Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
Tories. Labour are lagging in all of the opinion polls conducted.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Mark Reckless has improved alot as a media performer, the 33-1 as recommended here by @Pong was a great value bet too.
Wouldn't that reduce the chances of integration, rather than increase it?
I don't think so. I would have thought immigrant's children who attend private school are more likely to integrate than those who go to state comp, by virtue of getting better jobs, having more money etc
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose to pay fees when they could just go to a comp for free?
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
There's a huge difference between passing the test and being wealthy. My Scottish father in law lives in Canada as an industrial electrician, his skills are greatly required over there and he now has Canadian citizenship after living there for years but went over as skilled and in-demand. He didn't necessarily go over there as wealthy though and my sister in law went through Canadian state schooling not private.
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
n an interview just weeks ago with radio station LBC, Shapps said: “I have never had a second job whilst being an MP. End of story.” Why say that when he knew it to be untrue?
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
Presumably Farage also supports the reverse situation, where Brits who emigrate cannot take their kids and place them in local schools?
In several countries I worked in I had to pay for private eductaion for my children so that they did not burden the state. My employer also paid up to £15,000 a year for a work permit.
In the EU you would be paying the local country's taxes and thus contributing to the costs of your childrens education. Its the same here.
I note that EU regulations state that if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.
Not sure that's true. I did a bit of research on moving to Belgium when I retire and the situation appears to be that to be covered by the Belgian insurance-based healthcare system you have to be employed (you pay and so does your employer) or claiming social security (which then pays). It doesn't matter which country pays the social security though so British pensioner in receipt of State pension would get their healthcare covered, but not if they only received a company or private pension.
https://www.gov.uk/living-in-portugal This I presume ought to be typical. ''if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.'' So yes as I said a state pension. If you took early retirement with a private pension you are still able to work and not in receipt of an English state pension. In the UK then as long as you are below pension age you should be paying NI you should be paying tax if your private pension is big enough. But the EU rule about movement of labour is just that - movement of workers who pay taxes and NI and where the employers pay NI. So they are contributing. Of course mostly - I'm guessing - when it comes to pensioners its the other way around, we as pensioners tend to move abroad and the UK state will pay health costs. If EU pensioners do and/or were to settle here then say the Belgian govt should pay their costs. Its old people going abroad not the ones coming here to that are the 'drain' on the NHS.
Wouldn't that reduce the chances of integration, rather than increase it?
I don't think so. I would have thought immigrant's children who attend private school are more likely to integrate than those who go to state comp, by virtue of getting better jobs, having more money etc
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose to pay fees when they could just go to a comp for free?
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
There's a huge difference between passing the test and being wealthy. My Scottish father in law lives in Canada as an industrial electrician, his skills are greatly required over there and he now has Canadian citizenship after living there for years but went over as skilled and in-demand. He didn't necessarily go over there as wealthy though and my sister in law went through Canadian state schooling not private.
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
For the simple reason those would be the rules set in place by the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom and if immigrants didn't like it they don't have to come here.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Mark Reckless has improved alot as a media performer, the 33-1 as recommended here by @Pong was a great value bet too.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Mark Reckless has improved alot as a media performer, the 33-1 as recommended here by @Pong was a great value bet too.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
What outcome in the General election do you want?
Me ?
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
Conservatives just short whilst holding North Warwickshire works OK too. Again need Nats to do well in Scotland - that's the constant
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
If Farage loses then we are likely to have only two kipper MPs to be candidates. My money is on Reckless. Carswell is too far from the kipper mainstream.
Mark Reckless has improved alot as a media performer, the 33-1 as recommended here by @Pong was a great value bet too.
I think Steven Woolfe is a strong contender. He is quite visible in the media and sends out regular updates to UKIP members, something which other MEPs seldom do. Steven has also expressed an interest in running for future leader. Diane James is also a strong candidate for the job.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
It's not the first time he's said it and he's only stating the obvious fact his position would be untenable if he lost. Tories and Labour polling almost even in Thanet south so no obvious candidate for tactical voters to support. I expect him to win comfortably.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
What outcome in the General election do you want?
Me ?
