They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters will go elsewhere with their vote, you might think they are wrong, or even deluded, but that wont make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
Back to Hague, IDS or Michael Howard so the Tories can emulate their electoral prowress?
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
The one facing a discredited, divided government presiding over a collapsing economy but that with a leader unable to appeal outside of the core vote to different social classes, campaigning on the wrong issues with little political nouse, still failed to win a majority.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
mfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
How does a party earn the right to be heard in the modern world if they oppose gay marriage?
The Tories carried some heavy and unpleasant baggage there and it had to go.
There have been largely token gestures towards the married family in the tax system. It would be a good area for George to focus on in his budget.
The wheel is turning on multiculturalism and the government is playing a role in that.
What else do you think they should be doing for social Conservatives?
Every party opposed Gay Marriage just four years ago. How come something everyone was against was right then, but now its forbidden to be against as we are in a modern world?
PS. When i canvass a con to ukip switcher, within three minutes i can be guaranteed a reference to cameron and gay marriage, with activists who've changed reduce that down to sixty seconds.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
It is also proposed that graduates earning £42,000 a year or more would pay a higher rate of interest on their loans – 4 per cent—instead of 3 per cent.
The policy is quite well thought out and balanced. But it has been drowned by the rhetoric of "robbing pensioners" and "helping rich kids".
Nevertheless electors in general approve of the policy by 3 to 1. I expect a tick up in Labour poll ratings as a result.
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
Why would the EU treat the UK differently?
The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Far more jobs are involved in the export of goods to the UK than there are British jobs involved in the export of goods to the EU.
You are also aware that the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to enter into a trade agreement with any country which leaves the EU?
"The cases collapsed because of unreliable police evidence. During the trial it came to light that the BBC had reversed footage of scenes at Orgreave to give the impression that miners were responsible for starting violent scenes, when in fact it was the police that had instigated the violence."
Still no enquiry, because sensitive souls like you must be protected from the truth
@DavidL Try reading a bit of history, and not just what was written by vested interests on both sides. At Orgrieve for example, the camera men had special "protection" and "liaison" officers to show them what they were to film. Very democratic....in a North Korean way.
I am old enough to regard that as modern studies rather than history. Finding my kids studying events that I remember clearly as "history" is quite depressing I can assure you.
I have also had the opportunity over the years of speaking to many ex cops (when they were working at bar officers) who were at Orgrieve and elsewhere in the miners strike. They described pitch battles with very little quarter asked or given by either side. Some of them were injured but I have no doubt they inflicted injuries too.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white.
The Tory Party has no right to voters votes, they have to win them, if they are too narrow, those voters.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
Back to Hague, IDS or Michael Howard so the Tories can emulate their electoral prowress?
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
The one facing a discredited, divided government presiding over a collapsing economy but that with a leader unable to appeal outside of the core vote to different social classes, campaigning on the wrong issues with little political nouse, still failed to win a majority.
Sure. But he gained more seats than any election since Maggie in 1983, and got the keys to number 10. By any reasonable measure that is electoral success.
He can only play against the team that the other side puts out. This time Labour have selected the two Eds. For an austerity government to be the betting favourite is quite something.
"The cases collapsed because of unreliable police evidence. During the trial it came to light that the BBC had reversed footage of scenes at Orgreave to give the impression that miners were responsible for starting violent scenes, when in fact it was the police that had instigated the violence."
Still no enquiry, because sensitive souls like you must be protected from the truth
Isn't S Yorks run by Labour with a Labour Police Comissioner ? maybe it's gone the same way as those Rotherham incidents.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
Didn't we conclude yesterday that the pension grab would probably make the square root of nothing since people were in voluntary contributions at that high level and would basically put their money somewhere else.
I agree. But if they simply do not make the contribution then there may be a boost in income tax revenues, unless they shield the money in other ways. These are high earners so they have good accountants.
You are correct ,I was in the fortunate position of running a profitable business,my income needs reduced when I had paid my mortgage and the children had settled elsewhere.I had full control of my annual salary. I saw no point in taking more salary than I needed and so I put the surplus into my SIPP. If there was no tax relief available I still would not have taken the extra salary and paid tax,my advisers would have found ways to optimise my affairs. The SIPP was extremely beneficial then,save 40% on the way in,no tax on the growth,and pull 25% out tax free. True most people did not have the freedom of control that I had.
The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Far more jobs are involved in the export of goods to the UK than there are British jobs involved in the export of goods to the EU.
You are also aware that the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to enter into a trade agreement with any country which leaves the EU?
Why would the UK be treated differently to Mexico? Surely you can see.
I wasn't aware of that. Very interesting. Could you tell me what the Lisbon Treaty says about withdrawal and forcing the EU to enter a trade agreement?
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
'We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards" I might be paraphrasing slightly.'
Think your trying to desperately rewrite history, good luck with that.
Don't believe every piece of rubbish written in the Guardian.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
Didn't we conclude yesterday that the pension grab would probably make the square root of nothing since people were in voluntary contributions at that high level and would basically put their money somewhere else.
If they sensibly put their money elsewhere (like Charles) then it is after-tax money they are investing. There will be a tax take. Removing the tax-free pension contribution perk from the very rich is the source.
Right - I can smell lunch. Roast lamb with anchovy and rosemary sauce, roasted spuds, parnips etc. Just opened a bottle of Rioja Reserva. I'm off. Cheers.
Doesn't work for Osborne. Never has. Never will. Nothing to do with Osborne. Just a name chucked in to make a sad story about a man with serious problems seem more interesting. DM at its worst really.
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
Why would the EU treat the UK differently?
The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Far more jobs are involved in the export of goods to the UK than there are British jobs involved in the export of goods to the EU.
You are also aware that the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to enter into a trade agreement with any country which leaves the EU?
That eu programme mustbe a wind up?
We really are seeing big state propaganda the like of which Orwell would have thought far fetched
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
Doesn't strike you that maybe the miners should have got a decent leader and avoided the whole shabbang ?
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
A more accurate assessment, is a bunch of bullies who had repeatedly held the nation to ransom and repeatedly succeeded got out played by someone who on the surface appeared weak, but knew that you can lose a battle but win a war.
They assumed that because she gave in to their demands in 1981, when she was in a position of weakness, they thought she would again in 1984, despite being in a period of strength.
@john_zims And just who should I believe instead? The miners strike was just one of a series of events that your beloved Maggie used the states powers to manipulate for the entertainment of the terminally gullible. Carry on in your happy ignorance if you wish, it appears to be your natural state.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
mfort indeed.
With respect that is completely back to front. It was Cameron and Osborne who saw the need to return the party to the Thatcherite broad church and who sought the support of those who had turned their back on the Tories in their years of intellectual purity and irrelevant opposition. They partially succeeded but only at the risk of offending those same purists and obsessives that made the party irrelevant for so long and whilst Labour did so much terrible damage to the fabric of our country. Are we really going to have to suffer another 13 years of Labour misrule until those sad individuals finally get the message? Will there still be a country left to save? It certainly won't look like this one.
