Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
No doubt these "nine conservative-Asians" will get another chance to vote - again - for sven's "flockers"? Maybe a 'vote-swap-out' from Rochdale to Broxtowe...?
:paint-it-black:
If anything 'significant' is found at the Councillor's premises which lead to charges, would Labour struggle to hold Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton?
The old adage "Don't blame the sin of the father on the son" (or somesuch) applies, although to a lesser degree, in the opposite direction.
Given much willy waving on here, this seemed apposite.
Gentlemen, if you've ever been concerned about the size of your penis, take comfort in the fact that no matter how small it seems, it is one of the largest in the primate world.
An evolutionary biologist has compared the sizes of genitals of humans to gorillas and apes to look at why there is such a discrepancy between the species. And he concludes the human penis may have grown so long to make it more conspicuous to potential partners, or even as a way of cooling the body down.
The relative size of the male reproductive organs across these species was discussed by evolutionary biologist Darren Curnoe in his latest 'How Did We Get Here?' video series for the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Gorillas have small penises and small testicles, while chimps have medium-sized penises and large testicles. By comparison, human males have the longest penis and medium-sized testicles.
'Amazingly the size of the reproductive organs, especially the testicles, are a reflection of how the apes are organised socially,' explained Professor Curnoe.
Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.
You seem a bit obsessed, nobody said "black" or "African" except you. Leaving that aside, are there really people who don't worry about letting HIV-infected human beings into England? Are you one of those people? Why?
Oh gods, it depends I think. I tend to only ever use the PC and mostly via the Steam digital distribution service, which I hook up to the TV with an HDMI on rare occasions (I believe later this year though they will unveiling a sort of box which will hook up straight to the tv without needing to hook up the pc), and a Logitech F710 gamepad for those which are controller supported (which not all are, boxes or store pages should indicate). I don't know how it stacks up industry wise, but it's always worked for me.
As you can see here, Ukip and generally anti-immigration supporters is deeply split. Some anti-immigration people agree and are worried by Farage's line of rhetoric. Most, including many non-Kippers, believe there's nothing wrong about specifically stigmatising HIV as part of anti-immigration policies, and in fact that it is sensible and a good thing to say. I think attempting to unweave this kind of racism from a party that is only about anti-immigration is impossible, but to each his own and good luck to those Kippers who try.
You just cant help yourself can you, when did race suddenly come back into this debate ? Its like Pavlov's dog Farage: Racist, UKIP: Racist, Talking about immigration: Racist.
Controlling immigration isn't racist. Stopping people coming into the country because of their race (like the EU does) is racist.
The EU says that we must treat citizens of other EU states as we treat our own. If that is racist, then so was the open borders policy we ran between Ireland and the UK from the formation of the Republic. And, for that matter, is our policy of allowing working holiday visas for people from certain parts of the Commonwealth.
We have never treated people from all countries as equal. That will not change under UKIP or if we leave the EU.
Quite possibly.
I am just pointing out that accusing the kippers of having a racist immigration policy which is in effect colour blind because its points system doesn't consider race or country of origin, while being completely happy with a policy which selects who can get into the country purely on the basis of where they come from, irrespective of their cost or benefit to the nation, is a bit of bizarre mental gymnastics.
I'm not accusing UKIP of having a racist immigration policy, and never have.
I do object to the much repeated statement that we would suddenly start treating citizens of all countries equally in the event of leaving the EU, as that is certainly not true.
We would - I suspect - keep our long-standing open borders policy with the Republic of Ireland. And I suspect we would not require EU citizens to have a visa if they are to travel to the UK on business or as a tourist. I also suspect we would continue to have the bilateral working holiday visa programmes with Australia and New Zealand, as well as a number of other programmes with Commonwealth members.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
No doubt these "nine conservative-Asians" will get another chance to vote - again - for sven's "flockers"? Maybe a 'vote-swap-out' from Rochdale to Broxtowe...?
