ind +3.78%
    Others -3.78%

    The swing to Labour is going to have Sir Roderick predicting a 200 seat Tory majority in 2015.

  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Labour won Walkergate with 412 votes majority. UKIP strong second. LD third. Con 5th

    Ooo er
  • Options
    BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    AveryLP said:

    Bobajob said:

    MikeK said:

    An abortion of a QT tonight. It's getting worse week by week.

    Is it really necessary to use that sort of analogy to express your displeasure?
    It's kipperish, Bobajob.

    Stop being a snob.

    I assume you are trying to be droll, but for the record I wouldn't call it snobbery.
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    @tim

    Bupa's Comprehensive 500 cover for a 70 year old costs £200 a month. That's £2400 a year. Multiply that by 800000 Brits in Spain, that's £1.9bn a year, a fraction of our membership fees of the EU.

    And, of course, healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than what it costs in the UK.

    What does, or more to the point, doesn't that cover?
    It will not cover chronic conditions, nor will it cover existing conditions, and private medical insurance does not cover A&E.

    That £200 for a 70 year old is rubbish.

    Of course it's rubbish, anyone can see its utter rubbish.


    For once we agree!

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I didn't realise the Wallace Collection was open in the evenings. The Laughing Cavalier is part of the collection IIRC.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    .





    Not sure you really want to be stopping pensioners leaving to retire in Spain and being replaced by economically active twenty something's if you want to control the benefit bill.
    A very fair point. But we need to regain control of borders before we can do anything. What about allowing more pensioners to emigrate than we allow immigrants to immigrate, for a period anyway?

    What does a fully comprehensive health cover cost for a 70 year old Brit moving to Spain once we're outside the EU?
    As long as we remain part of EFTA nothing more than now.

    For Emergency cover the EHIC is not limited to just EU countries but includes places like Norway and Switzerland as well.

    For any other medical cover that is dependent on the country not the nationality of the person being covered. So inside or outside the EU makes no difference. If you can't afford cover now when we are still members of the EU then you will not be able to afford it after we leave - and of course vice versa
  • Options
    BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    AveryLP said:

    AndyJS said:

    Northumberland results by division:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDk0QUtnUTNmRmtKUWJGM1dwTjMxRFE#gid=0

    This was almost certainly the only council area where the Conservative vote increased compared to the 2010 general election, I assume mainly due to differential turnout.

    Changes since 2010 GE:

    Con +1.74%
    Lab +5.55%
    UKIP +4.38%
    LD -11.80%
    Green +0.14%
    Ind +3.78%
    Others -3.78%

    The swing to Labour is going to have Sir Roderick predicting a 200 seat Tory majority in 2015.

    That would be a brave call indeed given that down the road in Walkergate they have just come fifth.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @AndyJS They do private functions in the evening. And yes, the Laughing Cavalier is part of the collection.

    One of the guides was explaining why there are so many Dutch paintings. Apparently the French aristos bought lots of Dutch paintings in the 17th century. Come the French revolution, the English (who by that stage were the rich men of Europe) were buying up the French collections with enthusiasm.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413

    IIUC it's news that they're doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way under the Obama administration.

    How odd that it should be news. Of course they are doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way. That's the entire object of the exercise - to try to figure out where, amongst the massive amounts of data, they might need to look to find something potentially interesting, or at least a pointer to something potentially interesting. If they already knew who to target it would all be rather easy.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    O/T Why has the Guardian decided to go ballistic today particularly on the monitoring of US phone records? It's no secret that the US intelligence services have been looking for patterns in phone (and of course email, Facebook and Twitter) traffic for years, as have intelligence services in most other countries.

    Because they're keeping a giant government database of everyone's phone calls, even for people that they don't have any reason to be suspicious at all. It's outrageous, and anyone that believes in limited government should think it's outrageous. It's one of the worst things the Obama administration has been done. We expect this sort of shit from idiot wannabe cowboys, but Obama is a law professor. He should know better than this.