Possibly. But they are not going to change, so if we want power, we have to. And calling the current Conservative party a broad church is a joke, there is no place in Dave's Party for social conservatives, and no chance of any policy they value being taken forward, because Dave and his mates are metropolitan liberals and don't understand that part of the party at all.
How does a party earn the right to be heard in the modern world if they oppose gay marriage?
The Tories carried some heavy and unpleasant baggage there and it had to go.
There have been largely token gestures towards the married family in the tax system. It would be a good area for George to focus on in his budget.
The wheel is turning on multiculturalism and the government is playing a role in that.
What else do you think they should be doing for social Conservatives?
Every party opposed Gay Marriage just four years ago. How come something everyone was against was right then, but now its forbidden to be against as we are in a modern world?
PS. When i canvass a con to ukip switcher, within three minutes i can be guaranteed a reference to cameron and gay marriage, with activists who've changed reduce that down to sixty seconds.
Civil Partnerships were a typical Blairite cop out but were gay marriages in all but name. Once you had taken that step you then had to justify treating a minority in a discriminatory way. Pretty tricky I think but I accept that a minority still feel otherwise.
The question was how a party that wanted to be heard dealt with it given the views of the vast majority. The answer was pretty obvious.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
I am quite sure Dave He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
OK....for Tories and Kippers the rule of law means the sum total of zero as long as their privilege and agenda is fulfilled. At least be honest with folk instead of bleating from what you claim is the moral high ground. Charging someone with riot is one of the most severe crimes on the statute, but South Yorks Police were happy to commit perjury to try and secure a conviction, in the sure and certain knowledge they were above the law. Now look at the same force again in the light of recent revelations, and just for a brief moment understand what happened?
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
I remember the strike very well. Scargill blew it by refusing to have a vote and then using mass pickets to enforce the dispute on the unwilling coalfields.
The strike was an overtly political one to bring down a democratic government. I hated Thatcher and voted against her in 3 elections, but on the strike she was right.
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
A picnic? Are you serious? They were not there for a picnic but to hold this country to ransom by preventing the movement of coal by physical force. They were met with greater force and no doubt some of it was pretty brutal. But really, cut the propaganda fantasy stuff. It makes you look ridiculous and you are much more interesting and intelligent than that.
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
I remember the strike very well. Scargill blew it by refusing to have a vote and then using mass pickets to enforce the dispute on the unwilling coalfields.
The strike was an overtly political one to bring down a democratic government. I hated Thatcher and voted against her in 3 elections, but on the strike she was right.
Scargill did exactly what Thatcher wanted him to do. He was a complete fool.
OK....for Tories and Kippers the rule of law means the sum total of zero as long as their privilege and agenda is fulfilled. At least be honest with folk instead of bleating from what you claim is the moral high ground. Charging someone with riot is one of the most severe crimes on the statute, but South Yorks Police were happy to commit perjury to try and secure a conviction, in the sure and certain knowledge they were above the law. Now look at the same force again in the light of recent revelations, and just for a brief moment understand what happened?
Which government was it again that passed RIPA and the Civil Contingencies Act.
@foxinsoxuk Perjury is justifiable? Or is it only allowed for the police and government?
Perjury is wrong, whoever does it, but to depict Scargill and his henchmen as naive innocents is plainly ludicrous.
Both sides were violent, but it is perfectly legitimate for the state security services to be interested in domestic subversives. Indeed that is what they are for!
@DavidL Try reading the actual history of your beloved "Whore of Babylon" and stop making utter idiots of yourself quoting disproved propaganda that was fed to you at the time. It is all there in black and white, and not only in the Guardian, and Morning Star but in several well resourced studies by academics, lawyers, and historians.
"Once again, as with Hillsborough, police officers are apparently confessing that they were instructed to fabricate statements in connection with Orgreave and the policing of the miners' strike. I see no difference between that and attempting to pervert the course of justice."
@DavidL Try reading the actual history of your beloved "Whore of Babylon" and stop making utter idiots of yourself quoting disproved propaganda that was fed to you at the time. It is all there in black and white, and not only in the Guardian, and Morning Star but in several well resourced studies by academics, lawyers, and historians.
I have better than seconday sources. I was in the North Notts coalfields at the time myself. Were you?
"Once again, as with Hillsborough, police officers are apparently confessing that they were instructed to fabricate statements in connection with Orgreave and the policing of the miners' strike. I see no difference between that and attempting to pervert the course of justice."
S Yorks is Labour run, what are you moaning at PB Tories for ? Address your comments to Ed Miliband.
OK....for Tories and Kippers the rule of law means the sum total of zero as long as their privilege and agenda is fulfilled. At least be honest with folk instead of bleating from what you claim is the moral high ground. Charging someone with riot is one of the most severe crimes on the statute, but South Yorks Police were happy to commit perjury to try and secure a conviction, in the sure and certain knowledge they were above the law. Now look at the same force again in the light of recent revelations, and just for a brief moment understand what happened?
I will have one more go and then it's time to cook the Sunday lunch (and you don't get much more socially conservative than roast beef with all the trimmings on a Sunday)
I have been involved in a number of trials with multiple accused after a significant disturbance. The cops are asked to identify a number of people that they saw briefly in a series of incidents. Frankly when they do their credibility is more damaged than when they don't. That does not mean that the cops are lying (although with South Yorkshire constabulary that might be a reasonable default presumption). It means they are being asked to describe a fast moving and frightening situation when they are dealing with an angry mob of which the accused was a part. Very very difficult cases for the Crown to bring home I can assure you.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
So Ukip want Norway-style "government by fax machine"? Taking all those European regulations about bendy bananas you don't like, but just giving up your say on them?
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
@foxinsoxuk Perjury is justifiable? Or is it only allowed for the police and government?
Perjury is wrong, whoever does it, but to depict Scargill and his henchmen as naive innocents is plainly ludicrous.
Both sides were violent, but it is perfectly legitimate for the state security services to be interested in domestic subversives. Indeed that is what they are for!
As soon as you claim to be there to "bring this Tory government down" you are in deep water, at the least its sedition (as was), and potentially in issue of security of the realm. In 1972 miners strike the Health government declared a State of Emergency under the Emergency Powers Act (1920) which in effect authorises ministers to make short term proclamations without recourse to parliament to preserve the "essentials of life to the community" (which included fuel). This has since been replaced (by Blair) by the scandalously wide ranging Civil Contingencies Act.
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
And you don't think Howard, Hague or IDS would have gained 100 seats up against Brown after an apolyptic financial crash?