:paint-it-black:
If anything 'significant' is found at the Councillor's premises which lead to charges, would Labour struggle to hold Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton?
The old adage "Don't blame the sin of the father on the son" (or somesuch) applies, although to a lesser degree, in the opposite direction.
He won't be the first politician to be embarrassed by his son, or the last.
Sporting Index Portsmouth South market is very interesting, but I believe the best UKIP can do here is second as GVJ will either galvanise the Lib Dem troops to win, or Flick Drummond comes home.
So it is a SELL for me at 4.0
Hard to call this as anything other than a Conservative win. That being said, the LibDems were ahead in the locals last time around - and that despite Mike Hancock and his wife standing as pseudo LibDem candidates (and losing their seats). I'd bet on Cons mid 30s, LD 25-30, UKIP 20-25.
I just can't see Lib Dems winning and think 6-4 for second is too skinny, hence the SELL call at 4.0. Labour's sell price of 1.0 is too much risk for the reward.
I've made the stake £2.50 to dovetail my outright bets on this seat.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
No doubt these "nine conservative-Asians" will get another chance to vote - again - for sven's "flockers"? Maybe a 'vote-swap-out' from Rochdale to Broxtowe...?
:paint-it-black:
If anything 'significant' is found at the Councillor's premises which lead to charges, would Labour struggle to hold Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton?
The old adage "Don't blame the sin of the father on the son" (or somesuch) applies, although to a lesser degree, in the opposite direction.
He won't be the first politician to be embarrassed by his son, or the last.
His spin unraveled pretty quickly..first it was I don't know how he ended up there, he was on work placement, then it was "well of course he looks happy, he was on holiday with his family"..and also I don't believe he was there to join ISIS.
Maybe it should be higher - but as a mature economy its inevitable that the wages of the industrial sector and the successful financial sector will be spent on services and not just other relatively low value consumer goods more readily made abroad. But its not right as Financier says that we do not make anything any more. We do. Indeed it is not only not right, it is not even wrong, Plus we have major investments abroad which when the world does well earns us money. Its a good sign of the activity of the UK economy relative to the rest of the world when our own overseas investment income declines and the earnings of other people's investments here rise. Who owns Lockheed Martin - and a significant swathe of the US aerospace/defence industry? What is the likely effect of repatriating UK profits of one of its 6th largest suppliers if the US cuts defence spending?
Given much willy waving on here, this seemed apposite.
Gentlemen, if you've ever been concerned about the size of your penis, take comfort in the fact that no matter how small it seems, it is one of the largest in the primate world.
An evolutionary biologist has compared the sizes of genitals of humans to gorillas and apes to look at why there is such a discrepancy between the species. And he concludes the human penis may have grown so long to make it more conspicuous to potential partners, or even as a way of cooling the body down.
The relative size of the male reproductive organs across these species was discussed by evolutionary biologist Darren Curnoe in his latest 'How Did We Get Here?' video series for the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Gorillas have small penises and small testicles, while chimps have medium-sized penises and large testicles. By comparison, human males have the longest penis and medium-sized testicles.
'Amazingly the size of the reproductive organs, especially the testicles, are a reflection of how the apes are organised socially,' explained Professor Curnoe.
"And he concludes the human penis may have grown so long to make it more conspicuous to potential partners, or even as a way of cooling the body down."
It should be said that I never have a problem cooling down.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all. Not being a civil servant with then numbers at hand I'm not going to pretend I do. Also, isn't one of the benefits of being in the EU that you can claim back money from another country's health service? What about those people who are ex-pats? Do we let in a CEO who has it? Some have pointed out that it's Australia and NZ's policy, but they're very different countries, and it doesn't mean it's a genius idea. I don't know whether it's a good idea or not - I'm certain, given the amount of people who have HIV or other long term conditions that the policy is a footnote, an irrelevance, a speck. Farage's best moment of last night came when he said 'there you go, there's 10 or so billion saved' - this wouldn't even save a hundred million and for what?