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
I meant in terms of the Thanet South question. Tactical voting is relative to the result you want to achieve. If you are a Labour voter hoping for a Labour Government are you going to vote in a Tory to stop UKIP. If you are a Tory hoping for a Tory Government are you going to vote in Labour to stop UKIP?
This idea that there will be industrial scale tactical voting in Thanet South is just plain daft. They way its going FUKP will probably split the Tory and Labour tactical votes and leave Farage with a 10,000 majority!
Wouldn't that reduce the chances of integration, rather than increase it?
I don't think so. I would have thought immigrant's children who attend private school are more likely to integrate than those who go to state comp, by virtue of getting better jobs, having more money etc
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
There's a huge difference between passing the test and being wealthy. My Scottish father in law lives in Canada as an industrial electrician, his skills are greatly required over there and he now has Canadian citizenship after living there for years but went over as skilled and in-demand. He didn't necessarily go over there as wealthy though and my sister in law went through Canadian state schooling not private.
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
For the simple reason those would be the rules set in place by the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom and if immigrants didn't like it they don't have to come here.
The principle (that one doesn't get free access to an expensive public service like education immediately on arrival here) is fine. But, the points that posters have made about integration are well made. Hence, Robert Smithson's suggestion is an excellent one.
Not very wise to say that in advance. It will further encourage tactical voting against him/UKIP
It's not the first time he's said it and he's only stating the obvious fact his position would be untenable if he lost. Tories and Labour polling almost even in Thanet south so no obvious candidate for tactical voters to support. I expect him to win comfortably.
Yep, as I said we all know that it is most likely to be 1. UKIP, 2. Con but Labour will have the barchart showing them winning (Yes they were top in one poll) on their leaflets.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
Tories. Labour are lagging in all of the opinion polls conducted.
Would Labour supporters ever vote tactically for a Conservative, particularly a right wing Conservative.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
What outcome in the General election do you want?
Me ?
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
I meant in terms of the Thanet South question. Tactical voting is relative to the result you want to achieve. If you are a Labour voting hoping for a Labour Government are you going to vote in a Tory to stop UKIP. If you are a Tory hoping for a Tory Government are you going to vote for Labour to stop UKIP?
This idea that there will be industrial scale tactical voting in Thanet South is just plain daft. They way its going FUKP will probably split the Tory and Labour tactical votes and leave Farage with a 10,000 majority!
The correct tactical vote in Thanet South is quite complex, even for us on here. For the average Thanet South voter it's beyond their comprehension. I think we're in agreement here.
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
Presumably Farage also supports the reverse situation, where Brits who emigrate cannot take their kids and place them in local schools?
In several countries I worked in I had to pay for private eductaion for my children so that they did not burden the state. My employer also paid up to £15,000 a year for a work permit.
In
I note that EU regulations state that if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.
Not sure that's true. I did a bit of research on moving to Belgium when I retire and the situation appears to be that to be covered by the Belgian insurance-based healthcare system you have to be employed (you pay and so does your employer) or claiming social security (which then pays). It doesn't matter which country pays the social security though so British pensioner in receipt of State pension would get their healthcare covered, but not if they only received a company or private pension.
https://www.gov.uk/living-in-portugal This I presume ought to be typical. ''if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.'' So yes as I said a state pension. If you took early retirement with a private pension you are still able to work and not in receipt of an English state pension. In the UK then as long as you are below pension age you should be paying NI you should be paying tax if your private pension is big enough. But the EU rule about movement of labour is just that - movement of workers who pay taxes and NI and where the employers pay NI. So they are contributing. Of course mostly - I'm guessing - when it comes to pensioners its the other way around, we as pensioners tend to move abroad and the UK state will pay health costs. If EU pensioners do and/or were to settle here then say the Belgian govt should pay their costs. Its old people going abroad not the ones coming here to that are the 'drain' on the NHS.
My understanding is that to the patient it appears to be treatment without charge (in Belgium for this case) but the bill does come back to the UK centrally.
n an interview just weeks ago with radio station LBC, Shapps said: “I have never had a second job whilst being an MP. End of story.” Why say that when he knew it to be untrue?