A chimpanzee with a blue rosette would have won 100 seats against brown. Hague would have probably won 160 and a clear majority. A lot of people, like me, suppressed their misgivings about Cameron. Maude, Osborne, Mays etc. social liberal agenda but a lot of others saw through it and didn't vote because they felt no one represented them which cost the tories a majority.
He intended to provoke a battle in the expectation that tens of thousands of industrial workers from Sheffield and Rotherham would join him in the same way the Birmingham industrial workers had done a dozen years before.
They didn't.
Orgreave in itself was an unimportant place which just happened to be chosen by Scargill for his Leninist workers uprising.
Ironically all the big talk of being the 'Grenadier Guards of the union movement', plus the government subsidies and protection the mining industry had received since 1972 while the rest of British industry had suffered repeated recessions and crises, had destroyed much of the goodwill the working class had felt towards miners.
@foxinsoxuk No, I was in Lanarkshire, watching convoys of brand new Scanias tearing through villages, and in some cases being driven by people who had never held a licence to drive more than a moped. Yulle and Dodds.....a company funded by the Tories, and that for years after had the same opinions of the law as your precious South Yorks heroes. (look them up)
@DavidL Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables. A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war. The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
A more accurate assessment, is a bunch of bullies who had repeatedly held the nation to ransom and repeatedly succeeded got out played by someone who on the surface appeared weak, but knew that you can lose a battle but win a war.
They assumed that because she gave in to their demands in 1981, when she was in a position of weakness, they thought she would again in 1984, despite being in a period of strength.
She rightly broke them.
Interesting what UKIP are proposing:
"the party said it would put re-industrialisation at the heart of its campaign in Scotland, pledging to set up a commission to look at ways to rejuvenate and expand the coal industry"
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
And you don't think Howard, Hague or IDS would have gained 100 seats up against Brown after an apolyptic financial crash?
A chimpanzee with a blue rosette would have won 100 seats against brown. Hague would have probably won 160 and a clear majority. A lot of people, like me, suppressed their misgivings about Cameron. Maude, Osborne, Mays etc. social liberal agenda but a lot of others saw through it and didn't vote because they felt no one represented them which cost the tories a majority.
Howard, Hague and IDS may have won a few seats against Brown, but they would NEVER have formed a government with about 280 seats in the House of Commons.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
So Ukip want Norway-style "government by fax machine"? Taking all those European regulations about bendy bananas you don't like, but just giving up your say on them?
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
The difference, and its a big one, with the Norway situation is that they only have to care about the bendy bananas nonsense for exports going to the EU, their exports going to the other 140 countries in the world don't have to follow them. In the UK while we are in the EU we have to follow them for all our customers, even when our non-EU competitors don't and so undercut us.
You are embarrassing yourself, even as a non-kipper I can see nothing in their policies about kicking anyone out, their propose in effect to introduce the same points system as is currently used in those well known fascist states Australia and Canada. A colour blind system that admits people on merit, rather than the bigoted system we currently have which admits white Europeans, but keeps out all those nasty brown people outside the EU.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
So Ukip want Norway-style "government by fax machine"? Taking all those European regulations about bendy bananas you don't like, but just giving up your say on them?
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
The bendy bananas would only apply to exports/imports from the EU. We would not be obliged to have CE marks on products sold domestically only and products imported from outside the EU. We would only be obliged to accept CE marking (and its associated testing directives) as acceptable quality for EU imports and CE mark (and appropriately test) goods we export to the EU.
"Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). To facilitate free trade with the EU, Swiss legislation is adapted to EU law in several areas. Switzerland has different requirements related to product safety and unlike the EU, CE marking is not required in Switzerland. "
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
@Alanbrooke Bluster is below you, but as you tend towards the right wing, you don't have a major journey to get there.
Well Mr S, most of the bluster seems to be coming from your side atm. You yourself said the miners in Scotland followed an idiot who led them to disaster.
In all honesty what did they expect that the government would keep surrendering and do nothing ? The miners overplayed their hand and lost. Big time.
All the political parties for their own reasons wish to close the cover on the case, it's a non-event. If Labour isn't going to do anything about re-opening it what on earth makes you think anyone else will ?
If any Leader be if Cameron Miliband or Clegg lead a party after the election which gives them office in some minority way then that party would be daft to remove their leader. Changing leaders in a political party is fraught with danger and unintended consequences. If ever there were a classic example of this it is Labour removing Blair and anointing Brown. The LD's Kennedy may not have helped himself, but changing him for Ming Campbell was hardly a step forward. If anyone think leading any political party or country is easy then they are delusional and to get rid of anyone on a whim who has 5 years plus experience in the job is stupid. What is sad about politics is that leaders are not allowed to evolve, ie to realise that 'XYZ was not a good idea after all, lets adapt it a bit'. Being wrong is not a sin, but refusing to recognise it and not being allowed to recognise it is.
FWIW the same applies to UKIP. Irrespective of what I think of Farage, then if they fall below expectations then from their point of view a leadership election would open up the biggest can of worms in history.
Personally I would suggest that just because a party has lost an election is no reason to change leader. To take the LDs as an example - if your party is crap wrong headed and pointless then simply changing leader will not change anything meaningful. All it opens up is the personality differences which are the constant grind of politics.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron
could Mr Eagles interest you in a job on a dockside ?
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
No they won't.
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
I am quite sure Dave He has had a long and successful career at the top of UK politics. He has held a fractious party together better than almost anyone else could. The fact the Tories could not win a majority with him as leader simply demonstrates how weak they had become. I very much doubt they will do better under anyone else in the near future.
Cameron's legacy will be UKIP, Libya and the Islamic State.
Shame, two very winnable elections, two fails.
They were not winnable by the Conservative party which appeals to too small a share of the electorate. And that share is riven by the self indulgence and delusions of Kippers.
Far too black and white. There are loads of kippers that are natural Tories, that don't particularly have a beef about immigration, or about the EU, or at least no more so than a typical Tory. But they are social conservatives and were thrown under a bus in Dave's frantic rush to the centre.
make them vote for us, and when you are sitting on the opposition benches that feeling of "detoxification" and intellectual and moral purity is cold comfort indeed.
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
And given that we have such massive import needs (thats 'Needs') then that hardly puts us in a happy position does it? Cutting a major duty free supplier adrift is not going to help our commercial position is it?
@DavidL Try reading a bit of history, and not just what was written by vested interests on both sides. At Orgrieve for example, the camera men had special "protection" and "liaison" officers to show them what they were to film. Very democratic....in a North Korean way.
I am old enough to regard that as modern studies rather than history. Finding my kids studying events that I remember clearly as "history" is quite depressing I can assure you.
I have also had the opportunity over the years of speaking to many ex cops (when they were working at bar officers) who were at Orgrieve and elsewhere in the miners strike. They described pitch battles with very little quarter asked or given by either side. Some of them were injured but I have no doubt they inflicted injuries too.