Putting my apolitical hat on, it just seems a bit nasty, and UKIP like the Tories in the 00s need to seem less so. There's a really interesting debate about the globalisation of labour and capital and the winners and losers thereof, how much government should intervene or not, whether we'd be better off as an isolated banking country or part of a trading bloc. To breakout from the ten or so per cent UKIP need to be winning that argument, not articulating fairly irrelevant policies which pander to those among them who are disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all
As I recall Mr Farage said 'health tourism' costs the NHS £2 billion a year.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all
As I recall Mr Farage said 'health tourism' costs the NHS £2 billion a year.
In the outside world,reports are that the 'mo' is now with Miliband and Sturgeon.
Perhaps you, rose and pete could attend some kind of punctuation seminar to sort out the space-after-commas issue? I am pretty certain you could get a three-for-the-price-of-one deal.
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.
I agree with 99% of what you say, but would strongly question the idea that there should be no stigma attached to AIDS. Without wishing anyone to be made more unhappy than necessary, reportedly one of the reasons that AIDS is off the scale recently is due to the lack of fear about getting it. All this 'no longer a death sentence' stuff is not the right message imo. But that's perhaps for a different thread.
In the outside world,reports are that the 'mo' is now with Miliband and Sturgeon.
Perhaps you, rose and pete could attend some kind of punctuation seminar to sort out the space-after-commas issue? I am pretty certain you could get a three-for-the-price-of-one deal.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
Instant PB.com stardom awaits ahould you be proved right, although I for one am not holding my breath!
Thanks Sunny.
Tryster is easily the best horse in the race but Lingfield is such a tricky track there is good value to be had in opposing short-priced favorites. I've had a small ew bet, and the reverse forecast with the favorite.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
Not surprised. If he wanted jaws to drop, I think he'd have been better going on Rotherham and the failure of multiculturalism. That really is a scandal, but unlike AIDS it has begun to seep into public consciousness, so would be pushing at a more open door.
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
That kind of chimes with what I thought, and people have said to me - narrow Ed win on points but was slightly overrehearsed. He nicked it among the main contenders because Dave was poor and no one gives a monkeys about Clegg any more no matter how many hand gestures he makes.
Can see the challengers debate being utterly vital now - Cameron looks tired and a bit of a busted flush, but the question is whether Ed can coral those who dislike the government in sufficient numbers to his banner. If I was him I'd be practising a lot against Douglas Alexander's sister as a stand-in for Sturgeon.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
Not surprised. If he wanted jaws to drop, I think he'd have been better going on Rotherham and the failure of multiculturalism. That really is a scandal, but unlike AIDS it has begun to seep into public consciousness, so would be pushing at a more open door.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
Not surprised. If he wanted jaws to drop, I think he'd have been better going on Rotherham and the failure of multiculturalism. That really is a scandal, but unlike AIDS it has begun to seep into public consciousness, so would be pushing at a more open door.
Not enough stigma regarding AIDs, reverted to the appalling attitude that killed Isaac Asimov and Arthur Ashe, inter alia. The removal of the restrictions on gay men donating blood is symptomatic of this.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all
As I recall Mr Farage said 'health tourism' costs the NHS £2 billion a year.
Source? Is that all conditions - including those that aren't log-term? Does it count those who pay taxes? How much can be claimed back? How do you define 'health tourism' in other words?
OT Culinary Advice. I haven't eaten fillet beef in years and just bought two - what should I have with it?
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
What surprised me the most about Farages HIV comments was that he didn't seem able to weave it into a coherent point. It was almost as if he had second thoughts just as the words came out.
It became:
Here's an uncomfortable truth. Look at me.
But there are loads of uncomfortable truths, Nige. They're not being covered up, they're just not particularly important in the grand scheme of things.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.