Someone is confused somewhere - is it you? The Guardian clearly says he listed ... ''his directorships and shareholdings in a printing firm and How To Corp'' in the MPs register of interests. The Guardian seem to be making great play of an event in 2004, whereas Shapps became an MP in 2005.
I guess its tough if you are someone who has come from and been earning a living in the real world and have to drop it all to be an MP.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
What outcome in the General election do you want?
Me ?
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
I meant in terms of the Thanet South question. Tactical voting is relative to the result you want to achieve. If you are a Labour voting hoping for a Labour Government are you going to vote in a Tory to stop UKIP. If you are a Tory hoping for a Tory Government are you going to vote for Labour to stop UKIP?
This idea that there will be industrial scale tactical voting in Thanet South is just plain daft. They way its going FUKP will probably split the Tory and Labour tactical votes and leave Farage with a 10,000 majority!
The correct tactical vote in Thanet South is quite complex, even for us on here. For the average Thanet South voter it's beyond their comprehension. I think we're in agreement here.
For every Labour voter that wants to stop UKIP, there'll be another who wants to thump the Tories.
Lib Dem voters might be more willing to vote tactically, but they're already under 5% in this seat.
Wouldn't that reduce the chances of integration, rather than increase it?
I don't think so. I would have thought immigrant's children who attend private school are more likely to integrate than those who go to state comp, by virtue of getting better jobs, having more money etc
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
For the simple reason those would be the rules set in place by the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom and if immigrants didn't like it they don't have to come here.
The principle (that one doesn't get free access to an expensive public service like education immediately on arrival here) is fine. But, the points that posters have made about integration are well made. Hence, Robert Smithson's suggestion is an excellent one.
Well given the abject failure that the current state school system has made of integration (we are the premier producers of terrorists in Europe I believe) I think you and Mr Smithson are being exceedingly optimistic.
The tactical voting conumdrum can be extended to all three Scottish border seats too.
Clear as mud in DCT, D&G and BR&Selkirk.
Tories seem to be the least inclined to vote tactically. Scottish Tories in particular are not easily persuaded to vote for anyone else. That may put the advantage to the blue team. All take and little give.
Who is the correct tactical vote for in Thanet South though - obviously we all know it's for the Conservatives but Labour will be fighting hard here as they're in with enough of a chance to make a decent effort.
What outcome in the General election do you want?
Me ?
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
I meant in terms of the Thanet South question. Tactical voting is relative to the result you want to achieve. If you are a Labour voting hoping for a Labour Government are you going to vote in a Tory to stop UKIP. If you are a Tory hoping for a Tory Government are you going to vote for Labour to stop UKIP?
This idea that there will be industrial scale tactical voting in Thanet South is just plain daft. They way its going FUKP will probably split the Tory and Labour tactical votes and leave Farage with a 10,000 majority!
The correct tactical vote in Thanet South is quite complex, even for us on here. For the average Thanet South voter it's beyond their comprehension. I think we're in agreement here.
For every Labour voter that wants to stop UKIP, there'll be another who wants to thump the Tories.
Lib Dem voters might be more willing to vote tactically, but they're already under 5% in this seat.
I suspect most of them will end up voting Labour, or staying at home.
Wouldn't that reduce the chances of integration, rather than increase it?
I don't think so. I would have thought immigrant's children who attend private school are more likely to integrate than those who go to state comp, by virtue of getting better jobs, having more money etc
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose to pay fees when they could just go to a comp for free?
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
There's a huge difference between passing the test and being wealthy. My Scottish father in law lives in Canada as an industrial electrician, his skills are greatly required over there and he now has Canadian citizenship after living there for years but went over as skilled and in-demand. He didn't necessarily go over there as wealthy though and my sister in law went through Canadian state schooling not private.
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
So you're supposed to leave your kids behind when emigrating to the UK. Doesn't sound like an attractive proposition....
Presumably Farage also supports the reverse situation, where Brits who emigrate cannot take their kids and place them in local schools?
In several countries I worked in I had to pay for private eductaion for my children so that they did not burden the state. My employer also paid up to £15,000 a year for a work permit.
