Actually it was a grown-up speech addressing the difficulties and saying it will be difficult rather than easy.
Quite unlike opposition parties that want easy solutions without actually being governable.
Yup, it so difficult that even after five years in the job she hasn't worked out how to even start it. But we are to have another "crackdown" on people seeking asylum. 600,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the last year for which stats are available, Theresa May says that is too many and damaging to to the fabric of society. What is she going to do about it? Have a crackdown on asylum seekers of which there are relatively trivial numbers.
If she wants fewer immigrants then she could start by issuing fewer visas. Apparently that is too hard. However, the number of visas her department does issue are not enough for the skilled workers that UK industry is so short of (though why UK industry is incapable of training people is a question never asked, but let that pass).
Why some people think that a person so completely incapable of dealing with one issue is a good candidate for party leader and, probably, prime minister is beyond me. In a well run business she would have been sacked years ago as grossly incompetent.
That is not the only issue she raised. She also addressed student visas being overstayed and EU migration, especially benefits paid to EU migrants. She also said that those (and the others mentioned before asylum) were the main reason.
As for her record, it is excellent which is why she is the longest serving Home Secretary in over half a century. Crime is down considerably and as she said migration was half its peak at one stage before rising again (which is frankly just a result of us doing well while others struggle).
Migration was down before it started going up... Jesus
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
A neighbour (and utter luvvie) has sent me a 38 degrees email titled "Murdoch vs the BBC". Here's a sample:
Government plans to rip out the heart of the BBC are taking shape. Imagine a BBC where newsnight is riddled with adverts. Or a BBC so underfunded that independent news becomes a thing of the past and the airwaves are dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s media. This is what the Government wants - we need to stop them.
If we’re going to stop these plans we can’t rely on newspapers or TV channels owned by Murdoch and other media moguls. Instead, we’re going to have to use people-power to show the government that we won’t stand for them destroying our independent BBC.
There's a lot more in the same vein, but I shan't trouble the thread with it. They kindly including a link to the government's questionnaire (complete with 'hints' on how 'best' to answer it) and I had a lot of fun answering the questions. Not necessarily in the way they expected, obviously. So if you're bored: https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/surveys/bbc-consultation
Thanks for the link. It needs to be privatised.
LOL. Filled out the form. Called for the complete abolition of the license fee system and for the Beeb to stop doing entertainment, concentrating on public service, education and news.
There are rumours of plans afoot to stop BBC Four (TV not radio), and switch funding from factual and documentary towards creative stuff, because the BBC produces "world-class" drama. The argument seems to be that the Beeb should focus on what it's good at.
But in that case, what's the argument for subsidising it anymore? World-class drama and entertainment should surely pay for itself - there's a global market for it, after all (one of the benefits of being a mostly English-language broadcaster than, say, the Finnish national broadcaster). I'm not sure that drama needs protection.
There is a clear argument that cultural and factual content, the "edifying" or minority-interest stuff (e.g. covering disabled issues), is under-produced by the commercial sector and a public service broadcaster should be committed to it. I can buy that. I can even stomach the TV licence to pay for it (in theory, at least, though would require me to actually go out and buy a TV to put that into practice...). But the emphasis on drama just seems silly.
EDIT HAVING SEEN TIMT'S LATER POST: And as for the sport. Good grief, why should they pay any money for the sporting rights? Are they afraid that if the Beeb doesn't bid for stuff, nobody will, and it won't get broadcast at all? Professional sport is big business, and this (even the failed bids, which push prices up for commercial broadcasters) is no more than a subsidy for big business. I can't see how a left-winger could be in favour of it.
I really am now pissed off with your moaning. Oh poor you weekend are not available. Oh deaR what a shame ...evenings are missed. My heart bleeds for you and You break my bloody heart.
We do the job we choose and I chose a job in the full knowledge that it would probably cost me a family life in the future. My family know this and they support me. I post this from yet another location abroad travelling.
I am just utterly sick and tired of you people moaning your lot. Just fe k off and get another job if you don't like the NHS or what you do.
You really really don't know the half of it. To put it in prospective my youngest daughter was 5 years old before I had a Christmas home with her. Our choice or someone else's but you were lucky.
Grrrrrrrrr
What a plonker you are!
If you re-read my post, I pointed out that I did not mind sharing domestic duties, just that the logistics are difficult when working shifts. I have worked weekends, holidays and nights my whole career,
I do not regret it and love my job, and fully recognise that other people work irregular hours too.
I think the issue is your moaning about Dave's seven day NHS plans.
It is an absolute disgrace that we don't have a seven day NHS, that if you fall sick on a weekend (or worse a bank holiday weekend) that you are far more likely to die. I am so sick of hearing about Saturdays being covered by "out of hours" service.
Sickness does not strike in working hours alone. It is a disgrace that you can get a Domino's Pizza seven days a week no issue but you fall sick on a Saturday and you are more likely to die let alone be unable to see a GP swiftly. The NHS is more important than a pizza and absolutely must be seven days.
The figures are very contested and dubious. Not least that peak day for deaths is Wednesday, not the weekend, even in the figures quoted in the BMJ*.
Sick people have always been covered by emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What Dave is talking about is routine appointments such as outpatients for bunnions, or blood pressure monitoring. Convenient maybe, but with no additional funding to pay for it and a complete lack of clarity in what current work is to cease to free up the personnel. It is trpical Cameron posturing and as bad as Tonys sofa government. Half baked ideas with no grounding in reality.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
I really am now pissed off with your moaning. Oh poor you weekend are not available. Oh deaR what a shame ...evenings are missed. My heart bleeds for you and You break my bloody heart.
We do the job we choose and I chose a job in the full knowledge that it would probably cost me a family life in the future. My family know this and they support me. I post this from yet another location abroad travelling.
I am just utterly sick and tired of you people moaning your lot. Just fe k off and get another job if you don't like the NHS or what you do.
You really really don't know the half of it. To put it in prospective my youngest daughter was 5 years old before I had a Christmas home with her. Our choice or someone else's but you were lucky.
Grrrrrrrrr
What a plonker you are!
If you re-read my post, I pointed out that I did not mind sharing domestic duties, just that the logistics are difficult when working shifts. I have worked weekends, holidays and nights my whole career,
I do not regret it and love my job, and fully recognise that other people work irregular hours too.
I think the issue is your moaning about Dave's seven day NHS plans.
It is an absolute disgrace that we don't have a seven day NHS, that if you fall sick on a weekend (or worse a bank holiday weekend) that you are far more likely to die. I am so sick of hearing about Saturdays being covered by "out of hours" service.
Sickness does not strike in working hours alone. It is a disgrace that you can get a Domino's Pizza seven days a week no issue but you fall sick on a Saturday and you are more likely to die let alone be unable to see a GP swiftly. The NHS is more important than a pizza and absolutely must be seven days.
The figures are very contested and dubious. Not least that peak day for deaths is Wednesday, not the weekend, even in the figures quoted in the BMJ*.