I agree with 99% of what you say, but would strongly question the idea that there should be no stigma attached to AIDS. Without wishing anyone to be made more unhappy than necessary, reportedly one of the reasons that AIDS is off the scale recently is due to the lack of fear about getting it. All this 'no longer a death sentence' stuff is not the right message imo. But that's perhaps for a different thread.
There should be no stigma attached to AIDS. Whilst there is some reprehensible behaviour out there, there are also plenty of people who have got it through no fault of their own.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
Not enough stigma regarding AIDs, reverted to the appalling attitude that killed Isaac Asimov and Arthur Ashe, inter alia. The removal of the restrictions on gay men donating blood is symptomatic of this.
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
I see the Labour trolls are out in force today. Risible.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
What surprised me the most about Farages HIV comments was that he didn't seem able to weave it into a coherent point.? He was talking about the NHS budget, and the impact of non-UK users of NHS services.
If success in the debates is about shoring up your own vote, them Miliband and Cameron were outright winners. If success in the debates is about appealing to others, perhaps getting people to switch, them Farage and Clegg win hands down. Clegg in particular.
From the tables: (VI=voting intention)
Milliband: 179 polled from Labour VI, 19 from con/libdem/UKIP VI Cameron: 166 polled from Conservative VI, 31 from lab/libdem/UKIP VI Farage: 111 polled from UKIP VI, 89 from con/lab/libdem VI Clegg: 24 polled from Lib Dem VI, 58 from con/lab/UKIP VI
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
OT Culinary Advice. I haven't eaten fillet beef in years and just bought two - what should I have with it?
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
Each fillet (depending on the size) would make a good Beef Wellington, plus some oven roasted veg just light;y seasoned and sprinkled with olive oil.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
I see the Labour trolls are out in force today. Risible.
Good laugh though as their desperation shines through.
Maybe it should be higher - but as a mature economy its inevitable that the wages of the industrial sector and the successful financial sector will be spent on services and not just other relatively low value consumer goods more readily made abroad. But its not right as Financier says that we do not make anything any more. We do. Indeed it is not only not right, it is not even wrong, Plus we have major investments abroad which when the world does well earns us money. Its a good sign of the activity of the UK economy relative to the rest of the world when our own overseas investment income declines and the earnings of other people's investments here rise. Who owns Lockheed Martin - and a significant swathe of the US aerospace/defence industry? What is the likely effect of repatriating UK profits of one of its 6th largest suppliers if the US cuts defence spending?
Dec 2000 108.0 All time high Jan 2007 107.7 Pre recession high Jan 2015 101.3 Most recent
Or if you want quarterly data:
2000Q4 107.5 All time high 2006Q4 106.8 Pre recession high 2014Q4 101.4 Most recent
Incidentally a 7.1% increase in manufacturing output (although its only 5.8% from the ONS data) between 1995 and 2007 was actually extremely mediocre considering there was 12 years of 'grth' in that period.
Are you capable of looking at source data and thinking for yourself rather than continually mouthing propoganda ?
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
I'm guessing the Lib Dems are elms.
knotweed
I think a fair few Lib Dems trying to hang on to their seats would take comfort from that.
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
I see the Labour trolls are out in force today. Risible.
Good laugh though as their desperation shines through.
If you think its bad on here, you want to take a look at poor Timmy twitter feed. He is going to be sectioned soon. That or arrested for harassment of a particular journalist.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
I'm guessing the Lib Dems are elms.
knotweed
I think a fair few Lib Dems trying to hang on to their seats would take comfort from that.
that is why I said it. It is something difficult to remove that pollutes the ground.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
I'm guessing the Lib Dems are elms.
knotweed
I think a fair few Lib Dems trying to hang on to their seats would take comfort from that.
that is why I said it. It is something difficult to remove that pollutes the ground.
But in an absolute tsunami, sure more knotweed might survive than other plants, but even so most of the knotweed will be washed away....
Gold Standard ICM calls it correctly as a narrow but crucial win by Ed over Dave,who seemed more concerned not to upset Farage and the future Ukip/Tory coalition.Dave hid up for most of the time like the chicken he is.He must now accept a head-to-head with Ed to retain any credibility.