In
I note that EU regulations state that if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.
Not sure that's true. I did a bit of research on moving to Belgium when I retire and the situation appears to be that to be covered by the Belgian insurance-based healthcare system you have to be employed (you pay and so does your employer) or claiming social security (which then pays). It doesn't matter which country pays the social security though so British pensioner in receipt of State pension would get their healthcare covered, but not if they only received a company or private pension.
https://www.gov.uk/living-in-portugal This I presume ought to be typical. ''if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.'' So yes as I said a state pension. If you took early retirement with a private pension you are still able to work and not in receipt of an English state pension. In the UK then as long as you are below pension age you should be paying NI you should be paying tax if your private pension is big enough. But the EU rule about movement of labour is just that - movement of workers who pay taxes and NI and where the employers pay NI. So they are contributing. Of course mostly - I'm guessing - when it comes to pensioners its the other way around, we as pensioners tend to move abroad and the UK state will pay health costs. If EU pensioners do and/or were to settle here then say the Belgian govt should pay their costs. Its old people going abroad not the ones coming here to that are the 'drain' on the NHS.
My understanding is that to the patient it appears to be treatment without charge (in Belgium for this case) but the bill does come back to the UK centrally.
The tactical voting conumdrum can be extended to all three Scottish border seats too.
Clear as mud in DCT, D&G and BR&Selkirk.
Tories seem to be the least inclined to vote tactically. Scottish Tories in particular are not easily persuaded to vote for anyone else. That may put the advantage to the blue team. All take and little give.
There's a value in not voting tactically at times, Conservatives could get a clean sweep of the borders. Or they may get none. But the Conservatives are in the hunt in all three at any rate.
The tactical voting conumdrum can be extended to all three Scottish border seats too.
Clear as mud in DCT, D&G and BR&Selkirk.
Tories seem to be the least inclined to vote tactically. Scottish Tories in particular are not easily persuaded to vote for anyone else. That may put the advantage to the blue team. All take and little give.
There's a value in not voting tactically at times, Conservatives could get a clean sweep of the borders. Or they may get none. But the Conservatives are in the hunt in all three at any rate.
Of the Unionist parties, they had the best indyref. Their activists have not won much in recent years so to win the big one must have been very sweet.
If keeping the Nats out is the priority then the blues will be the most motivated, and the borders had a particularly high No vote.
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose to pay fees when they could just go to a comp for free?
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
There's a huge difference between passing the test and being wealthy. My Scottish father in law lives in Canada as an industrial electrician, his skills are greatly required over there and he now has Canadian citizenship after living there for years but went over as skilled and in-demand. He didn't necessarily go over there as wealthy though and my sister in law went through Canadian state schooling not private.
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
Well he would not would he (to the detriment of our economy) and its a joke policy by Farage which has got his row of sea lions applauding and blowing their horns. Indeed Farage says 'not in manifesto but...' -- in other words another (another!!) dog whistle.
Canada has a considerable amount of inward immigration despite it being based on visas as far as I know. Its not stopped numbers. 20% of population is from overseas. And as you suggest it inevitably leads to permanent residence. After the UK and not much behind, the biggest groups of immigrants are Chinese Indian and Philippines.
Labs in marginals won't vote Tory, and Tories in marginals won't vote Labour to stop Ukip
Stale theory, destroyed in Clacton and Rochester... Would've thought the money lost would have sharpened minds
It may be different at the GE.
Why? Why would someone wanting Cameron as PM vote for Miliband or vice versa? I'd have thought it would be less likely at a GE
I think there is not a lot of tactical voting shift at any particular election, 1997 maybe excepted. It has taken the LDs years to run down the Labour vote in places like Eastleigh or Colchester.
I would be surprised if it suddenly sprang up in this election. Indeed there may well be a degree of unwinding.
"Balls gets away with all manner of half and mistruths."
There always used to be politicians lies-being misleading obfuscating etc-and then human lies where you actually tell an untruth unrelated to politics like 'i didn't stick my ****** down that girls throat' for which the powers that be always took a dim view (though not in that instance).