Sick people have always been covered by emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What Dave is talking about is routine appointments such as outpatients for bunnions, or blood pressure monitoring. Convenient maybe, but with no additional funding to pay for it and a complete lack of clarity in what current work is to cease to free up the personnel. It is trpical Cameron posturing and as bad as Tonys sofa government. Half baked ideas with no grounding in reality.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
Actually it was a grown-up speech addressing the difficulties and saying it will be difficult rather than easy.
Quite unlike opposition parties that want easy solutions without actually being governable.
Yup, it so difficult that even after five years in the job she hasn't worked out how to even start it. But we are to have another "crackdown" on people seeking asylum. 600,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the last year for which stats are available, Theresa May says that is too many and damaging to to the fabric of society. What is she going to do about it? Have a crackdown on asylum seekers of which there are relatively trivial numbers.
If she wants fewer immigrants then she could start by issuing fewer visas. Apparently that is too hard. However, the number of visas her department does issue are not enough for the skilled workers that UK industry is so short of (though why UK industry is incapable of training people is a question never asked, but let that pass).
Why some people think that a person so completely incapable of dealing with one issue is a good candidate for party leader and, probably, prime minister is beyond me. In a well run business she would have been sacked years ago as grossly incompetent.
That is not the only issue she raised. She also addressed student visas being overstayed and EU migration, especially benefits paid to EU migrants. She also said that those (and the others mentioned before asylum) were the main reason.
As for her record, it is excellent which is why she is the longest serving Home Secretary in over half a century. Crime is down considerably and as she said migration was half its peak at one stage before rising again (which is frankly just a result of us doing well while others struggle).
Migration was down before it started going up... Jesus
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
Yes exactly. In other words the truth and part of a big picture.
Our big picture is the economy is doing well so what was working before is not now. That is a better problem to have than the other way around.
Actually it was a grown-up speech addressing the difficulties and saying it will be difficult rather than easy.
Quite unlike opposition parties that want easy solutions without actually being governable.
Yup, it so difficult that even after five years in the job she hasn't worked out how to even start it. But we are to have another "crackdown" on people seeking asylum. 600,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the last year for which stats are available, Theresa May says that is too many and damaging to to the fabric of society. What is she going to do about it? Have a crackdown on asylum seekers of which there are relatively trivial numbers.
If she wants fewer immigrants then she could start by issuing fewer visas. Apparently that is too hard. However, the number of visas her department does issue are not enough for the skilled workers that UK industry is so short of (though why UK industry is incapable of training people is a question never asked, but let that pass).
Why some people think that a person so completely incapable of dealing with one issue is a good candidate for party leader and, probably, prime minister is beyond me. In a well run business she would have been sacked years ago as grossly incompetent.
That is not the only issue she raised. She also addressed student visas being overstayed and EU migration, especially benefits paid to EU migrants. She also said that those (and the others mentioned before asylum) were the main reason.
As for her record, it is excellent which is why she is the longest serving Home Secretary in over half a century. Crime is down considerably and as she said migration was half its peak at one stage before rising again (which is frankly just a result of us doing well while others struggle).
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
A neighbour (and utter luvvie) has sent me a 38 degrees email titled "Murdoch vs the BBC". Here's a sample:
Government plans to rip out the heart of the BBC are taking shape. Imagine a BBC where newsnight is riddled with adverts. Or a BBC so underfunded that independent news becomes a thing of the past and the airwaves are dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s media. This is what the Government wants - we need to stop them.
If we’re going to stop these plans we can’t rely on newspapers or TV channels owned by Murdoch and other media moguls. Instead, we’re going to have to use people-power to show the government that we won’t stand for them destroying our independent BBC.
There's a lot more in the same vein, but I shan't trouble the thread with it. They kindly including a link to the government's questionnaire (complete with 'hints' on how 'best' to answer it) and I had a lot of fun answering the questions. Not necessarily in the way they expected, obviously. So if you're bored: https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/surveys/bbc-consultation
Thanks for the link. It needs to be privatised.
LOL. Filled out the form. Called for the complete abolition of the license fee system and for the Beeb to stop doing entertainment, concentrating on public service, education and news.
Ditto, broadly. Although I was slightly more nuanced, conceding that BBC Radio does things that the commercial sector cannot and does not, and that I can't really think of a way of moving BBC Radio to a subscription service.
If you love BBC Radio pay for it. I don't listen to BBC Radio, I can't stand it primarily full of pretentious presenters more than music so I listen to Heart - yet a quarter of my "telly tax" goes to BBC Radio. Why should I listen to ads on my choice of station and pay for BBC Radio in order to watch TV with ads?
I would happily pay for it! No problem with you choosing Heart or one of any number of other stations, but the likes of Radio 6 simply doesn't exist in the commercial sector. (XFM doesn't count; it is as far from Radio 6 as Radio 1 is from XFM). Nor did it exist in the commercial sector before Radio 6 started out. There is a lot else on BBC Radio of which I'd happily pay for - Test Match Special springs to mind - and more besides which I don't personally value but which many people surely do and again which doesn't exist in the commercial sector - for example Radio 3. And I'd happily pay for all this stuff. The problem is that the technology for subscription radio doesn't really exist; radios are still very simple pieces of kit and not really set up to know whether the listener has paid for the service or not.
Actually it was a grown-up speech addressing the difficulties and saying it will be difficult rather than easy.
Quite unlike opposition parties that want easy solutions without actually being governable.
Yup, it so difficult that even after five years in the job she hasn't worked out how to even start it. But we are to have another "crackdown" on people seeking asylum. 600,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the last year for which stats are available, Theresa May says that is too many and damaging to to the fabric of society. What is she going to do about it? Have a crackdown on asylum seekers of which there are relatively trivial numbers.
If she wants fewer immigrants then she could start by issuing fewer visas. Apparently that is too hard. However, the number of visas her department does issue are not enough for the skilled workers that UK industry is so short of (though why UK industry is incapable of training people is a question never asked, but let that pass).
Why some people think that a person so completely incapable of dealing with one issue is a good candidate for party leader and, probably, prime minister is beyond me. In a well run business she would have been sacked years ago as grossly incompetent.
That is not the only issue she raised. She also addressed student visas being overstayed and EU migration, especially benefits paid to EU migrants. She also said that those (and the others mentioned before asylum) were the main reason.
As for her record, it is excellent which is why she is the longest serving Home Secretary in over half a century. Crime is down considerably and as she said migration was half its peak at one stage before rising again (which is frankly just a result of us doing well while others struggle).
Migration was down before it started going up... Jesus
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
Yes exactly. In other words the truth and part of a big picture.
Our big picture is the economy is doing well so what was working before is not now. That is a better problem to have than the other way around.
Labour should have been boasting of their immigration numbers when the economy was tanking by that logic!
There are rumours of plans afoot to stop BBC Four (TV not radio), and switch funding from factual and documentary towards creative stuff, because the BBC produces "world-class" drama. The argument seems to be that the Beeb should focus on what it's good at.