I see the Labour trolls are out in force today. Risible.
Good laugh though as their desperation shines through.
If you think its bad on here, you want to take a look at poor Timmy twitter feed. He is going to be sectioned soon. That or arrested for harassment of a particular journalist.
Interesting article. Not sure I agree with all of it, but I think the GE in a few weeks could just be the start of more to come, not the end of the story for another 5 years.
I've been watching the debate this afternoon. The first hour held my interest OK but after that my attention wandered. Two hours is too long - at least half an hour too long.
That aside, I don't think anyone did particularly badly or well.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all
As I recall Mr Farage said 'health tourism' costs the NHS £2 billion a year.
Source? Is that all conditions - including those that aren't log-term? Does it count those who pay taxes? How much can be claimed back? How do you define 'health tourism' in other words?
Given that the NHS budget is around £96 billion per year, I'd say that health tourism costing around 4% of that smells distinctly too high.
In fact, it smells like b/s.
Anyone got any idea what source, if any, Farage is using?
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
What surprised me the most about Farages HIV comments was that he didn't seem able to weave it into a coherent point.
? He was talking about the NHS budget, and the impact of non-UK users of NHS services.
Yeah, but he built up to his *inconvenient truth* - got people on edge, waiting for him to say something really controversial and then seemed quite stunned at himself that he's actually said it. It's unusual for Farage - he's usually very good at saying something controversial, then labouring the point home, like all sensible people should agree with him.
It was a bit like the kid who's discovered his dad's anusol prescription and thinks it's funny to mention it at the dinner table. Then he realises his siblings aren't laughing.
Nigel Farage’s suggestion that foreigners with HIV should not be treated on the NHS was a carefully planned move to fire up Ukip’s core vote, under a strategy insiders have dubbed “shock and awful”.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
The remarks, which were denounced as distasteful by Mr Farage’s political rivals, were not an attempt to “reach out” to floating voters but instead a “core vote message”, sources disclosed.
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.
I think you miss my point, which is not about the policy, which even if fully enacted would save miniscule amounts of money if at all
As I recall Mr Farage said 'health tourism' costs the NHS £2 billion a year.
Source? Is that all conditions - including those that aren't log-term? Does it count those who pay taxes? How much can be claimed back? How do you define 'health tourism' in other words?
Given that the NHS budget is around £96 billion per year, I'd say that health tourism costing around 4% of that smells distinctly too high.
In fact, it smells like b/s.
Anyone got any idea what source, if any, Farage is using?
A modest canvass (5 of us) in pouring rain. Marginal changes each way over 6 months ago, but no detectable trends. Number of people who mentioned the debates: sadly zero (apart from one of the canvassers).
Anecdote of the day: a voter was insistent on knowing my position on assisted dying: "I want it brought in while I'm still alive!"
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
I bet Dave and Nick are looking forward to the opposite debate, as they recline on their lazy boys and watch everybody gang up on poor Ed.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
If he mentions CSE, which he should, you can put money on the liberal left going absolutely ballistic accusing him of politicising the issue. Once again the WWC will lap it up whilst the guardianistas will be choking on their lentil soup.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
If he mentions CSE, which he should, you can put money on the liberal left going absolutely ballistic accusing him of politicising the issue. Once again the WWC will lap it up whilst the guardianistas will be choking on their lentil soup.
Yup, it will be exactly the same as his points on health tourism. The metropolitan elite vs UKIP. He made that point over and over again last night.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
"Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer "
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
If he mentions CSE, which he should, you can put money on the liberal left going absolutely ballistic accusing him of politicising the issue. Once again the WWC will lap it up whilst the guardianistas will be choking on their lentil soup.
Yup, it will be exactly the same as his points on health tourism. The metropolitan elite vs UKIP. He made that point over and over again last night.
What the media / metro elite don't seem to get is that the general point he is making resonates with a large section of the population. Screaming racist etc doesn't do anything to change that.