Michael Green according to the Guardian story has told a whopper and even threatened to sue if anyone repeated it!
Labs in marginals won't vote Tory, and Tories in marginals won't vote Labour to stop Ukip
Stale theory, destroyed in Clacton and Rochester... Would've thought the money lost would have sharpened minds
It may be different at the GE.
Why? Why would someone wanting Cameron as PM vote for Miliband or vice versa? I'd have thought it would be less likely at a GE
I think there is not a lot of tactical voting shift at any particular election, 1997 maybe excepted. It has taken the LDs years to run down the Labour vote in places like Eastleigh or Colchester.
I would be surprised if it suddenly sprang up in this election. Indeed there may well be a degree of unwinding.
The only way I can see it is if labour or Tory parties themselves do a deal for one side to go easy in selected seats while the other stands an anti Ukip style candidate
Voters aren't going to be able to fix it against Ukip in a three way marginal, the tactical votes would prob cancel each other out
Seems to me most problems with immigration stem from friction caused by economic strife rather than actual differences between immigrants and people already in the host country, that's why poorer people tend to be angry about immigration, although people unaffected by it like to think its because poor people are thicker than them
You're assuming that migrants would be joining good quality established style of private schools. Private schools currently have to be good because they've realistically got to be better than state comps or why would people choose to pay fees when they could just go to a comp for free?
However instead if poor migrants were blocked from state comps they'd be forced into newly established alternatives that have no state comp alternative they need to beat. They'd almost certainly be far more religious too than current state ones.
They would be unlikely to be poor migrants if they had passed the test to qualify for a visa I think that is the point
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
Well he would not would he (to the detriment of our economy) and its a joke policy by Farage which has got his row of sea lions applauding and blowing their horns. Indeed Farage says 'not in manifesto but...' -- in other words another (another!!) dog whistle.
Canada has a considerable amount of inward immigration despite it being based on visas as far as I know. Its not stopped numbers. 20% of population is from overseas. And as you suggest it inevitably leads to permanent residence. After the UK and not much behind, the biggest groups of immigrants are Chinese Indian and Philippines.
If we had Canada's immigration and our own emigration the UK population would have fallen by almost 1 million people between 2000 and 2013 as a result and not risen by over 3 million.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
Why? In particular, why has Canada’s average 250,000 per year immigration intake remained in place for over 23 years?
The answer is that for many decades, Canada’s major political parties have assumed that, on the immigration issue in particular, they know better than average Canadians. This attitude and the promotion of political party self-interest manifested itself particularly in 1990 when one political party (the Progressive Conservatives) increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year........
Is this what usually occurs when Brits work abroad? Those I know who were brought up in other countries had private educations.
No, at least in developed countries immigrants are usually free to to send their kids to the local schools, under the same conditions as non-immigrants.
Rich people often prefer to send their kids to a private international school though, partly because it'll be tough for the kids to handle doing everything in another language (although depending on the age this can work out well) and partly because a lot of these international schools are really, really good.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
He's self made, he has achieved everything he has by wheeling and dealing. He's got stinking rich because of it, and some people have a real problem with that. He seems to have suffered some serious challenges in his life, yet he has got over them.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
Maybe not the most but there is something shocking about how a man who used to sell get rich quick books is now in the role of Chairman of the Conservative Party. Someone I know said that he made their skin crawl after watching him on QT and that was without knowing his background.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
Maybe not the most but there is something shocking about how a man who used to sell get rich quick books is now in the role of Chairman of the Conservative Party. Someone I know said that he made their skin crawl after watching him on QT and that was without knowing his background.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
He's self made, he has achieved everything he has by wheeling and dealing. He's got stinking rich because of it, and some people have a real problem with that. He seems to have suffered some serious challenges in his life, yet he has got over them.
From the little I know, I am rather uncomfortable with the general area of these products he used to sell. I have a (former) friend who got dragged into that world and a lot of it (I don't know exact ins and outs of what Mr Green was selling) is not illegal, but dubious how useful it is.
I have seen numerous products / seminars where start off with the come for a free talk, then they hard sell you the proper courses, where they charge £100's for information that anybody could get from google and actually you really need to know a lot more in order to be really successful e.g. with property speculation or trading on the markets.