But in that case, what's the argument for subsidising it anymore? World-class drama and entertainment should surely pay for itself - there's a global market for it, after all (one of the benefits of being a mostly English-language broadcaster than, say, the Finnish national broadcaster). I'm not sure that drama needs protection.
There is a clear argument that cultural and factual content, the "edifying" or minority-interest stuff (e.g. covering disabled issues), is under-produced by the commercial sector and a public service broadcaster should be committed to it. I can buy that. I can even stomach the TV licence to pay for it (in theory, at least, though would require me to actually go out and buy a TV to put that into practice...). But the emphasis on drama just seems silly.
EDIT HAVING SEEN TIMT'S LATER POST: And as for the sport. Good grief, why should they pay any money for the sporting rights? Are they afraid that if the Beeb doesn't bid for stuff, nobody will, and it won't get broadcast at all? Professional sport is big business, and this (even the failed bids, which push prices up for commercial broadcasters) is no more than a subsidy for big business. I can't see how a left-winger could be in favour of it.
Seems we are on the same page. I could swallow a government subsidy for a reduced public service broadcaster along the lines we both think the commercial markets don't serve. But if this is a true public service, it should be funded directly from taxation, not a license.
I was surprised by the Institute of Directors reaction to Theresa May's speech. I was a member of the IoD once and found it to be more right wing than the Conservative party.
I can think of a number of IoD employees who were also members of the Monday Club.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
The figures are very contested and dubious. Not least that peak day for deaths is Wednesday, not the weekend, even in the figures quoted in the BMJ*.
Sick people have always been covered by emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What Dave is talking about is routine appointments such as outpatients for bunnions, or blood pressure monitoring. Convenient maybe, but with no additional funding to pay for it and a complete lack of clarity in what current work is to cease to free up the personnel. It is trpical Cameron posturing and as bad as Tonys sofa government. Half baked ideas with no grounding in reality.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
Well said, Dr. Sox. Thank goodness someone is talking sense about this 24/7 NHS nonsense that Cameron has been spouting. Where there is definitely a problem is in out of hours emergency GP cover, and that frankly is a fecking disgrace (but capable of solution), the idea that GPs should be available at all sorts of non-standard hours to deal with routine appointments is just barmy and should be filed. Maybe if there are people whose work is so important that they cannot plan a normal business hours appointment with a GP then they must be so highly paid that they could afford to pay for a private consultation,
Actually it was a grown-up speech addressing the difficulties and saying it will be difficult rather than easy.
Quite unlike opposition parties that want easy solutions without actually being governable.
Yup, it so difficult that even after five years in the job she hasn't worked out how to even start it. But we are to have another "crackdown" on people seeking asylum. 600,000 people came to the UK as immigrants in the last
If she wants fewer immigrants then she could start by issuing fewer visas. Apparently that is too hard. However, the number of visas her department does issue are not enough for the skilled workers that UK industry is so short of (though why UK industry is incapable of training people is a question never asked, but let that pass).
Why some people think that a person so completely incapable of dealing with one issue is a good candidate for party leader and, probably, prime minister is beyond me. In a well run business she would have been sacked years ago as grossly incompetent.
That is not the only issue she raised. She also addressed student visas being overstayed and EU migration, especially benefits paid to EU migrants. She also said that those (and the others mentioned before asylum) were the main reason.
As for her record, it is excellent which is why she is the longest serving Home Secretary in over half a century. Crime is down considerably and as she said migration was half its peak at one stage before rising again (which is frankly just a result of us doing well while others struggle).
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
I appreciate her difficulties, and believe that she has done what she can, given the constraints she has to work within. Those constraints are:-
1. Free movement of people within the EU, including free movement of new citizens from outside the EU.
2. The baleful impact of the ECHR and HRA, especially Article 8 (right to a family life).
Unpicking 1 and 2 is the key to controlling immigration.
Migration was down before it started going up... Jesus
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
Yes exactly. In other words the truth and part of a big picture.
Our big picture is the economy is doing well so what was working before is not now. That is a better problem to have than the other way around.
Labour should have been boasting of their immigration numbers when the economy was tanking by that logic!
Well all I have to say is the economy is more important than migration so that would not be something to boast about.
As I said, I'd rather have a booming economy (and low crime since we're discussing May) and high immigration than low immigration but a crashed economy and high crime. Wouldn't you?
When was the last time we had net emigration? I believe from memory it was the seventies.
IDS introduces the government's two-children policy. Another reason why this country will need more immigrants in the future.
What two children policy? That's an horrific slur.
Take that:
15.56
Tax credit cuts will teach parents 'children cost money'
This report from our political correspondent Ben Riley-Smith:
David Cameron's tax credit reforms will teach parents that "children cost money" and discourage having having a third child, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
I imagine you think that the vote on the European Arrest Warrant was a huge success for May? Can she do any wrong?
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well she was the one making a speech about it, and it's the most important concern for the public which I don't think you can say about football fans and the league cup
I really am now pissed off with your moaning. Oh poor you weekend are not available. Oh deaR what a shame ...evenings are missed. My heart bleeds for you and You break my bloody heart.
We do the job we choose and I chose a job in the full knowledge that it would probably cost me a family life in the future. My family know this and they support me. I post this from yet another location abroad travelling.
I am just utterly sick and tired of you people moaning your lot. Just fe k off and get another job if you don't like the NHS or what you do.
You really really don't know the half of it. To put it in prospective my youngest daughter was 5 years old before I had a Christmas home with her. Our choice or someone else's but you were lucky.
Grrrrrrrrr
What a plonker you are!
If you re-read my post, I pointed out that I did not mind sharing domestic duties, just that the logistics are difficult when working shifts. I have worked weekends, holidays and nights my whole career,
I do not regret it and love my job, and fully recognise that other people work irregular hours too.
I think the issue is your moaning about Dave's seven day NHS plans.
The figures are very contested and dubious. Not least that peak day for deaths is Wednesday, not the weekend, even in the figures quoted in the BMJ*.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
That £8bn has not yet appeared. Indeed the forecast deficit (note that this is before the cost of 7 day services are added) for acute Trusts this year alone is £2 bn. At my own Trust all department budgets are cut by 8% next year to balance the books. We already have a staffing freeze.
There is not a lot of spare money about in the NHS, to provide chiropody on a sunday afternoon. I would rather that the money was spent otherwise.
IDS introduces the government's two-children policy. Another reason why this country will need more immigrants in the future.
What two children policy? That's an horrific slur.
Take that:
15.56
Tax credit cuts will teach parents 'children cost money'
This report from our political correspondent Ben Riley-Smith:
David Cameron's tax credit reforms will teach parents that "children cost money" and discourage having having a third child, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
That's fairness not a two child policy. Children do cost money and parents do consider that before having extra children. Why should a small fraction of society view children as a chequebook rather than a responsibility.
Children should be born because their parents want them and will love them and are happy to provide for them. That is right and fair.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well whose job was it? The Conservatives made a promise, that promise was and is in the remit of the Home Office, if it wasn't the Home Secretary's job to fulfill that promise whose job was it?