    Clinton better get on the right side of this issue, particularly if she's facing Rand Paul. If not, it could be for her this time what the Iraq war vote was last time.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Bobajob said:

    AveryLP said:

    AndyJS said:

    Northumberland results by division:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDk0QUtnUTNmRmtKUWJGM1dwTjMxRFE#gid=0

    This was almost certainly the only council area where the Conservative vote increased compared to the 2010 general election, I assume mainly due to differential turnout.

    Changes since 2010 GE:

    Con +1.74%
    Lab +5.55%
    UKIP +4.38%
    LD -11.80%
    Green +0.14%
    Ind +3.78%
    Others -3.78%

    The swing to Labour is going to have Sir Roderick predicting a 200 seat Tory majority in 2015.

    That would be a brave call indeed given that down the road in Walkergate they have just come fifth.
    It is the relative swing which counts, Bobajob.

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Socrates said:

    Clinton better get on the right side of this issue

    That certainly ain't gonna happen. She's likely to be more keen on this than Obama is, although in practice I don't see any US government (or indeed any democratic government anywhere) doing anything very different. The Americans are understandably unkeen on being blown up, even if they don't seem too fussed as a nation about having a ludicrously high risk of being shot.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Clinton better get on the right side of this issue

    That certainly ain't gonna happen. She's likely to be more keen on this than Obama is, although in practice I don't see any US government (or indeed any democratic government anywhere) doing anything very different. The Americans are understandably unkeen on being blown up, even if they don't seem too fussed as a nation about having a ludicrously high risk of being shot.
    We never needed to do this in the UK despite years of terrorist threat from the IRA. You can use the "well you don't want to be blown up, do you?" argument for crapping all over every civil liberty we have. Ultimately, your private behaviour should not be tracked by the government if they have no reason to be suspicious of you.

    I'm completely serious that this could wreck Clinton's chances. Democrats I know are spitting blood over this, and quite rightly too.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Walkergate full result

    Lab 1080
    UKIP 668
    LD 460
    Ind 64
    Newcastle First 61
    Con 54
    Green 30
    TUSC 24
    Ind 12

  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    .





    Not sure you really want to be stopping pensioners leaving to retire in Spain and being replaced by economically active twenty something's if you want to control the benefit bill.
    A very fair point. But we need to regain control of borders before we can do anything. What about allowing more pensioners to emigrate than we allow immigrants to immigrate, for a period anyway?

    What does a fully comprehensive health cover cost for a 70 year old Brit moving to Spain once we're outside the EU?
    As long as we remain part of EFTA nothing more than now. the EHIC is not limited to just EU countries but includes places like Norway and Switzerland as well.
    EHIC only covers you until you return home, doesn't cover long term care
    I'd be interested in knowing what healthcare costs Brits retiring abroad have to pay in comparable countries inside and outside the EU.
    Wouldn't like to think UKiPs policy prevented pensioners retiring to the sun would we?
    As I already says it makes no difference as long as we remain a member of EFTA.

    And since you pick Spain as a particular example your point is even more ridiculous because for all types of care Spain treats non EU nationals in the same way as EU nationals as long as they have permanent residence in the country.

    If you actually bothered to read up about this stuff you would not have asked the question. Of course since the point of your comments was to try and sow doubt rather than understand how the system works you have no interest in actually knowing what you are talking about.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Socrates said:

    O/T Why has the Guardian decided to go ballistic today particularly on the monitoring of US phone records? It's no secret that the US intelligence services have been looking for patterns in phone (and of course email, Facebook and Twitter) traffic for years, as have intelligence services in most other countries.

    Clinton better get on the right side of this issue.
    Why not give her a call, Socrates. I'm sure she'll listen.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    IIUC it's news that they're doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way under the Obama administration.

    How odd that it should be news. Of course they are doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way. That's the entire object of the exercise - to try to figure out where, amongst the massive amounts of data, they might need to look to find something potentially interesting, or at least a pointer to something potentially interesting. If they already knew who to target it would all be rather easy.
    I don't think it would be a generic statistical data-mining exercise, would it? "Statistically terrorists are more likely to call three times on Thursday morning, let's go check this guy out..."