The police were used as hired thugs during the miners strike. Many miners were bad as well but does not excuse police actions.
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
And you don't think Howard, Hague or IDS would have gained 100 seats up against Brown after an apolyptic financial crash?
A chimpanzee with a blue rosette would have won 100 seats against brown. Hague would have probably won 160 and a clear majority. A lot of people, like me, suppressed their misgivings about Cameron. Maude, Osborne, Mays etc. social liberal agenda but a lot of others saw through it and didn't vote because they felt no one represented them which cost the tories a majority.
Or Dave who's record on winning elections is broadly similar...
Which of those three gained a hundred seats and the keys to number 10?
And you don't think Howard, Hague or IDS would have gained 100 seats up against Brown after an apolyptic financial crash?
A chimpanzee with a blue rosette would have won 100 seats against brown. Hague would have probably won 160 and a clear majority. A lot of people, like me, suppressed their misgivings about Cameron. Maude, Osborne, Mays etc. social liberal agenda but a lot of others saw through it and didn't vote because they felt no one represented them which cost the tories a majority.
That is pure counterfactual conjecture. On the otherhand I voted Tory for the only time in my life in 2010 in large part because of detox Dave.
General elections with more than a 100 seat gains are very rare. The only ones that I think have happened post war were 97 and 83.
If Hague or Howard were such assets then Cameron would not have had a mountain to climb. Hague hardly gained a seat in 2001 with a socially conservative and eurosceptic manifesto. It was his failure that left Cameron a mountain to climb.
If, as expected, SLAB lose 30ish seats then Ed has about 90 gains in England and Wales to gain a majority. That would need a swing like 97. I cannot see it, as the mood of the country for that sort of change is not there.
I expect the Cons will probably remain the largest party.
@Alanbrooke Our "left wing" SNP government doesn't want it opened either, and I suppose to most it is unimportant, like Hillsborough, the construction blacklists, the spying on peaceful activists under the terrorism act, and eventually, even the child exploitation cases. Tory and New Labour, bound in an embrace of corruption and state power that diminishes our country for the benefit of the few. The reason I think it is important is because the law ,and accountability of our rulers were what our ancestors fought for, and that many now seem to wish to sell for a few bits of silver
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
No they won't.
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
Wrong. From ONS
The number of Christians has fallen and this was largely for people aged under 60.
The number of people with no religion has increased across all age groups, particularly for those aged 20 to 24 and the 40 to 44.
The majority of people with no religion were White (93 per cent) and born in the UK (93 per cent) and these groups have increased since 2001.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
No they won't.
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
Cameron's supposed "metropolitan morality" works fine and dandy down here in rural Devon.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian.
I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
@Alanbrooke Our "left wing" SNP government doesn't want it opened either, and I suppose to most it is unimportant, like Hillsborough, the construction blacklists, the spying on peaceful activists under the terrorism act, and eventually, even the child exploitation cases. Tory and New Labour, bound in an embrace of corruption and state power that diminishes our country for the benefit of the few. The reason I think it is important is because the law ,and accountability of our rulers were what our ancestors fought for, and that many now seem to wish to sell for a few bits of silver
Well I hate to tell you Mr S corruption and state power sort of go hand in hand. The only thing that keeps it in check is an election when every so often we kick the old lot out and reset the clock. If you really want to change the cycle vote for an anti-etablishment party in May. Your best chance is UKIP or the Greens.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron
could Mr Eagles interest you in a job on a dockside ?
Er, no. The idea of being pimped out by TSE is a bridge too far, even for me.
@Alanbrooke Once every five years, we get to elect another bunch of crooks and shysters, in the hope that our crooks will be less crooked than the other lot. It is a sad indictment of our democracy, and as such it seems a bit idiotic to complain about every other countries system?
Kippers are left scrambling for a precedent for their "have-cake-eat-cake" populist promise, and end up saying that the EU would treat the UK the same way as it treats Mexico.
I have heard it alleged on more than one occasion that in the '70s and '80s, the spooks faithfully recorded the serial numbers of ballot papers that had votes for communist or National Front and cross checked them against the register to ascertain the voter and note their name and address for future use.
The paranoid persecution complex has been an important part of fringe nationalist movements since the 1930s.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
And given that we have such massive import needs (thats 'Needs') then that hardly puts us in a happy position does it? Cutting a major duty free supplier adrift is not going to help our commercial position is it?
But if we (and that means it is in the 'UK's control') do not put additional duty on those imports it will have no impact at all (and given the EU is a net exporter to us they are unlikely to put duties on our exports under such circumstances). Of course if a post withdrawal Tory or any other government start putting additional duty on imports then that would be for them to answer for.
As it is in the interest of both parties go continue trading as seemlessly as possible nobody will be cut adrift. You should really stop being so hysterical about these things. The world will not end if we withdraw from the EU.
@Alanbrooke Once every five years, we get to elect another bunch of crooks and shysters, in the hope that our crooks will be less crooked than the other lot. It is a sad indictment of our democracy, and as such it seems a bit idiotic to complain about every other countries system?
By all means complain, there's still the question of degree. Despite the many faults our lot tend to be less corrupt than the rest. Unlike say France we're not in the situation where the leading Left wing candidate is on charges for pimping.
( personally I think that's a bit of a shame really, it could almost make Ed seem interesting.)
@Alanbrooke We work on the same principles of ultimate unaccountability as the French, so if Ed were to be accused of pimping, it would never be proved. First rule of governance, the rich and powerful are never guilty, they merely make errors of judgement.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
No they won't.
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
Cameron's supposed "metropolitan morality" works fine and dandy down here in rural Devon.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian.
I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
Really? When you come across a con to ukip switcher you dont engage and dig underneath? I can wager fairly quickly that gay marriage will pop up in the conversation.
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
So Ukip want Norway-style "government by fax machine"? Taking all those European regulations about bendy bananas you don't like, but just giving up your say on them?
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
Who said anything about Norway? Do stop trying to peddle your deranged propaganda. Nobody believes it anymore.
UKIP have made it clear that they will not seek an EEA or EFTA arrangement with the EU. What they would do is negotiate a unilateral agreement based on the volumes of trade we do with the EU at the time of negotiation.
Furthermore, UKIP's motivations are more based on being free to do business with the rest of the world on terms that are tailored as best as possible to fit the needs of the UK (difficult when trying to do the same for 28 other countries as well) than it is about trade with Europe. The issue of immigration is simply an issue of good government (as practiced by almost 200 nations around the world but not the UK and the rest of the EU).
You do realise there is a world beyond the EU or is it you have now been that brainwashed that you only view things through the myopic prism of Brussels?