IDS introduces the government's two-children policy. Another reason why this country will need more immigrants in the future.
What two children policy? That's an horrific slur.
Take that:
15.56
Tax credit cuts will teach parents 'children cost money'
This report from our political correspondent Ben Riley-Smith:
David Cameron's tax credit reforms will teach parents that "children cost money" and discourage having having a third child, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
Do you think that the state should continue to fund as many children as parents wish to have? Or that the state should encourage parents to have a number of children that is limited but higher than two? If so, how many? Or do you agree that the state should not fund parents to have more than two children, but are simply suggesting that this will have demographic consequences? If so, what population structure should we aim for? Should the population continue to grow, stabilise either at current or some future level, or decline?
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
I imagine you think that the vote on the European Arrest Warrant was a huge success for May? Can she do any wrong?
Of course she can but the migration figures were known about at the election and the party was reelected.
To suggest a minister should be sacked because they've said they want to address an issue you're upset about is the height of madness. Personally I'd be happier if she ignored migration and spoke about crime and other parts of her remit which are a success story. Instead she prioritised the area I couldn't give a damn about but is attacked by those who do care for daring to suggest ways to tackle it. That's just silly and to turn your claim around suggests her critics think she can't do anything right.
Migration was down before it started going up... Jesus
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
Yes exactly. In other words the truth and part of a big picture.
Our big picture is the economy is doing well so what was working before is not now. That is a better problem to have than the other way around.
Labour should have been boasting of their immigration numbers when the economy was tanking by that logic!
Well all I have to say is the economy is more important than migration so that would not be something to boast about.
As I said, I'd rather have a booming economy (and low crime since we're discussing May) and high immigration than low immigration but a crashed economy and high crime. Wouldn't you?
When was the last time we had net emigration? I believe from memory it was the seventies.
The last year with net emigration was 92. Before that it was 88, 82, 81 and 80.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well she was the one making a speech about it, and it's the most important concern for the public which I don't think you can say about football fans and the league cup
In addition, her other achievements are not comparable to winning the treble!
That's possibly the worst analogy I've seen on here
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well whose job was it? The Conservatives made a promise, that promise was and is in the remit of the Home Office, if it wasn't the Home Secretary's job to fulfill that promise whose job was it?
I said it was a factor of her job not her whole job. And the government got judged on that manifesto and the result was the main party of government increasing both vote share and seats for the first time since the nineteenth century.
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
Yes, I thought it was time to have another try at understanding why Boris is wonderful, so I watched the clip on this thread. Tedious, rambling and self-indulgent as ever. But popular.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well she was the one making a speech about it, and it's the most important concern for the public which I don't think you can say about football fans and the league cup
In addition, her other achievements are not comparable to winning the treble!
That's possibly the worst analogy I've seen on here
Most important concern today. So she spkke on it today. According to opinion polls though and not election results. I think the lowest crime rate since records began is more important than the treble but whatever floats your boat.
Well whose job was it? The Conservatives made a promise, that promise was and is in the remit of the Home Office, if it wasn't the Home Secretary's job to fulfill that promise whose job was it?
The Conservatives were not the government. Between 2010 and 2015 all government policy had to be agreed with the LibDems, an extremely pro-immigration party. For that reason, Theresa May has a pretty good excuse for not meeting the Conservative targets, which were never LibDem targets.
Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.
You are clearly a fan, Mr. Thompson, and are not in the mood to consider an alternative view point. However, I'll say this: the number of immigrants in the year for which the latest official figures are available was 600,000 gross and about 300,000 net.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
No that has not been her job. Her job is to deal with the Home Office, eg law and order, policing etc and migration is a factor of her job.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
Well she was the one making a speech about it, and it's the most important concern for the public which I don't think you can say about football fans and the league cup
In addition, her other achievements are not comparable to winning the treble!
That's possibly the worst analogy I've seen on here
Most important concern today. I think the lowest crime rate since records began is more important than the treble but whatever floats your boat.
I know you're not that stupid, but You can't be that desperate to win an argument!!
You can't contrast crime rate with the treble... Analogies don't work like that... But the united treble year in political terms world probably be Cameron winning a majority, winning the Indy ref and keeping us in the EU... Spectacular and memorable... Not theresamay as home sec
Well whose job was it? The Conservatives made a promise, that promise was and is in the remit of the Home Office, if it wasn't the Home Secretary's job to fulfill that promise whose job was it?
The Conservatives were not the government. Between 2010 and 2015 all government had to be agreed with the LibDems, an extremely pro-immigration party. For that reason, Theresa May has a pretty good excuse for not meeting the Conservative targets, which were never LibDem targets.
Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.
She was Home Seretary for all those years. What LD measures did she object to?
She failed and should carry the can for supervising a department "not fit for purpose". Bear in mind non-EU immigration was up last year. May is a waste of space.
Well whose job was it? The Conservatives made a promise, that promise was and is in the remit of the Home Office, if it wasn't the Home Secretary's job to fulfill that promise whose job was it?
The Conservatives were not the government. Between 2010 and 2015 all government policy had to be agreed with the LibDems, an extremely pro-immigration party. For that reason, Theresa May has a pretty good excuse for not meeting the Conservative targets, which were never LibDem targets.
Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.
Yet she doesn't seem to be suggesting any beefy measures that will actually tackle any large component of current immigration numbers.
I mean for goodness sake, why do we still give out thousands upon thousands of these visas:
I said it was a factor of her job not her whole job. And the government got judged on that manifesto and the result was the main party of government increasing both vote share and seats for the first time since the nineteenth century.
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
The public haven't given her a mandate at all, except that she was elected a MP. However, in answer to your question I should like to have heard plans for dealing with the problem she identified. If she feels that immigration of the scale we have seen over the past ten years or so is damaging, then what is she going to do to reduce it? That net immigration of ten of thousands promise was still there in the manifesto, wasn't it? Very well if that is the target, how is she going to get to it?
Oh, on your other point, of course May could have ignored the issue of immigration in her speech. She could have spoken about all sorts of other things that the Home Office deals with. However, if she had ignored the issue that seems to rank so highly with the electorate then she would have been, rightly, slaughtered in the press and by her party's members. So she promised a tough new crackdown, as if we hadn't heard that one before.
The BBC is in a zugzwang, it can never placate its opponents. They want it to only do unprofitable and unpopular things, but they also want Strictly and shows their constituents like.
Yes, I thought it was time to have another try at understanding why Boris is wonderful, so I watched the clip on this thread. Tedious, rambling and self-indulgent as ever. But popular.
Mystery.
The rambling is part of the bumbling style though, surely?
I'm not in the electorate, but I find Zac electorally much more appealing than Boris, for what it's worth. Yet I can see the star quality in Boris. Are you sure that you don't find his speeches, at the very least, somewhat amusing? The delivery is in a peculiar, personal style but if you don't hold someone up to a conventional checklist, he's a better speaker than Osborne or May. He's certainly the one you'd pay more to go to an after-dinner speech by, if you're into that kind of thing.