    I'd have thought they were still working with specific phone numbers of suspects and seeing who they called, who the people they called called, etc. The difference between what everyone knew they were doing - "Court, please give us a warrant to see who called a Mr Terry Wrist" - and what they're actually doing - "Court, sod it, just make them give us all the data about everyone's calls" would be either:
    1) They don't want to have to keep going back to the court every time.
    2) They're actually doing this in real time, so they want to start by getting the right to see all the phone data in America.

    PS. What's extra smelly about this is that they decided to do it in secret, at least until some heroic person leaked it. You can understand why you'd want to keep a court order about a specific person secret, but I can't think of any good reason not to tell the voters that you're doing it for everybody.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Socrates said:

    We never needed to do this in the UK despite years of terrorist threat from the IRA.

    Don't be silly. Do you seriously think that the intelligence services weren't monitoring telephone traffic in the 1970s looking for IRA-linked clues?

    Of course the technology was very different, and they didn't have today's enormous computers to do the correlations for them, so it was rather hard. Maybe if they had had better tools, fewer innocent people would have died, although of course it does tend to be an arms race
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    That's as serious an answer as your BUPA nonsense
    I was just trying to do a first stab at quantifying the cost of something you seem to think is a reason not to quit the EU. Obviously it was a back of the envelope calculation, and I'm happy to listen to other's attempts to quantify it better. Do you have any evidence that it would be higher? How much do you think the cost would be?
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Walkergate full result

    Lab 1080
    UKIP 668
    LD 460
    Ind 64
    Newcastle First 61
    Con 54
    Green 30
    TUSC 24
    Ind 12

    All UKIP needs now are bar charts. Only UKIP can beat Labour!

  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    There is a policy available from Passport2health that takes advantage of the far cheaper private healthcare abroad. I know that there is a hospital in Barcelona that is absolutely fantastic, with far more state of the art equipment than any private hospital in the UK and much cheaper too.

    On another point if you think the scandal of care homes going skint is bad, just wait until the shit hits the fan with private hospitals. One of the biggest groups owes £1.9 billion.



  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Can't believe I'm agreeing with every word Bob Crow is saying!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    SeanT said:

    O/T Why has the Guardian decided to go ballistic today particularly on the monitoring of US phone records?

    Because the Guardian is desperate, and dying, and they are trying - with a view to survival - to make themselves the online liberal "paper" of record for the Anglosphere as a whole, in particular America (but also Australia - see their new foray into the Antipodes).

    Expect more of the same in months and years to come, until the Guardian goes bust - because the equally liberal NYT knows more about America, and has vastly bigger resources.
    TBF The Guardian do seem to have broken this story, which the NYT is equally ballistic about:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=0

    And the Guardian broke the Wikileaks stuff as well, although they subsequently lost credibility in that area by breaking key principles of information security, like when you get given the passphrase to a secret archive so that you can help redact it, don't write the passphrase down in a place where other people could read it, such as the subheading to a chapter of a book you're getting published by Public Affairs.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @edmundintokyo - Well, I knew they were doing in for everybody, and I have no special knowledge at all (though it is something I'm interested in because I was very peripherally involved in one aspect of it some years ago).

    But, yes, it is a statistical data-mining exercise. Not looking for terrorists necessarily, but looking for links and patterns which might give a clue to where to look.

    Of course you can't conceivably get warrants for this kind of thing. You are tracking billions of connections and you have no idea in advance where they lead and which ones might prove to be interesting.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    IIUC it's news that they're doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way under the Obama administration.

    How odd that it should be news. Of course they are doing it in a blanket, non-targeted way. That's the entire object of the exercise - to try to figure out where, amongst the massive amounts of data, they might need to look to find something potentially interesting, or at least a pointer to something potentially interesting. If they already knew who to target it would all be rather easy.
    I don't think it would be a generic statistical data-mining exercise, would it? "Statistically terrorists are more likely to call three times on Thursday morning, let's go check this guy out..."