They target a certain type of individual wanting to achieve their dreams, when those that know about things like property development will tell you making money at anything is damn hard work, require a lot of smarts and dedication, going on a few hour course or reading so packaged info wont get you there.
If there was a choice between a minority Labour government or an SNP/Lab coalition with a majority, Labour voters would be evenly divided but if the alternative was another Tory government Labour voters would back a deal with the SNP by 6 to 1.
The analysis found that the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations cost the UK some £33 billion a year.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
Grant Shapps is easily the most slimy man in politics. I imagine his book "Stinking Rich 3" is a real good read.
Easily? Are you sure, considering the competition? And that's assuming you meant to say "in politics today". If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
He's self made, he has achieved everything he has by wheeling and dealing. He's got stinking rich because of it, and some people have a real problem with that. He seems to have suffered some serious challenges in his life, yet he has got over them.
From the little I know, I am rather uncomfortable with the general area of these products he used to sell. I have a (former) friend who got dragged into that world and a lot of it (I don't know exact ins and outs of what Mr Green was selling) is not illegal, but dubious how useful it is.
I have seen numerous products / seminars where start off with the come for a free talk, then they hard sell you the proper courses, where they charge £100's for information that anybody could get from google and actually you really need to know a lot more in order to be really successful e.g. with property speculation or trading on the markets.
They target a certain type of individual wanting to achieve their dreams, when those that know about things like property development will tell you making money at anything is damn hard work, require a lot of smarts and dedication, going on a few hour course or reading so packaged info wont get you there.
I remember Michael Green's attempts to flood the eMarket with his er, interesting books on how to survive the market crash back in the 2003 or so. Intense spamming was involved. And much was made in the chat rooms of how he was an MP using a pseudonym to avoid being recognised.
I've always wondered if he had given a copy of his books to GO to get some hints?
The analysis found that the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations cost the UK some £33 billion a year.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
Except few committed Eurosceptics envisage remaining in the EEA (as it retains free movement of labour). The report is predicated on a false premise. Yet another Open Europe (sycophantic pro-EU think tank) strawman report goes up in flames.
If there was a choice between a minority Labour government or an SNP/Lab coalition with a majority, Labour voters would be evenly divided but if the alternative was another Tory government Labour voters would back a deal with the SNP by 6 to 1.
Liberal Democrats would prefer a Conservative-led government to a Labour one by 50-37%; UKIP voters share their preference by 46-18%.
The Liberal Democrats are in high demand to fill the remaining 60 or so seats required to push either party over the majority threshold of 326. For those who would rather Labour became the largest party, they are the most popular coalition partners (chosen by 25%). For those who would prefer a Conservative-led government, they are the chosen by 36%.
The SNP will almost certainly have the most weight in talks with Labour. Ed Miliband, however, has been under pressure to rule them out of a coalition, and only 19% of Labour backers want them as coalition partners. That said, most (56%) say they should leave open the possibility of a deal with the SNP, although among the population as a whole this is opposed by 43-32% – perhaps because they see a Labour-SNP government as making the possibility of another independence referendum more likely (50% say more likely, 7% less likely and 23% say it would make no difference).
The analysis found that the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations cost the UK some £33 billion a year.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
Except few committed Eurosceptics envisage remaining in the EEA (as it retains free movement of labour). The report is predicated on a false premise. Yet another Open Europe (sycophantic pro-EU think tank) strawman report goes up in flames.
They have also completely ignored the role of upstream international bodies which have a huge influence on EU legislation. The UK would be able to represent themselves whislt the EU is stuck representing 28 member states whose interests are usually conflicting.
Reducing the maximum amount of benefits a household can receive each year from £26,000 to £23,000 (net): +39
Aha, so WFTC doesn't count in the cap, even although its a benefit by another name. Surely since you can get WFTC from selling a couple of Big Issues a week, that's a bit of an oversight.
The analysis found that the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations cost the UK some £33 billion a year.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
Except few committed Eurosceptics envisage remaining in the EEA (as it retains free movement of labour). The report is predicated on a false premise. Yet another Open Europe (sycophantic pro-EU think tank) strawman report goes up in flames.