The politics of Boris remain an enigma, and his bumbling persona lets him get away with chameleoning even more than Cameron does. That's possibly the biggest thing I have against him.
'Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.'
Oh I imagine another excuse will come along soon enough won't it Richard?
Well, who knows? Controlling immigration is extremely difficult, as the Out side would eventually discover were we to leave the EU (the effect on immigration would be, for all practical purposes, zero).
@kathy__odonnell: "The grown-ups in the SNP will have to convince their party to remain open to opposing ideas" - @JournoStephen in The Times tomorrow. Woof!
The figures are very contested and dubious. Not least that peak day for deaths is Wednesday, not the weekend, even in the figures quoted in the BMJ*.
Sick people have always been covered by emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What Dave is talking about is routine appointments such as outpatients for bunnions, or blood pressure monitoring. Convenient maybe, but with no additional funding to pay for it and a complete lack of clarity in what current work is to cease to free up the personnel. It is trpical Cameron posturing and as bad as Tonys sofa government. Half baked ideas with no grounding in reality.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
Well said, Dr. Sox. Thank goodness someone is talking sense about this 24/7 NHS nonsense that Cameron has been spouting. Where there is definitely a problem is in out of hours emergency GP cover, and that frankly is a fecking disgrace (but capable of solution), the idea that GPs should be available at all sorts of non-standard hours to deal with routine appointments is just barmy and should be filed. Maybe if there are people whose work is so important that they cannot plan a normal business hours appointment with a GP then they must be so highly paid that they could afford to pay for a private consultation,
It's not just those "whose jobs are so important", it's those who can't get an appointment at the beginning or the end of the working day. Many of us work quite a long way from home, the upshot of a mid-morning or mid-afternoon appointment is half a day off work.
In any case, surgeries don't need to be open extra hours, just different ones. Opening 12-8 rather than 9-5, and closing on Wednesday to open on Saturday, would be an improvement on today's arrangements.
The BBC is in a zugzwang, it can never placate its opponents. They want it to only do unprofitable and unpopular things, but they also want Strictly and shows their constituents like.
Strictly is an example of what's wrong with the BBC. It is competing with ITV with a show that could cope on any commercial TV station. What special requirement of public service does Strictly have that means I must be taxed rather than its viewers pay for it with ads?
'Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.'
Oh I imagine another excuse will come along soon enough won't it Richard?
Well, who knows? Controlling immigration is extremely difficult, as the Out side would eventually discover were we to leave the EU (the effect on immigration would be, for all practical purposes, zero).
But, for now, she has a very good excuse.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
The BBC is in a zugzwang, it can never placate its opponents. They want it to only do unprofitable and unpopular things, but they also want Strictly and shows their constituents like.
Depends what you mean. I wouldn't classify myself as a hardline Beeb opponent, but I can sympathise with a lot of the arguments against the status quo. I'd not be upset if they didn't do Strictly, though arguably "family entertainment" is an underserved category commercially.
If one did a right/left head-counting thing on Radio 4 comedy, we all know which way that would point. In a publicly funded and supposedly neutral organisation I'm not sure that's justifiable (not the same thing as requiring every show to be utterly impartial, more about getting a balance overall) and probably isn't sustainable.
Complaints about BBC neutrality being examined by the BBC ... not ideal. (Though I'm sure if it was set up as an "independent" complaints body, then it would be staffed by approximately the same people from approximately the same organisational culture.)
It'd be possible to go on. I think it's fairly clear some things are going to change. I can't see that the BBC is about to abolished or even gravely undermined. Your zugzwang comment is neat, but I think you can reflect it back on the BBC's most prominent political critics too. Aren't they also in a similar bind? If they call for the BBC to be chopped, they are saying that they want their constituents to not have Strictly and EastEnders anymore, which isn't going to go down all that well.
'Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.'
Oh I imagine another excuse will come along soon enough won't it Richard?
If the Tories win the 2020 and possibly the 2025 General Elections there will be no excuse for not getting immigration down to the tens of thousands. That is unless they are willing to admit that either they cannot control immigration due to the EU or they do not want to control it.
Messire Le Marquis, Ok, let us assume May wanted to do things that LibDems wouldn't permit. That situation no longer pertains and, as you say, she is now free to implement the measures she thinks is necessary. So what do we here today? A "tough new crackdown" on people who are already here. Not a sniff of a policy about reducing the numbers coming in.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
@kathy__odonnell: "The grown-ups in the SNP will have to convince their party to remain open to opposing ideas" - @JournoStephen in The Times tomorrow. Woof!
A neighbour (and utter luvvie) has sent me a 38 degrees email titled "Murdoch vs the BBC". Here's a sample: - snip -
Ditto, broadly. Although I was slightly more nuanced, conceding that BBC Radio does things that the commercial sector cannot and does not, and that I can't really think of a way of moving BBC Radio to a subscription service.
If you love BBC Radio pay for it. I don't listen to BBC Radio, I can't stand it primarily full of pretentious presenters more than music so I listen to Heart - yet a quarter of my "telly tax" goes to BBC Radio. Why should I listen to ads on my choice of station and pay for BBC Radio in order to watch TV with ads?
I would happily pay for it! No problem with you choosing Heart or one of any number of other stations, but the likes of Radio 6 simply doesn't exist in the commercial sector. (XFM doesn't count; it is as far from Radio 6 as Radio 1 is from XFM). Nor did it exist in the commercial sector before Radio 6 started out. There is a lot else on BBC Radio of which I'd happily pay for - Test Match Special springs to mind - and more besides which I don't personally value but which many people surely do and again which doesn't exist in the commercial sector - for example Radio 3. And I'd happily pay for all this stuff. The problem is that the technology for subscription radio doesn't really exist; radios are still very simple pieces of kit and not really set up to know whether the listener has paid for the service or not.
The only way to have subscription radio would be to either have a satellite system like Sirius/XM here.
But you don't need a subscription model. Look at the way Public Broadcasting works here. They broadcast both radio - NPR - and television - PBS. They don't carry advertising and are available to anyone who wants to tune in. 2 or 3 times a year they have 'pledge drives', scheduled for about 10 days (over 2 weekends). During programming they have pledge breaks where they beg you to call and subscribe, offering 'gifts' for various subscription levels. They watch like hawks who calls during which break of which program, and offer more programming according to the numbers. It's the ultimate feedback - people putting their money where their mouth is.
The government gives funding to set up and maintain the studio equipment - PBS always has the best equipped studios in town - and the quid pro quo is that PBS will produce high quality children's programming.
Other than that almost all programming funding is from folks who give to their local PBS/NPR station.
I said it was a factor of her job not her whole job. And the government got judged on that manifesto and the result was the main party of government increasing both vote share and seats for the first time since the nineteenth century.