    I'd have thought they were still working with specific phone numbers of suspects and seeing who they called, who the people they called called, etc. The difference between what everyone knew they were doing - "Court, please give us a warrant to see who called a Mr Terry Wrist" - and what they're actually doing - "Court, sod it, just make them give us all the data about everyone's calls" would be either:
    1) They don't want to have to keep going back to the court every time.
    2) They're actually doing this in real time, so they want to start by getting the right to see all the phone data in America.

    PS. What's extra smelly about this is that they decided to do it in secret, at least until some heroic person leaked it. You can understand why you'd want to keep a court order about a specific person secret, but I can't think of any good reason not to tell the voters that you're doing it for everybody.
    And, of course, Obama has been absolutely terrible on whistle-blowers. The guy has been a very authoritarian president on civil liberties issues. His only saving grace on the matter is that the war criminals in the White House before him were worse.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    That's as serious an answer as your BUPA nonsense
    I was just trying to do a first stab at quantifying the cost of something you seem to think is a reason not to quit the EU. Obviously it was a back of the envelope calculation, and I'm happy to listen to other's attempts to quantify it better. Do you have any evidence that it would be higher? How much do you think the cost would be?
    Again if Tim had actually been interested in facts rather than his infantile scare stories he would have found out that Private Health care is much more widespread in Spain than in the UK (almost double the number of people have Private care in Spain compared to the UK) and that as a result premiums are usually significantly lower as there is far more competition in the market.

    But since he wasn't actually interested in facts that will not matter to him.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    33.79% turnout in Newcastle. In Nottingham it's 42.6% (no result yet)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    There is a policy available from Passport2health that takes advantage of the far cheaper private healthcare abroad. I know that there is a hospital in Barcelona that is absolutely fantastic, with far more state of the art equipment than any private hospital in the UK and much cheaper too.

    On another point if you think the scandal of care homes going skint is bad, just wait until the shit hits the fan with private hospitals. One of the biggest groups owes £1.9 billion.



    I know the one you mean, and it does seem an over borrowed zombie business, but if it goes bust it would not be the same, few patients stay more than a couple of nights.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    We never needed to do this in the UK despite years of terrorist threat from the IRA.

    Don't be silly. Do you seriously think that the intelligence services weren't monitoring telephone traffic in the 1970s looking for IRA-linked clues?

    Of course the technology was very different, and they didn't have today's enormous computers to do the correlations for them, so it was rather hard. Maybe if they had had better tools, fewer innocent people would have died, although of course it does tend to be an arms race
    That's a ridiculous conflation. One is looking into telephone traffic of suspected individuals, the other is a database state on everyone. It's the difference between putting a suspect's house under surveillance, and installing government watched CCTV on everyone's homes. I'm sure if they did that we could reduce crime and save lives, but it's not worth the cost. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little security deserve neither.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    That's as serious an answer as your BUPA nonsense
    I was just trying to do a first stab at quantifying the cost of something you seem to think is a reason not to quit the EU. Obviously it was a back of the envelope calculation, and I'm happy to listen to other's attempts to quantify it better. Do you have any evidence that it would be higher? How much do you think the cost would be?
    Again if Tim had actually been interested in facts rather than his infantile scare stories he would have found out that Private Health care is much more widespread in Spain than in the UK (almost double the number of people have Private care in Spain compared to the UK) and that as a result premiums are usually significantly lower as there is far more competition in the market.

    But since he wasn't actually interested in facts that will not matter to him.
    The idea that competition brings down private healthcare costs is always amusing, works so well in the USA doesn't it.
    Are you claiming private health insurance premiums are higher in Spain than the UK then, despite it being a generally cheaper country?
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Socrates said:

    That's a ridiculous conflation. One is looking into telephone traffic of suspected individuals, the other is a database state on everyone. It's the difference between putting a suspect's house under surveillance, and installing government watched CCTV on everyone's homes. I'm sure if they did that we could reduce crime and save lives, but it's not worth the cost. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little security deserve neither.

    What liberty has been given up?