Rarely are UKIP policies actually explored / exposed, instead it is all "Farage outrage", rather than actually exploring if UKIP actually has solutions to the issues.
I predicted yesterday before the debates Farage would deliberately say something like this, that the media would scream as an outrage, but it isn't aimed at them. Farage will get the message to his target demographic that he is against health tourism, while the actual realities of the issue, how to resolve it, what impacts a ban would have etc, are lost in the outcry of how dare he target those with HIV / AIDs.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
If he mentions CSE, which he should, you can put money on the liberal left going absolutely ballistic accusing him of politicising the issue. Once again the WWC will lap it up whilst the guardianistas will be choking on their lentil soup.
Yup, it will be exactly the same as his points on health tourism. The metropolitan elite vs UKIP. He made that point over and over again last night.
OT Culinary Advice. I haven't eaten fillet beef in years and just bought two - what should I have with it?
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
Cut fillet into small cubes, fry in butter and garlic long enough to seal the outside but leave the inside pink, allow to cool, give to cat, sit back with a large drink and bask in the sound of contented purrs.
OT Culinary Advice. I haven't eaten fillet beef in years and just bought two - what should I have with it?
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
Cut fillet into small cubes, fry in butter and garlic long enough to seal the outside but leave the inside pink, allow to cool, give to cat, sit back with a large drink and bask in the sound of contented purrs.
I find it amazing that other political leaders have been so quick to shout down Farage's health tourism argument but the BBC IPSOS worm showed a highly positive response to his central argument. Making the NHS exclusive to British nationals/residents is a no-brainer and while I think the HIV comment may have crossed a line on specifics, Farage got it right and he again comes across as the only politician who is willing to call a spade a spade.
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
If he mentions CSE, which he should, you can put money on the liberal left going absolutely ballistic accusing him of politicising the issue. Once again the WWC will lap it up whilst the guardianistas will be choking on their lentil soup.
Why just the white working class?
Wasn't it a liberal, metropolitan journalist who uncovered the story; and another liberal metropolitan who conducted the enquiry?
OT Culinary Advice. I haven't eaten fillet beef in years and just bought two - what should I have with it?
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
Cut fillet into small cubes, fry in butter and garlic long enough to seal the outside but leave the inside pink, allow to cool, give to cat, sit back with a large drink and bask in the sound of contented purrs.
Comments
I do object to the much repeated statement that we would suddenly start treating citizens of all countries equally in the event of leaving the EU, as that is certainly not true.
We would - I suspect - keep our long-standing open borders policy with the Republic of Ireland. And I suspect we would not require EU citizens to have a visa if they are to travel to the UK on business or as a tourist. I also suspect we would continue to have the bilateral working holiday visa programmes with Australia and New Zealand, as well as a number of other programmes with Commonwealth members.
I've made the stake £2.50 to dovetail my outright bets on this seat.
1545 Lingfield Gaelic Silver 100-1 (VC 1/5 place, SJ 1/4 place)
What the hell was the Welsh woman doing on there? Totally irrelevant
The facts are clear in the LSE report, published by the government, clearly states that UK output of manufacturing goods is higher than its ever been absolute terms. As a proportion of GDP it has declined as other activity has grown quicker. Financial services and the service sector.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277158/ep2-government-policy-since-1945.pdf
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2803400/UK-manufacturing-output-increased-1978-ONS-figures-show.html
http://www.cer.org.uk/in-the-press/its-fabrication-britain-doesnt-make-things-any-more
''Until the global collapse in output triggered by the financial crisis in late 2008, manufacturing output in the UK was higher than it had ever been. In 2007 it was two and a half times higher in real terms than it was in 1950. And despite the surge in imports from China, production was 7.1 per cent higher in 2007 than it was in 1995.''
Maybe it should be higher - but as a mature economy its inevitable that the wages of the industrial sector and the successful financial sector will be spent on services and not just other relatively low value consumer goods more readily made abroad.