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
The public haven't given her a mandate at all, except that she was elected a MP. However, in answer to your question I should like to have heard plans for dealing with the problem she identified. If she feels that immigration of the scale we have seen over the past ten years or so is damaging, then what is she going to do to reduce it? That net immigration of ten of thousands promise was still there in the manifesto, wasn't it? Very well if that is the target, how is she going to get to it?
Oh, on your other point, of course May could have ignored the issue of immigration in her speech. She could have spoken about all sorts of other things that the Home Office deals with. However, if she had ignored the issue that seems to rank so highly with the electorate then she would have been, rightly, slaughtered in the press and by her party's members. So she promised a tough new crackdown, as if we hadn't heard that one before.
Did you not listen to the speech? She spoke of at least three significant reforms - to student visas (which as Richard said the LDs blocked last time), to EU migration motivated by benefits and to asylum.
Will that be enough to get rates down? Probably not IMHO but it's not nothing. What would you rather she had said today and be realistic (ie leave the EU is not on the agenda)
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
Messire Le Marquis, Ok, let us assume May wanted to do things that LibDems wouldn't permit. That situation no longer pertains and, as you say, she is now free to implement the measures she thinks is necessary. So what do we here today? A "tough new crackdown" on people who are already here. Not a sniff of a policy about reducing the numbers coming in.
Her speech today was mainly about asylum seekers, and as far as it went sensible enough, although the number of asylum seekers is not the principal issue. She also had some concrete proposals on ensuring students return home at the end of their course - much bigger numbers there.
Do I think this is enough to get the numbers down as she suggests? No, I don't. But I'm simply saying that, for now, she has an excuse for not having got them down so far. We'll have to see what she can achieve over the next couple of years. TBH I'm not holding my breath. As long as the UK remains the most dynamic economy in Europe, people are going to want to come here and Brits are going to want to stay here rather than emigrate.
The first two links are about mooted schemes in end 2014, the last two about proposals a year earlier. The sun one is paywalled.
None of these account for the failure of May to do what she said she would do. Yet she trots out her same old speech on the siubject. Colour me unimpressed.
I said it was a factor of her job not her whole job. And the government got judged on that manifesto and the result was the main party of government increasing both vote share and seats for the first time since the nineteenth century.
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
The public haven't given her a mandate at all, except that she was elected a MP. However, in answer to your question I should like to have heard plans for dealing with the problem she identified. If she feels that immigration of the scale we have seen over the past ten years or so is damaging, then what is she going to do to reduce it? That net immigration of ten of thousands promise was still there in the manifesto, wasn't it? Very well if that is the target, how is she going to get to it?
Oh, on your other point, of course May could have ignored the issue of immigration in her speech. She could have spoken about all sorts of other things that the Home Office deals with. However, if she had ignored the issue that seems to rank so highly with the electorate then she would have been, rightly, slaughtered in the press and by her party's members. So she promised a tough new crackdown, as if we hadn't heard that one before.
Did you not listen to the speech? She spoke of at least three significant reforms - to student visas (which as Richard said the LDs blocked last time), to EU migration motivated by benefits and to asylum.
Will that be enough to get rates down? Probably not IMHO but it's not nothing. What would you rather she had said today and be realistic (ie leave the EU is not on the agenda)
What policies did she announce on immigrant benefits? She just said she would target them from the transcript.
Well said, Dr. Sox. Thank goodness someone is talking sense about this 24/7 NHS nonsense that Cameron has been spouting. Where there is definitely a problem is in out of hours emergency GP cover, and that frankly is a fecking disgrace (but capable of solution), the idea that GPs should be available at all sorts of non-standard hours to deal with routine appointments is just barmy and should be filed. Maybe if there are people whose work is so important that they cannot plan a normal business hours appointment with a GP then they must be so highly paid that they could afford to pay for a private consultation,
It's not just those "whose jobs are so important", it's those who can't get an appointment at the beginning or the end of the working day. Many of us work quite a long way from home, the upshot of a mid-morning or mid-afternoon appointment is half a day off work.
In any case, surgeries don't need to be open extra hours, just different ones. Opening 12-8 rather than 9-5, and closing on Wednesday to open on Saturday, would be an improvement on today's arrangements.
I'm also sceptical of "Maybe if there are people whose work is so important that they cannot plan a normal business hours appointment with a GP then they must be so highly paid that they could afford to pay for a private consultation". It seems to me there's a flaw in this argument when you include (as you do) the opportunity cost of people getting an appointment, which often equates to a half-day off work. It only takes a couple of professionals with high value-added per hour for a couple of daytime GP appointments to add up to a lot of money, but it isn't necessarily the case that they're so plush with cash they could afford an appointment themselves (their employer is generally taking the hit, rather than the employee).
Being self-employed I take the hit on my own. I had an appointment recently that required me to cancel several clients. This was expensive, but BUPA is also expensive.
On the flip side, in lower-wage and insecure employment, people are often under severe pressure to turn up to work and there is a fear that time off to go to the doc could count as a "strike" against their name. This is really something that employment rights legislation should be combating, but for e.g. people on temp contracts etc the pressure of feeling you have to turn up" is always going to be there.
If taxes have to go up to make access to the NHS more convenient, that's something a lot of folk (including me) would be willing to stomach.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
Because the government is leading a renegotiation. Only once that is completed can we say what changed but we know that an EEA style agreement like Out proponents like Dan Hannan and Richard Tyndall of this parish back mean no migration change.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
You can have as many books as you like, but I've been trying to get a simple answer to a simple question for the last four years: would we join the EEA? Not a hard question, surely?
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
Can you link me to someone saying trade would be "unaffected"? As I understand it, by far the most likely situation would be a free trade agreement with limits on migration.
As someone who is still undecided on this, I have to say that both sides have done a poor job at spelling out what their vision is. I don't what the Remain side want the EU to look like, and I don't know what the Leave side want the FTA to look like.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
You can have as many books as you like, but I've been trying to get a simple answer to a simple question for the last four years: would we join the EEA? Not a hard question, surely?
Suspect Cameron was seething, because stuff like this undermines what he's worked very hard for - even if what May said reflects a widespread sentiment in the electorate.
(It's not about the content of the speech, by the way, nor the delivery, so much as the way everyone knew in advance how the thing would be reported. Even if that reportage is kneejerk and unfair.)
I said it was a factor of her job not her whole job. And the government got judged on that manifesto and the result was the main party of government increasing both vote share and seats for the first time since the nineteenth century.
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
The public haven't given her a mandate at all, except that she was elected a MP. However, in answer to your question I should like to have heard plans for dealing with the problem she identified. If she feels that immigration of the scale we have seen over the past ten years or so is damaging, then what is she going to do to reduce it? That net immigration of ten of thousands promise was still there in the manifesto, wasn't it? Very well if that is the target, how is she going to get to it?
Oh, on your other point, of course May could have ignored the issue of immigration in her speech. She could have spoken about all sorts of other things that the Home Office deals with. However, if she had ignored the issue that seems to rank so highly with the electorate then she would have been, rightly, slaughtered in the press and by her party's members. So she promised a tough new crackdown, as if we hadn't heard that one before.