"Committed Eurosceptics" are all over the place on this - IIRC UKIP's position is that the UK will be in the EEA initially, but then transition to something unspecified.
The analysis found that the 100 most burdensome EU-derived regulations cost the UK some £33 billion a year.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
Except few committed Eurosceptics envisage remaining in the EEA (as it retains free movement of labour). The report is predicated on a false premise. Yet another Open Europe (sycophantic pro-EU think tank) strawman report goes up in flames.
"Committed Eurosceptics" are all over the place on this - IIRC UKIP's position is that the UK will be in the EEA initially, but then transition to something unspecified.
- We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.
– We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU to enable our businesses to continue trading to mutual advantage.
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11473874/The-PM-will-stick-to-his-plan-its-working.html
Now in a reverse situation why should the child of a skilled and in-demand Canadian worker who comes over through a test based situation be locked out from state schooling?
Why say that when he knew it to be untrue?
This I presume ought to be typical.
''if you are in receipt of a State Pension from one EEA member state but resident in another, your healthcare should be covered by the state that pays your pension.''
So yes as I said a state pension.
If you took early retirement with a private pension you are still able to work and not in receipt of an English state pension. In the UK then as long as you are below pension age you should be paying NI you should be paying tax if your private pension is big enough.
But the EU rule about movement of labour is just that - movement of workers who pay taxes and NI and where the employers pay NI. So they are contributing.
Of course mostly - I'm guessing - when it comes to pensioners its the other way around, we as pensioners tend to move abroad and the UK state will pay health costs. If EU pensioners do and/or were to settle here then say the Belgian govt should pay their costs. Its old people going abroad not the ones coming here to that are the 'drain' on the NHS.
Conservative most seats, Labour most votes, Ed Miliband PM Labour Minority, UKIP to gain about 8 of my carefully chosen seats and Ed out before the end of the year. Nats to do very well in Scotland.
That's what I want :P
Conservatives just short whilst holding North Warwickshire works OK too. Again need Nats to do well in Scotland - that's the constant
This idea that there will be industrial scale tactical voting in Thanet South is just plain daft. They way its going FUKP will probably split the Tory and Labour tactical votes and leave Farage with a 10,000 majority!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995596/Taxpayers-footed-MPs-hotel-bills.html
Clear as mud in DCT, D&G and BR&Selkirk.
The Guardian seem to be making great play of an event in 2004, whereas Shapps became an MP in 2005.
I guess its tough if you are someone who has come from and been earning a living in the real world and have to drop it all to be an MP.
Lib Dem voters might be more willing to vote tactically, but they're already under 5% in this seat.
Is it a sackable offence to lie on radio these days? It's hard to keep up.
Stale theory, destroyed in Clacton and Rochester... Would've thought the money lost would have sharpened minds
If keeping the Nats out is the priority then the blues will be the most motivated, and the borders had a particularly high No vote.
Has Green been disingenuous about his kitchen?
Indeed Farage says 'not in manifesto but...' -- in other words another (another!!) dog whistle.
Canada has a considerable amount of inward immigration despite it being based on visas as far as I know. Its not stopped numbers. 20% of population is from overseas. And as you suggest it inevitably leads to permanent residence. After the UK and not much behind, the biggest groups of immigrants are Chinese Indian and Philippines.
I would be surprised if it suddenly sprang up in this election. Indeed there may well be a degree of unwinding.
"Balls gets away with all manner of half and mistruths."
There always used to be politicians lies-being misleading obfuscating etc-and then human lies where you actually tell an untruth unrelated to politics like 'i didn't stick my ****** down that girls throat' for which the powers that be always took a dim view (though not in that instance).
Michael Green according to the Guardian story has told a whopper and even threatened to sue if anyone repeated it!
Voters aren't going to be able to fix it against Ukip in a three way marginal, the tactical votes would prob cancel each other out
Both of them!
Political geeks overthinking things, ignore
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2013/permanent/01.asp
If what's said is true then he'd be eyeing a top 10 finish but let's not get carried away here.