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
As am I, I wouldnt have voted against gay marriage, and i told my mp that he should vote in favour of it, but those 'they' are there. To deny that Cameron's position on gay marriage didnt have consequences for our membership and support is to deny the sun rising in the morning.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
The increase in student grants by a massive amount - an amount twice the annual winter fuel allowance - is grotesque. Threshers will be rubbing their hands. The Jacobs Creek winery is gearing up even as we speak.
But I wonder. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes Currently the student fee loan repayments are the same if fees are 6k or 9k - so assuming that stays the same I wonder just how much real help cutting fees will be. All Miliband has done is make a massive spending commitment to universities on the basis of a hoped for tax take that might never materialise.
Also on non repayable maintenance... this falls as household income increases, but the grant 'loan' part available increases to compensate if you want to take it out. So if the grant increases by £400 will the loan allowance decrease?
MP SE... ''You are also aware that the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to enter into a trade agreement with any country which leaves the EU?''
A 'trade deal' which would involve agreeing to single market rules and free movement of labour and membership of Schengen.
It doesn't mean anything of the sort. Show me where the EU have tried to impose such terms on a nation that has not indicated at some point a desire to join the EU?
Again and again you keep putting forward these absurd strawmen which bare no relationship with what the reality of the negotiations will be.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
No they won't.
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
Cameron's supposed "metropolitan morality" works fine and dandy down here in rural Devon.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian.
I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
Really? When you come across a con to ukip switcher you dont engage and dig underneath? I can wager fairly quickly that gay marriage will pop up in the conversation.
I was agnostic on gay marriage at the time of the legislation. It does seem to be the tide of history though if you look at this map:
Just as an aside, over the years of canvassing I have found quite a number of the most devout Christians don't actually vote. You hear "I've already voted. For Jesus." Or something similar.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
The increase in student grants by a massive amount - an amount twice the annual winter fuel allowance - is grotesque. Threshers will be rubbing their hands. The Jacobs Creek winery is gearing up even as we speak.
But I wonder. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes Currently the student fee loan repayments are the same if fees are 6k or 9k - so assuming that stays the same I wonder just how much real help cutting fees will be. All Miliband has done is make a massive spending commitment to universities on the basis of a hoped for tax take that might never materialise.
Also on non repayable maintenance... this falls as household income increases, but the grant 'loan' part available increases to compensate if you want to take it out. So if the grant increases by £400 will the loan allowance decrease?
Ed's policy basically helps nobody. 75% of people wont repay the full amount as it is. Martin Lewis has crunched the numbers and basically says the only people who do are those starting on very high salaries (I can't remember the figure by want to say £35k+) i.e those that get on bank graduate schemes, but that is offset to a small extent against higher interest rates and lower pension contributions.
The current system is basically capped graduate tax, and he has just lowered the cap for people who earn a lot of money over their lifetime....that is completely the opposite of how the rest of our tax system works.
And while helping nobody he is hoping that his increased taxes elsewhere don't result in a change whereby people just don't make those addition pension contributions. Because if they do change behaviour, he has just added to the blackhole.
Completely off topic, the first Bowhead Whale ever seen in Europe was spotted very close inshore off St. Martins, Isles of Scilly last week. Normally they are high up in the colder Arctic waters around Greenland.
It's quite a rare event for a new mammal to be added to the "British list".
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
I agree, to some extent, although I'd rather look at some kind of scheme to match income from vacation work (if possible!)
I'd rather scrap the current system of graduate loans, free up universities to charge what they like and then target the available funds to ensure that degrees which the government believes have positive externalities (e.g. STEM) are paid for by the state
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
As am I, I wouldnt have voted against gay marriage, and i told my mp that he should vote in favour of it, but those 'they' are there. To deny that Cameron's position on gay marriage didnt have consequences for our membership and support is to deny the sun rising in the morning.
"I told my MP that he should vote in favour of it."
Or what - he'd wake up next to the head of his favourite horse? lol!
Just as an aside, over the years of canvassing I have found quite a number of the most devout Christians don't actually vote. You hear "I've already voted. For Jesus." Or something similar.
@MarqueeMark Does a single sighting mean it gets put on the list? Every year several birds get blown off course or stray into the UK, to the excitement of "twitchers" but not their addition to the native species list?
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
I agree, to some extent, although I'd rather look at some kind of scheme to match income from vacation work (if possible!)
I'd rather scrap the current system of graduate loans, free up universities to charge what they like and then target the available funds to ensure that degrees which the government believes have positive externalities (e.g. STEM) are paid for by the state
Current government really dropped the ball when it came to this. They do give some more funds for STEM over humanities courses to ensure that universities continue to put on these expensive courses, but they could have done a lot more e.g. doctors / dentists, every year they work in the NHS the government pays off x% of their outstanding fee loan. If they got the calibration right, they could retain a lot more dentists in the NHS for longer.
As it stands, for crappy universities who don't really do much on the research front, it is still bums on seats...and genders studies is a hell of a lot cheaper to put on than chemistry...so you will see lots of poorly ranked unis don't offer a wide range of proper STEM courses.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
Who are these "they" you are talking about? I am straight and yet very happy to still pound the pavements for Cameron. As are all the people I am working with. You are talking out of your arse.
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
As am I, I wouldnt have voted against gay marriage, and i told my mp that he should vote in favour of it, but those 'they' are there. To deny that Cameron's position on gay marriage didnt have consequences for our membership and support is to deny the sun rising in the morning.
"I told my MP that he should vote in favour of it."
Or what - he'd wake up next to the head of his favourite horse? lol!
He votes how he wishes, he is my representative, not my delegate. I said Cameron could have easily made the change as a small amendment. He didnt. He deliberately made it a big issue. He seems to think if he does things that certain people in certain newspapers like, that theyll like him. They wont.
Completely off topic, the first Bowhead Whale ever seen in Europe was spotted very close inshore off St. Martins, Isles of Scilly last week. Normally they are high up in the colder Arctic waters around Greenland.
It's quite a rare event for a new mammal to be added to the "British list".
It's probably trying to sneak in before the Kippers win in May and ban all immigration.
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
I agree, to some extent, although I'd rather look at some kind of scheme to match income from vacation work (if possible!)
I'd rather scrap the current system of graduate loans, free up universities to charge what they like and then target the available funds to ensure that degrees which the government believes have positive externalities (e.g. STEM) are paid for by the state
The whole fee structure is a mess. As you pointed out the other day the cash is being spent, all we have is a pretend structure to kid ourselves the national accounts are in better shape than they actually are.
Just as an aside, over the years of canvassing I have found quite a number of the most devout Christians don't actually vote. You hear "I've already voted. For Jesus." Or something similar.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians are not supposed to vote. I was a little surprised that the Church of England bishops' letter on the election was so clearly weighted towards using the vote. There must be a place for conscientious abstention.