Did you not listen to the speech? She spoke of at least three significant reforms - to student visas (which as Richard said the LDs blocked last time), to EU migration motivated by benefits and to asylum.
Will that be enough to get rates down? Probably not IMHO but it's not nothing. What would you rather she had said today and be realistic (ie leave the EU is not on the agenda)
What policies did she announce on immigrant benefits? She just said she would target them from the transcript.
This wasn't a white paper. Saying she'll target something is about as far as conference speeches typically go (except occasional headline initiatives like the Chancellor had) with the detail later.
As I said what do you think she should have said instead that would be within her remit.
The BBC is in a zugzwang, it can never placate its opponents. They want it to only do unprofitable and unpopular things, but they also want Strictly and shows their constituents like.
People should be threatened with imprisonment because they don't want to pay for 'Cash in the attic'? A commercial broadcaster could quite easily run that type of show.
BBC is reporting that Cameron is backing her speech.
To me her speech seemed to be seeking to balance a few competing interests - the manifesto commitment, the public demand for change but the simultaneous demand for action for refugees and the refugees welcome chants. I loved for instance the suggestion that the government will assist those who've said they'll open their homes to be able to actually do so. Let's see how many follow up with that claim now!
That she is being criticised for going too far and not far enough simultaneously is noteworthy. I'm not sure what point isam is trying to make posting that headline.
This wasn't a white paper. Saying she'll target something is about as far as conference speeches typically go (except occasional headline initiatives like the Chancellor had) with the detail later.
As I said what do you think she should have said instead that would be within her remit.
"We will target" something is so nebulous it can not even be described as a policy. I think there are lots of things she could do: scrap the domestic worker visa, scrap student dependents, remove student visa privileges for universities where a large percent illegally stay on, bring back the primary purpose rule.
You can always spot the most batshit crazy zoomers on Twitter. They are the ones with the Catalan flag on their profile, as if they belong to some International band of separatists.
Ooops
Mr Salmond's intervention has not gone down well with some Catalan independence supporters, especially given his previous silence on the issue. One source described his attitude as "condescending".
Writing in Vilaweb, a successful digital newspaper in Barcelona, Vicent Partal said Mr Salmond's attitude to the November 2014 poll was "very poor".
Suspect Cameron was seething, because stuff like this undermines what he's worked very hard for - even if what May said reflects a widespread sentiment in the electorate.
(It's not about the content of the speech, by the way, nor the delivery, so much as the way everyone knew in advance how the thing would be reported. Even if that reportage is kneejerk and unfair.)
Not to mention that she has been in charge of the issue since May 2010 (LibDems LibShmems, Osbornes taking all the credit for the economy, I don't hear the May defenders saying 'FairPlay to Vince Cable and Danny Alexander' all that often when patting themselves on the back)
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
You can have as many books as you like, but I've been trying to get a simple answer to a simple question for the last four years: would we join the EEA? Not a hard question, surely?
You are asking the impossible and you know it. How can anyone state exactly what the government will decide to negotitate with the EU should the Out campaign win?
In addition, this idea that we're in the EU so can not stop free movement of citizens is just not true. Germany unilaterally opts out of treaty commitments - why can't we?
This wasn't a white paper. Saying she'll target something is about as far as conference speeches typically go (except occasional headline initiatives like the Chancellor had) with the detail later.
As I said what do you think she should have said instead that would be within her remit.
"We will target" something is so nebulous it can not even be described as a policy. I think there are lots of things she could do: scrap the domestic worker visa, scrap student dependents, remove student visa privileges for universities where a large percent illegally stay on, bring back the primary purpose rule.
She said specifically that universities where a large portion illegally stay on will be tackled so that nail was hit.
This wasn't a white paper. Saying she'll target something is about as far as conference speeches typically go (except occasional headline initiatives like the Chancellor had) with the detail later.
As I said what do you think she should have said instead that would be within her remit.
"We will target" something is so nebulous it can not even be described as a policy. I think there are lots of things she could do: scrap the domestic worker visa, scrap student dependents, remove student visa privileges for universities where a large percent illegally stay on, bring back the primary purpose rule.
She said specifically that universities where a large portion illegally stay on will be tackled so that nail was hit.
No, she didn't. She just said universities must stop them. She didn't say she would penalise those that didn't, much less spell out a serious penalty.
In addition, this idea that we're in the EU so can not stop free movement of citizens is just not true. Germany unilaterally opts out of treaty commitments - why can't we?
If you mean Schengen that is just untrue. Schengen specifically allows the actions Germany have taken.
You are asking the impossible and you know it. How can anyone state exactly what the government will decide to negotitate with the EU should the Out campaign win?
I'm not asking the impossible, I'm responding to the Alex Salmond-style 'we can have our cake and eat it' nonsense widely believed by the Out side. My personal view is that, if we leave the EU, we'll immediately sign straight back into free movement. Some Outers, such as Richard Tyndall in this article:
explicitly argue that we should sign up to the EEA. Fair enough, but you can't argue that and simultaneously use immigration as an argument in favour of leaving the EU.
Others don't say that, but talk of negotiating a trade treaty, never explaining how a trade treaty involving a free market in services (crucial to us, not important to our EU friends) could be achieved without signing up to a Swiss-style deal.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
How about the In side provides us with a coherent vision of what remaining in the EU will look like? O, strange, they cannot.
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
You can have as many books as you like, but I've been trying to get a simple answer to a simple question for the last four years: would we join the EEA? Not a hard question, surely?
You are asking the impossible and you know it. How can anyone state exactly what the government will decide to negotitate with the EU should the Out campaign win?
We could get an idea what the Out campaign is proposing at least.
The effect on immigration of sealing off a route where anyone from the whole of the EU can come without a visa would be zero? With all respect, you do make some silly arguments sometimes.
No-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that we end free of movement with the EU. It's a bit hard to tell, because the Out side is so incoherent, but the suggestion seems to be that we either join the EEA, or negotiate a Swiss-style trade treaty. In both cases the position on immigration would be completely unchanged.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
Why don't you tell us what In would look like? Would you expect eventually to see Defence, Criminal Justice, Foreign or Immigration policy being determined by EU institutions? Would you consider such developments desirable? Would you expect to see the UK outvoted by the Eurozone? Is there any point at which you would think the process of political integration was damaging British interests?
Sean no to the EU forming our policy on those areas as we have an opt out and unless Parliament cotes to change that, that is the end of the matter. If Parliament changes that then I would expect a new referendum first.
As for being outvoted I concede this is my single greatest worry with the EU and the reform I most desire is a change to QMV. I don't expect it but if we get that I'd change from probably stay to almost definitely stay. If we don't I'd become more 55-45.
As for going too far. Yes those areas you mentioned. I support our armed forces and don't want to see them ever abolished and merged into some continental army where the EU decides matters of war.
European Economic Area - the agreement between EFTA and the EU. It is effectively what the UK wanted out of the EU, a free market without the political baggage.
I am officially getting old - I signed up for Medicare today.