Why? In particular, why has Canada’s average 250,000 per year immigration intake remained in place for over 23 years?
The answer is that for many decades, Canada’s major political parties have assumed that, on the immigration issue in particular, they know better than average Canadians. This attitude and the promotion of political party self-interest manifested itself particularly in 1990 when one political party (the Progressive Conservatives) increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year........
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/
Sound familiar?
Wasn't it the progressive conservatives who were almost totally obliterated in the Canadian general elections in the 1990's?
Rich people often prefer to send their kids to a private international school though, partly because it'll be tough for the kids to handle doing everything in another language (although depending on the age this can work out well) and partly because a lot of these international schools are really, really good.
**** Lab and Con tied in ELBOW! ****
It's that time of the week again, ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 15th March - 11 polls total weighted samples 13,108:
Con 33.2 (-0.1)
Lab 33.2 (-0.3)
UKIP 14.8 (+0.4)
LD 7.4 (+0.1)
Green 5.7 (-0.3)
Lab lead 0.0 (-0.2) - close, but no e-cigarette for Crossover fans!
Greens down to lowest score for three months
Was it all you hoped for?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/577253999801344000
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/577254673398304768
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/577255156657627136
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/577255504986116097
I have seen numerous products / seminars where start off with the come for a free talk, then they hard sell you the proper courses, where they charge £100's for information that anybody could get from google and actually you really need to know a lot more in order to be really successful e.g. with property speculation or trading on the markets.
They target a certain type of individual wanting to achieve their dreams, when those that know about things like property development will tell you making money at anything is damn hard work, require a lot of smarts and dedication, going on a few hour course or reading so packaged info wont get you there.
If there was a choice between a minority Labour government or an SNP/Lab coalition with a majority, Labour voters would be evenly divided but if the alternative was another Tory government Labour voters would back a deal with the SNP by 6 to 1.
However, if Britain were to exchange full membership for the “Norway option” of a free-trade agreement then 93 of those regulations would remain in place at a cost of £31.4 billion.
That is because in the European Economic Area – made up of the EU 28 states, as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – regulations on financial services, employment laws and energy policies still apply.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11474099/Only-way-to-cut-33bn-cost-of-EU-is-to-stay-and-renegotiate-says-report.html
I've always wondered if he had given a copy of his books to GO to get some hints?
The Liberal Democrats are in high demand to fill the remaining 60 or so seats required to push either party over the majority threshold of 326. For those who would rather Labour became the largest party, they are the most popular coalition partners (chosen by 25%). For those who would prefer a Conservative-led government, they are the chosen by 36%.
The SNP will almost certainly have the most weight in talks with Labour. Ed Miliband, however, has been under pressure to rule them out of a coalition, and only 19% of Labour backers want them as coalition partners. That said, most (56%) say they should leave open the possibility of a deal with the SNP, although among the population as a whole this is opposed by 43-32% – perhaps because they see a Labour-SNP government as making the possibility of another independence referendum more likely (50% say more likely, 7% less likely and 23% say it would make no difference).
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/14/what-kind-coalition-do-public-want/
For starters, I'm disappointed I'm not getting adverts for Russian brides. Please fix this ASAP.
More importantly, some ads now have automatic audio which I can't seem to stop even on the ad itself. Very annoying. Can you opt out of these?
Labour at 5-2 or Conservative at 3-10 for most votes is value.
Right now, but Ed Miliband next PM is the correct price at 5-4, certainly Dave to remain in the job at 4-7 is a poor bet.
How do you make £39,000 on benefits with a £25,000 benefit cap ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996106/Pregnant-mother-11-makes-39-000-year-benefits-seen-shopping-handbags-store-purses-cost-275-each.html
YouGov:
Reducing the maximum amount of benefits a household can receive each year from £26,000 to £23,000 (net): +39
Get rid of Trident:
Scotland: +15
England: -28
Keep Trident but move from Scotland
Scotland: -4
England: +1
SINDYREF2
Scotland: -
England: -36
Devolve more - eg Welfare/Oil revenue
Scotland: +41
England: -22
Pick the bones out of that Ed!
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people