Completely off topic, the first Bowhead Whale ever seen in Europe was spotted very close inshore off St. Martins, Isles of Scilly last week. Normally they are high up in the colder Arctic waters around Greenland.
It's quite a rare event for a new mammal to be added to the "British list".
It's probably trying to sneak in before the Kippers win in May and ban all immigration.
Obviously because the water is getting warmer due to global warming. Oh wait!
Given the UK would become the EU's largest external export market, I would expect the UK to get far better terms than the likes of Mexico. I suppose all 190 or so nations (including the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, Japan etc etc) around the world who exist in the economic and sovereign manner UKIP aspire to are run by 'fringe nationalists groups' with 'paranoid persecution complexes'?
So Ukip want Norway-style "government by fax machine"? Taking all those European regulations about bendy bananas you don't like, but just giving up your say on them?
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
Who said anything about Norway? Do stop trying to peddle your deranged propaganda. Nobody believes it anymore.
UKIP have made it clear that they will not seek an EEA or EFTA arrangement with the EU. What they would do is negotiate a unilateral agreement based on the volumes of trade we do with the EU at the time of negotiation.
Furthermore, UKIP's motivations are more based on being free to do business with the rest of the world on terms that are tailored as best as possible to fit the needs of the UK (difficult when trying to do the same for 28 other countries as well) than it is about trade with Europe. The issue of immigration is simply an issue of good government (as practiced by almost 200 nations around the world but not the UK and the rest of the EU).
You do realise there is a world beyond the EU or is it you have now been that brainwashed that you only view things through the myopic prism of Brussels?
Civil Partnerships were a typical Blairite cop out but were gay marriages in all but name. Once you had taken that step you then had to justify treating a minority in a discriminatory way. Pretty tricky I think but I accept that a minority still feel otherwise.
The question was how a party that wanted to be heard dealt with it given the views of the vast majority. The answer was pretty obvious.
I'm going to claim a little bit of responsibility for that one.
I was great friends with Blair's adviser on social affairs, and in 2003 she took me out for dinner and spent the entire evening grilling me on what I thought about gay marriage and how it would be received by Tories... just to shut her up, I told her that people cared about the term "marriage" but that most people would be fine with giving gay couples the same rights and responsibilities if it just had a different name...
Doesn't alter the fact it is a bad policy that benefits rich kids.
It benefits graduates easning over £21K pa. These are not rich kids. Those earning under £21K don't pay anything back under either scheme which is why they don't benefit.
Miliband also announced an increase of non-repayable maintenance grants by £400 per year to cover students' living costs but only available to families with a total income below about £42,000. So this helps poorer kids.
It benefits those graduates earning over 21K p.a. who will pay back the entire loan + interest by the time they are 50(?). I doubt that people earning barely over the threshold will benefit much, if at all. I hadn't seen the grant increase, which is clearly more effectively targeted.
A far more effective use of any tax increase (and a pensions grab is not a very good target for this) would be to leave fees unchanged but greatly increase non repayable maintenence grants.
I agree, to some extent, although I'd rather look at some kind of scheme to match income from vacation work (if possible!)
I'd rather scrap the current system of graduate loans, free up universities to charge what they like and then target the available funds to ensure that degrees which the government believes have positive externalities (e.g. STEM) are paid for by the state
I would do much the same, with bursaries from companies getting tax breaks. I would also reintroduce scolarships for those with exceptional qualifications and/or limited means.
@MarqueeMark Does a single sighting mean it gets put on the list? Every year several birds get blown off course or stray into the UK, to the excitement of "twitchers" but not their addition to the native species list?
There is something as esoteric as the British Birds Rarities Committee, that sits in judgment of all records of birds in Britain. There was a famous record of a putative juvenile Slender-billed Curlew in Northumbria in 1997 (from memory). That was circulated around all the members of the committee for very many years. The importance of that record was that there have been no records anywhere in the world since that sighting. They finally decided it was just an aberrant Curlew. The Slender-billed is currently presumed extinct.
The BBRC maintains records in various categories, including those that have been introduced or have not been seen in the UK since 1850.
Migrant moths and butterflies are recorded too, but are decided on by the County Recorder.
Completely off topic, the first Bowhead Whale ever seen in Europe was spotted very close inshore off St. Martins, Isles of Scilly last week. Normally they are high up in the colder Arctic waters around Greenland.
It's quite a rare event for a new mammal to be added to the "British list".
It's probably trying to sneak in before the Kippers win in May and ban all immigration.
There was some consternation when a printers error led to UKIP policy banning all Wales...
My daughter's boyfriend was born with 6 fingers on one hand. He supports Ipswich.
The worry is that if ever we move to a system where your index finger gets marked with indelible ink to show you have voted, people in East Anglia will get multiple votes....
My daughter's boyfriend was born with 6 fingers on one hand. He supports Ipswich.
The worry is that if ever we move to a system where your index finger gets marked with indelible ink to show you have voted, people in East Anglia will get multiple votes....
That should be good news for you, his father's a Conservative councillor. :-)
Cameron's supposed "metropolitan morality" works fine and dandy down here in rural Devon.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian. I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
Well, Mr Mark, may I say that I am not surprised? If you go canvassing in the South Hams, most of the people you meet will be wealthy metropolitan types, who are concerned only about their own wealth. Nobody else can afford to live there.
Cameron's supposed "metropolitan morality" works fine and dandy down here in rural Devon.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian. I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
Well, Mr Mark, may I say that I am not surprised? If you go canvassing in the South Hams, most of the people you meet will be wealthy metropolitan types, who are concerned only about their own wealth. Nobody else can afford to live there.
Comments
PS. When i canvass a con to ukip switcher, within three minutes i can be guaranteed a reference to cameron and gay marriage, with activists who've changed reduce that down to sixty seconds.
The policy is quite well thought out and balanced. But it has been drowned by the rhetoric of "robbing pensioners" and "helping rich kids".
Nevertheless electors in general approve of the policy by 3 to 1. I expect a tick up in Labour poll ratings as a result.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2973924/BBC-s-apocalyptic-drama-tragedy-EU-break-condemned-scaremongering-propaganda.html
Will be interesting to see what is the cause of the EU breakup. Why would the EU treat the UK differently?
The UK has a trade deficit with the EU. Far more jobs are involved in the export of goods to the UK than there are British jobs involved in the export of goods to the EU.
You are also aware that the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to enter into a trade agreement with any country which leaves the EU?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974029/Top-economist-advised-George-Osborne-seen-smoking-crack-cocaine-glass-tube-north-London-drugs-den.html
Do you remember this bit?
"The cases collapsed because of unreliable police evidence. During the trial it came to light that the BBC had reversed footage of scenes at Orgreave to give the impression that miners were responsible for starting violent scenes, when in fact it was the police that had instigated the violence."