    In any case, it's not me who is arguing this. I think you'll find that, whenever there is a terrorist atrocity, the media and public want to know why the hell the intelligence services were caught unawares. Whether you like it or not, they have a very simple (and, for once, quite honest) answer: give us bigger computers and more data, and next time there's less chance of being caught unawares.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    We never needed to do this in the UK despite years of terrorist threat from the IRA.

    Don't be silly. Do you seriously think that the intelligence services weren't monitoring telephone traffic in the 1970s looking for IRA-linked clues?

    Of course the technology was very different, and they didn't have today's enormous computers to do the correlations for them, so it was rather hard. Maybe if they had had better tools, fewer innocent people would have died, although of course it does tend to be an arms race
    That's a ridiculous conflation. One is looking into telephone traffic of suspected individuals, the other is a database state on everyone. It's the difference between putting a suspect's house under surveillance, and installing government watched CCTV on everyone's homes. I'm sure if they did that we could reduce crime and save lives, but it's not worth the cost. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little security deserve neither.
    But if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, Socrates.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899

    Walkergate full result

    Lab 1080
    UKIP 668
    LD 460
    Ind 64
    Newcastle First 61
    Con 54
    Green 30
    TUSC 24
    Ind 12

    All UKIP needs now are bar charts. Only UKIP can beat Labour!

    Interesting. The Lib Dem vote has held up fairly well there considering their woes in the North. Tactical swing from CON to UKIP I would guess also.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2013
    Compared to 2012 LD held up well....but 2012 here was bad compared to 2010-11. I am not sure what were the local circumstances in either 2011 or 12 because 2011 LD result looks very good given the national picture but then they were halved in 2012.
    Pulpstar said:


    Interesting. The Lib Dem vote has held up fairly well there considering their woes in the North. Tactical swing from CON to UKIP I would guess also.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Maybe it's close in Nottingham if UKIP have taken a lot of Tory votes...
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    That's as serious an answer as your BUPA nonsense
    I was just trying to do a first stab at quantifying the cost of something you seem to think is a reason not to quit the EU. Obviously it was a back of the envelope calculation, and I'm happy to listen to other's attempts to quantify it better. Do you have any evidence that it would be higher? How much do you think the cost would be?
    Again if Tim had actually been interested in facts rather than his infantile scare stories he would have found out that Private Health care is much more widespread in Spain than in the UK (almost double the number of people have Private care in Spain compared to the UK) and that as a result premiums are usually significantly lower as there is far more competition in the market.

    But since he wasn't actually interested in facts that will not matter to him.
    The idea that competition brings down private healthcare costs is always amusing, works so well in the USA doesn't it.
    We weren't talking about the US we were talking about Spain where premiums are significantly lower than the UK.

    Now stop trying to squirm out of your utter failure and just admit you went off the deep end on something you know nothing about just to try and make a stupid political point and you got caught out.
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Socrates
    And where do you get the idea tha healthcare in Spain is far cheaper than the UK?

    On the basis that buildings and salaries are far cheaper.
    That's as serious an answer as your BUPA nonsense
    I was just trying to do a first stab at quantifying the cost of something you seem to think is a reason not to quit the EU. Obviously it was a back of the envelope calculation, and I'm happy to listen to other's attempts to quantify it better. Do you have any evidence that it would be higher? How much do you think the cost would be?
    Again if Tim had actually been interested in facts rather than his infantile scare stories he would have found out that Private Health care is much more widespread in Spain than in the UK (almost double the number of people have Private care in Spain compared to the UK) and that as a result premiums are usually significantly lower as there is far more competition in the market.

    But since he wasn't actually interested in facts that will not matter to him.
    Firstly I should declare that I'm a broker in the private medical insurance field. I don't believe premiums are cheaper in Spain because more people have cover, I think it's because the treatment is much cheaper so the claims are lower in monetary terms.

    For example a knee replacement is about £12,000 over here but around £7,000 in Spain. That's why Passport2Health have brought their policy to the market, there are other variations too.

This discussion has been closed.