But its not right as Financier says that we do not make anything any more. We do.
Indeed it is not only not right, it is not even wrong,
Plus we have major investments abroad which when the world does well earns us money. Its a good sign of the activity of the UK economy relative to the rest of the world when our own overseas investment income declines and the earnings of other people's investments here rise.
Who owns Lockheed Martin - and a significant swathe of the US aerospace/defence industry? What is the likely effect of repatriating UK profits of one of its 6th largest suppliers if the US cuts defence spending?
It should be said that I never have a problem cooling down.
Ahem.
Putting my apolitical hat on, it just seems a bit nasty, and UKIP like the Tories in the 00s need to seem less so. There's a really interesting debate about the globalisation of labour and capital and the winners and losers thereof, how much government should intervene or not, whether we'd be better off as an isolated banking country or part of a trading bloc. To breakout from the ten or so per cent UKIP need to be winning that argument, not articulating fairly irrelevant policies which pander to those among them who are disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
https://youtu.be/BV1duQKGQJA
Cheers for that tip, Mr. Jim. What's your Twitter name again?
ITV & ITVHD 6.71m (30.0%)
ITV+1 273,000 (1.4%)
On BBC
MasterChef 3.93m (17.6%)
The Truth About Fat 2.96m (13.3%)
Question Time 2.67m (22.7%)
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
Tryster is easily the best horse in the race but Lingfield is such a tricky track there is good value to be had in opposing short-priced favorites. I've had a small ew bet, and the reverse forecast with the favorite.
Thanks for the tip, whatever happens.
In the future, I'm only going to fly with a Scouse pilot. There's no way, they'd ever tear up a sick note and ignore it.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
Not surprised. If he wanted jaws to drop, I think he'd have been better going on Rotherham and the failure of multiculturalism. That really is a scandal, but unlike AIDS it has begun to seep into public consciousness, so would be pushing at a more open door.
Can see the challengers debate being utterly vital now - Cameron looks tired
and a bit of a busted flush, but the question is whether Ed can coral those who dislike the government in sufficient numbers to his banner. If I was him I'd be practising a lot against Douglas Alexander's sister as a stand-in for Sturgeon.
He's probably saving Rotherham for the next one.
I've a fridge packed to the gunnels with almost every normal veg you can think of and a freezer full of everything else. And then there's an enormous range of herbs and spices.
We all know that David Cameron decided to replace the Conservative Torch with an Oak Tree. It was seen as a clever piece of rebranding by a leader who thought a concern with green issues were a way to make the party seem more compassionate and focussed on the challenges of the 21st century. So with fascination I learn that Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism, used the oak tree as a metaphor for the aristocracy. I wonder if Cameron knew that? Those trusty, unmoving oaks whose eternal prescence makes us feel more secure about our way of life.
Whether he knew it or not I think it does sum up his rebranding of the Tories.
I guess that's why Carswell has refused to endorse them...
What surprised me the most about Farages HIV comments was that he didn't seem able to weave it into a coherent point. It was almost as if he had second thoughts just as the words came out.
It became:
Here's an uncomfortable truth. Look at me.
But there are loads of uncomfortable truths, Nige. They're not being covered up, they're just not particularly important in the grand scheme of things.
You might want to start here:
http://www.penroseinquiry.org.uk/
Oak trees mostly stand for history - like redwoods. If Labour were a tree, it'd be a Leylandii.
All gay men?
He was talking about the NHS budget, and the impact of non-UK users of NHS services.
From the tables: (VI=voting intention)
Milliband: 179 polled from Labour VI, 19 from con/libdem/UKIP VI
Cameron: 166 polled from Conservative VI, 31 from lab/libdem/UKIP VI
Farage: 111 polled from UKIP VI, 89 from con/lab/libdem VI
Clegg: 24 polled from Lib Dem VI, 58 from con/lab/UKIP VI
Maybe it will be a game-changer after all.