Still no enquiry, because sensitive souls like you must be protected from the truth
Interesting tid-bit that Lab and Con are both planning to run as a minority government's followed by a second election in the autumn.
Have they done a deal "behind the scenes" to repeal the fixed term act I wonder?
I have also had the opportunity over the years of speaking to many ex cops (when they were working at bar officers) who were at Orgrieve and elsewhere in the miners strike. They described pitch battles with very little quarter asked or given by either side. Some of them were injured but I have no doubt they inflicted injuries too.
He can only play against the team that the other side puts out. This time Labour have selected the two Eds. For an austerity government to be the betting favourite is quite something.
I saw no point in taking more salary than I needed and so I put the surplus into my SIPP. If there was no tax relief available I still would not have taken the extra salary and paid tax,my advisers would have found ways to optimise my affairs.
The SIPP was extremely beneficial then,save 40% on the way in,no tax on the growth,and pull 25% out tax free.
True most people did not have the freedom of control that I had.
I wasn't aware of that. Very interesting. Could you tell me what the Lisbon Treaty says about withdrawal and forcing the EU to enter a trade agreement?
Your poor policemen outnumbered the strikers, had riot shields, batons and horses, with their numbers swelled by a suspicious number of unnumbered constables.
A friendly media, and all of the states apparatus up against people who were more prepared for a picnic than a war.
The rights and wrongs of unionism are one thing, blatant use of the state as a means of suppression and propaganda is entirely another barrel of rancid stinking mackerel.
'We need another Thatcher, "Where there is division.... we will use the police , security forces, spy agencies, and our friendly tame press to crush the bastards"
I might be paraphrasing slightly.'
Think your trying to desperately rewrite history, good luck with that.
Don't believe every piece of rubbish written in the Guardian.
Right - I can smell lunch. Roast lamb with anchovy and rosemary sauce, roasted spuds, parnips etc. Just opened a bottle of Rioja Reserva. I'm off. Cheers.
We really are seeing big state propaganda the like of which Orwell would have thought far fetched
They assumed that because she gave in to their demands in 1981, when she was in a position of weakness, they thought she would again in 1984, despite being in a period of strength.
She rightly broke them.
And just who should I believe instead?
The miners strike was just one of a series of events that your beloved Maggie used the states powers to manipulate for the entertainment of the terminally gullible.
Carry on in your happy ignorance if you wish, it appears to be your natural state.
The question was how a party that wanted to be heard dealt with it given the views of the vast majority. The answer was pretty obvious.
It was a blairite cop out, but Cameron's handling of gay marriage was like rubbing it in the nose of the socially conservative. It was a gigantic F**k You to those that paved the streets for him. That is most certainly how they see it.
At least be honest with folk instead of bleating from what you claim is the moral high ground.
Charging someone with riot is one of the most severe crimes on the statute, but South Yorks Police were happy to commit perjury to try and secure a conviction, in the sure and certain knowledge they were above the law.
Now look at the same force again in the light of recent revelations, and just for a brief moment understand what happened?
The strike was an overtly political one to bring down a democratic government. I hated Thatcher and voted against her in 3 elections, but on the strike she was right.
Perjury is justifiable?
Or is it only allowed for the police and government?
Both sides were violent, but it is perfectly legitimate for the state security services to be interested in domestic subversives. Indeed that is what they are for!
Try reading the actual history of your beloved "Whore of Babylon" and stop making utter idiots of yourself quoting disproved propaganda that was fed to you at the time.
It is all there in black and white, and not only in the Guardian, and Morning Star but in several well resourced studies by academics, lawyers, and historians.
I have been involved in a number of trials with multiple accused after a significant disturbance. The cops are asked to identify a number of people that they saw briefly in a series of incidents. Frankly when they do their credibility is more damaged than when they don't. That does not mean that the cops are lying (although with South Yorkshire constabulary that might be a reasonable default presumption). It means they are being asked to describe a fast moving and frightening situation when they are dealing with an angry mob of which the accused was a part. Very very difficult cases for the Crown to bring home I can assure you.
So the only point of Ukip is not about European trade at all, but to kick out the foreigners?
A chimpanzee with a blue rosette would have won 100 seats against brown. Hague would have probably won 160 and a clear majority. A lot of people, like me, suppressed their misgivings about Cameron. Maude, Osborne, Mays etc. social liberal agenda but a lot of others saw through it and didn't vote because they felt no one represented them which cost the tories a majority.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9694000/9694645.stm
He intended to provoke a battle in the expectation that tens of thousands of industrial workers from Sheffield and Rotherham would join him in the same way the Birmingham industrial workers had done a dozen years before.
They didn't.
Orgreave in itself was an unimportant place which just happened to be chosen by Scargill for his Leninist workers uprising.
Ironically all the big talk of being the 'Grenadier Guards of the union movement', plus the government subsidies and protection the mining industry had received since 1972 while the rest of British industry had suffered repeated recessions and crises, had destroyed much of the goodwill the working class had felt towards miners.
No, I was in Lanarkshire, watching convoys of brand new Scanias tearing through villages, and in some cases being driven by people who had never held a licence to drive more than a moped.
Yulle and Dodds.....a company funded by the Tories, and that for years after had the same opinions of the law as your precious South Yorks heroes. (look them up)
"the party said it would put re-industrialisation at the heart of its campaign in Scotland, pledging to set up a commission to look at ways to rejuvenate and expand the coal industry"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/coburn-its-time-for-scotland-to-go-the-ukip-way.1424533279
A bit of a shame that Thatcher pursued a scorched earth policy and flooded and flattened most of Scotland's mines.
Bluster is below you, but as you tend towards the right wing, you don't have a major journey to get there.
The difference, and its a big one, with the Norway situation is that they only have to care about the bendy bananas nonsense for exports going to the EU, their exports going to the other 140 countries in the world don't have to follow them. In the UK while we are in the EU we have to follow them for all our customers, even when our non-EU competitors don't and so undercut us.
You are embarrassing yourself, even as a non-kipper I can see nothing in their policies about kicking anyone out, their propose in effect to introduce the same points system as is currently used in those well known fascist states Australia and Canada. A colour blind system that admits people on merit, rather than the bigoted system we currently have which admits white Europeans, but keeps out all those nasty brown people outside the EU.
"Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but a member of the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA). To facilitate free trade with the EU, Swiss legislation is adapted to EU
law in several areas. Switzerland has different requirements related to product safety and
unlike the EU, CE marking is not required in Switzerland. "
http://www.s-ge.com/sites/default/files/Swiss legislation CE marking.pdf
Within five years the vast majority of people will think "what was all the fuss about?" In a decade they will wonder how we could have been so inhuman as to prevent gay marriage for so long.
In all honesty what did they expect that the government would keep surrendering and do nothing ? The miners overplayed their hand and lost. Big time.