This is the ONS data:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=K22A&dataset=diop&table-id=A1
The relevant output peaks are:
Dec 2000 108.0 All time high
Jan 2007 107.7 Pre recession high
Jan 2015 101.3 Most recent
Or if you want quarterly data:
2000Q4 107.5 All time high
2006Q4 106.8 Pre recession high
2014Q4 101.4 Most recent
Incidentally a 7.1% increase in manufacturing output (although its only 5.8% from the ONS data) between 1995 and 2007 was actually extremely mediocre considering there was 12 years of 'grth' in that period.
Are you capable of looking at source data and thinking for yourself rather than continually mouthing propoganda ?
http://www.capx.co/the-tories-are-working-for-an-snp-victory/
Interesting article. Not sure I agree with all of it, but I think the GE in a few weeks could just be the start of more to come, not the end of the story for another 5 years.
That aside, I don't think anyone did particularly badly or well.
Cameron 6/10
Miliband 5/10
Clegg 6/10
Farage 4/10
Bennett 6/10
Sturgeon 5/10
Wood 6/10
UK:
1885: 45%
1950: 24.6%
2005: 4.1%
France:
1885: 15%
1950: 9.6%
2005: 7.6%
Germany:
1885: 16%
1950: 7%
2005: 13.5%
USA:
1885: 6%
1950: 26.6%
2005: 12.4%
Japan:
1885: 0.0%
1950: 8.3%
2005:12.1%
China:
2005:15.6%
Source: Flighpath
Master Chef was crap: Some Asian bloke who cooks soggie curry came second! The Truth about Fat was good though!
In fact, it smells like b/s.
Anyone got any idea what source, if any, Farage is using?
Edit: Ah, this is of relevance:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn
So it seems it is b/s.
He was talking about the NHS budget, and the impact of non-UK users of NHS services.
Yeah, but he built up to his *inconvenient truth* - got people on edge, waiting for him to say something really controversial and then seemed quite stunned at himself that he's actually said it. It's unusual for Farage - he's usually very good at saying something controversial, then labouring the point home, like all sensible people should agree with him.
It was a bit like the kid who's discovered his dad's anusol prescription and thinks it's funny to mention it at the dinner table. Then he realises his siblings aren't laughing.
Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
The remarks, which were denounced as distasteful by Mr Farage’s political rivals, were not an attempt to “reach out” to floating voters but instead a “core vote message”, sources disclosed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11514369/Revealed-Nigel-Farage-planned-Aids-comment-as-part-of-shock-and-awful-TV-debate-strategy.html
What did I say yesterday.....and what are we talking about today?
And the presenter had some endearment to pork. Quite interesting....
I'm willing!
But yes, my mistake. Mea culpa; I was looking at several sets of figures at once.
It's still b/s, though.
Anecdote of the day: a voter was insistent on knowing my position on assisted dying: "I want it brought in while I'm still alive!"
Keep to the alcohol. :hiccup:
As-ever: Do-your-own-[MODERATED]-research!!!
If the opposition debate includes a segment on policing/security he is absolutely going to wipe the floor with Ed on CSE in Rotherham and Rochdale.
Even A&E?
Rarely are UKIP policies actually explored / exposed, instead it is all "Farage outrage", rather than actually exploring if UKIP actually has solutions to the issues.
I predicted yesterday before the debates Farage would deliberately say something like this, that the media would scream as an outrage, but it isn't aimed at them. Farage will get the message to his target demographic that he is against health tourism, while the actual realities of the issue, how to resolve it, what impacts a ban would have etc, are lost in the outcry of how dare he target those with HIV / AIDs.
Wasn't it a liberal, metropolitan journalist who uncovered the story; and another liberal metropolitan who conducted the enquiry?
"Rochdale councillor Shakil Ahmed had previously said she was "extremely upset" at the news, and had thought her son was in Birmingham."
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-03/police-search-councillors-home-after-sons-turkey-arrest/