All the political parties for their own reasons wish to close the cover on the case, it's a non-event. If Labour isn't going to do anything about re-opening it what on earth makes you think anyone else will ?
If ever there were a classic example of this it is Labour removing Blair and anointing Brown. The LD's Kennedy may not have helped himself, but changing him for Ming Campbell was hardly a step forward.
If anyone think leading any political party or country is easy then they are delusional and to get rid of anyone on a whim who has 5 years plus experience in the job is stupid. What is sad about politics is that leaders are not allowed to evolve, ie to realise that 'XYZ was not a good idea after all, lets adapt it a bit'. Being wrong is not a sin, but refusing to recognise it and not being allowed to recognise it is.
FWIW the same applies to UKIP. Irrespective of what I think of Farage, then if they fall below expectations then from their point of view a leadership election would open up the biggest can of worms in history.
Personally I would suggest that just because a party has lost an election is no reason to change leader. To take the LDs as an example - if your party is crap wrong headed and pointless then simply changing leader will not change anything meaningful. All it opens up is the personality differences which are the constant grind of politics.
could Mr Eagles interest you in a job on a dockside ?
The only population segments growing are evangelical Christians and Moslems, neither of which have very Liberal views on this issue.
Cameron will pay the price for imposing his metropolitan morality on the rest of us. A good chunk of people (many of whom previously voted Labour) voted Tory between 1970 and 2010 because they were the only party standing up for Judeo-Christian values and valued living in a Christian country, with a monarch pledged to "defend the faith", with Christian values emdedded institutionally, rather than a secular state like France (and the EU now). No more will they ever vote Tory.
General elections with more than a 100 seat gains are very rare. The only ones that I think have happened post war were 97 and 83.
If Hague or Howard were such assets then Cameron would not have had a mountain to climb. Hague hardly gained a seat in 2001 with a socially conservative and eurosceptic manifesto. It was his failure that left Cameron a mountain to climb.
If, as expected, SLAB lose 30ish seats then Ed has about 90 gains in England and Wales to gain a majority. That would need a swing like 97. I cannot see it, as the mood of the country for that sort of change is not there.
I expect the Cons will probably remain the largest party.
Our "left wing" SNP government doesn't want it opened either, and I suppose to most it is unimportant, like Hillsborough, the construction blacklists, the spying on peaceful activists under the terrorism act, and eventually, even the child exploitation cases.
Tory and New Labour, bound in an embrace of corruption and state power that diminishes our country for the benefit of the few.
The reason I think it is important is because the law ,and accountability of our rulers were what our ancestors fought for, and that many now seem to wish to sell for a few bits of silver
The number of Christians has fallen and this was largely for people aged under 60.
The number of people with no religion has increased across all age groups, particularly for those aged 20 to 24 and the 40 to 44.
The majority of people with no religion were White (93 per cent) and born in the UK (93 per cent) and these groups have increased since 2001.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt---religion.html
A 'trade deal' which would involve agreeing to single market rules and free movement of labour and membership of Schengen.
People down here think that Ed Miliband and his Labour Party fecking over the economy again is a rather more important determinant of where their cross goes this election than whether Brian can marry Brian.
I can honestly say that no-one has raised gay marriage on the doorstep. Not one.
Once every five years, we get to elect another bunch of crooks and shysters, in the hope that our crooks will be less crooked than the other lot.
It is a sad indictment of our democracy, and as such it seems a bit idiotic to complain about every other countries system?
As it is in the interest of both parties go continue trading as seemlessly as possible nobody will be cut adrift. You should really stop being so hysterical about these things. The world will not end if we withdraw from the EU.
( personally I think that's a bit of a shame really, it could almost make Ed seem interesting.)
We work on the same principles of ultimate unaccountability as the French, so if Ed were to be accused of pimping, it would never be proved.
First rule of governance, the rich and powerful are never guilty, they merely make errors of judgement.
UKIP have made it clear that they will not seek an EEA or EFTA arrangement with the EU. What they would do is negotiate a unilateral agreement based on the volumes of trade we do with the EU at the time of negotiation.
Furthermore, UKIP's motivations are more based on being free to do business with the rest of the world on terms that are tailored as best as possible to fit the needs of the UK (difficult when trying to do the same for 28 other countries as well) than it is about trade with Europe. The issue of immigration is simply an issue of good government (as practiced by almost 200 nations around the world but not the UK and the rest of the EU).
You do realise there is a world beyond the EU or is it you have now been that brainwashed that you only view things through the myopic prism of Brussels?
But I wonder.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes
Currently the student fee loan repayments are the same if fees are 6k or 9k - so assuming that stays the same I wonder just how much real help cutting fees will be. All Miliband has done is make a massive spending commitment to universities on the basis of a hoped for tax take that might never materialise.
Also on non repayable maintenance... this falls as household income increases, but the grant 'loan' part available increases to compensate if you want to take it out. So if the grant increases by £400 will the loan allowance decrease?
Again and again you keep putting forward these absurd strawmen which bare no relationship with what the reality of the negotiations will be.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
And as far as we know (Farage admitted the kipper manifesto was still incomplete to Sunday Politics earlier) the kippers do not propose repeal.
Now I am happy with it. It does not impinge on me and seems to make a few people happy.
The current system is basically capped graduate tax, and he has just lowered the cap for people who earn a lot of money over their lifetime....that is completely the opposite of how the rest of our tax system works.
And while helping nobody he is hoping that his increased taxes elsewhere don't result in a change whereby people just don't make those addition pension contributions. Because if they do change behaviour, he has just added to the blackhole.
It's quite a rare event for a new mammal to be added to the "British list".
I'd rather scrap the current system of graduate loans, free up universities to charge what they like and then target the available funds to ensure that degrees which the government believes have positive externalities (e.g. STEM) are paid for by the state
Or what - he'd wake up next to the head of his favourite horse? lol!
Does a single sighting mean it gets put on the list?
Every year several birds get blown off course or stray into the UK, to the excitement of "twitchers" but not their addition to the native species list?
As it stands, for crappy universities who don't really do much on the research front, it is still bums on seats...and genders studies is a hell of a lot cheaper to put on than chemistry...so you will see lots of poorly ranked unis don't offer a wide range of proper STEM courses.
It's probably trying to sneak in before the Kippers win in May and ban all immigration.
I was great friends with Blair's adviser on social affairs, and in 2003 she took me out for dinner and spent the entire evening grilling me on what I thought about gay marriage and how it would be received by Tories... just to shut her up, I told her that people cared about the term "marriage" but that most people would be fine with giving gay couples the same rights and responsibilities if it just had a different name...
No really I have.
The BBRC maintains records in various categories, including those that have been introduced or have not been seen in the UK since 1850.
Migrant moths and butterflies are recorded too, but are decided on by the County Recorder.