Seen the pix on my FB of the new puppy - Bernie (not Sanders!!!! Bernoulli for his seeming ability to fly like superman over tall grass)? Tiny next to the cat, let alone Aoife.
In addition, this idea that we're in the EU so can not stop free movement of citizens is just not true. Germany unilaterally opts out of treaty commitments - why can't we?
If you mean Schengen that is just untrue. Schengen specifically allows the actions Germany have taken.
And free movement allows an emergency brake in times of crisis.
In addition, this idea that we're in the EU so can not stop free movement of citizens is just not true. Germany unilaterally opts out of treaty commitments - why can't we?
If you mean Schengen that is just untrue. Schengen specifically allows the actions Germany have taken.
And free movement allows an emergency brake in times of crisis.
There is a 60 day limit IIRC for emergency action. Is that what you propose?
I am officially getting old - I signed up for Medicare today.
Seen the pix on my FB of the new puppy - Bernie (not Sanders!!!! Bernoulli for his seeming ability to fly like superman over tall grass)? Tiny next to the cat, let alone Aoife.
In addition, this idea that we're in the EU so can not stop free movement of citizens is just not true. Germany unilaterally opts out of treaty commitments - why can't we?
If you mean Schengen that is just untrue. Schengen specifically allows the actions Germany have taken.
And free movement allows an emergency brake in times of crisis.
There is a 60 day limit IIRC for emergency action. Is that what you propose?
Merkel has (sort of) replaced her Minister dealing with refugees (de Maziere) after he made some disobliging comments about some refugees having more money than you'd expect (it's not actually suggested that they're all destitute, merely that they're desperate). He's been downgraded to looking after the long-term legislative side while the operational side (actually dealing with the refugees) has been given to a close associate of hers who will report to her directly.
The German polls are still extremely stable, but there's a slight erosion in the parties in government (CDU and SPD) in favour of the far left (up to 10%) and anti-immigrant right (AfD up to 6%).
Comments
The equivalent of Gordon Brown in 2010 saying ' the economy was improving before it went tits up'
But in that case, what's the argument for subsidising it anymore? World-class drama and entertainment should surely pay for itself - there's a global market for it, after all (one of the benefits of being a mostly English-language broadcaster than, say, the Finnish national broadcaster). I'm not sure that drama needs protection.
There is a clear argument that cultural and factual content, the "edifying" or minority-interest stuff (e.g. covering disabled issues), is under-produced by the commercial sector and a public service broadcaster should be committed to it. I can buy that. I can even stomach the TV licence to pay for it (in theory, at least, though would require me to actually go out and buy a TV to put that into practice...). But the emphasis on drama just seems silly.
EDIT HAVING SEEN TIMT'S LATER POST: And as for the sport. Good grief, why should they pay any money for the sporting rights? Are they afraid that if the Beeb doesn't bid for stuff, nobody will, and it won't get broadcast at all? Professional sport is big business, and this (even the failed bids, which push prices up for commercial broadcasters) is no more than a subsidy for big business. I can't see how a left-winger could be in favour of it.
Sick people have always been covered by emergency services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What Dave is talking about is routine appointments such as outpatients for bunnions, or blood pressure monitoring. Convenient maybe, but with no additional funding to pay for it and a complete lack of clarity in what current work is to cease to free up the personnel. It is trpical Cameron posturing and as bad as Tonys sofa government. Half baked ideas with no grounding in reality.
*some sensible discussion on here, and also pointing out that the "weekend effect" may be levelled out by disrupting weekday continuity and levelling up rather than down.
https://www.ohe.org/news/guest-post-economics-elevated-hospital-mortality-weekends
Our big picture is the economy is doing well so what was working before is not now. That is a better problem to have than the other way around.
Since 2010 Theresa May's job has been to reduce that net number to less than 100,000. She has failed, and failed miserably. Not only are the number still way, way too high but it would seem people with skills who, apparently we need (possibly because UK businesses don't want to go to the expense of training people), cannot get visas. How her performance is not abysmal is beyond me, but Cameron hasn't sacked her so I am asked to believe she has done a good job.
And I'd happily pay for all this stuff. The problem is that the technology for subscription radio doesn't really exist; radios are still very simple pieces of kit and not really set up to know whether the listener has paid for the service or not.
To have a go at May for having led over record falls in crime etc because she has failed to bring migration down under these circumstance is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson should have been sacked in 1999 as he didn't win the League Cup (simply ignoring the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup).
1. Free movement of people within the EU, including free movement of new citizens from outside the EU.
2. The baleful impact of the ECHR and HRA, especially Article 8 (right to a family life).
Unpicking 1 and 2 is the key to controlling immigration.
As I said, I'd rather have a booming economy (and low crime since we're discussing May) and high immigration than low immigration but a crashed economy and high crime. Wouldn't you?
When was the last time we had net emigration? I believe from memory it was the seventies.
15.56
Tax credit cuts will teach parents 'children cost money'
This report from our political correspondent Ben Riley-Smith:
David Cameron's tax credit reforms will teach parents that "children cost money" and discourage having having a third child, Iain Duncan Smith has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11913723/david-cameron-conservative-conference-2015-live.html
There is not a lot of spare money about in the NHS, to provide chiropody on a sunday afternoon. I would rather that the money was spent otherwise.
Children should be born because their parents want them and will love them and are happy to provide for them. That is right and fair.
To suggest a minister should be sacked because they've said they want to address an issue you're upset about is the height of madness. Personally I'd be happier if she ignored migration and spoke about crime and other parts of her remit which are a success story. Instead she prioritised the area I couldn't give a damn about but is attacked by those who do care for daring to suggest ways to tackle it. That's just silly and to turn your claim around suggests her critics think she can't do anything right.
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc123/index.html
That's possibly the worst analogy I've seen on here
But the theme of the conference is addressing the next five years rather than being triumphalist or harping on about the past. So either May could have ignored migration today or spoken about it. She chose to address the issue. It seems those who care about it would prefer she hadn't so what should she have said today in your eyes? Given the public have given her a mandate to continue in the job.
Mystery.
Of course, she now needs to get on with implementing firmer measures, now that she is free of that constraint.
You can't contrast crime rate with the treble... Analogies don't work like that... But the united treble year in political terms world probably be Cameron winning a majority, winning the Indy ref and keeping us in the EU... Spectacular and memorable... Not theresamay as home sec
She failed and should carry the can for supervising a department "not fit for purpose". Bear in mind non-EU immigration was up last year. May is a waste of space.
Oh I imagine another excuse will come along soon enough won't it Richard?
I mean for goodness sake, why do we still give out thousands upon thousands of these visas:
https://www.gov.uk/domestic-workers-in-a-private-household-visa/overview
Oh, on your other point, of course May could have ignored the issue of immigration in her speech. She could have spoken about all sorts of other things that the Home Office deals with. However, if she had ignored the issue that seems to rank so highly with the electorate then she would have been, rightly, slaughtered in the press and by her party's members. So she promised a tough new crackdown, as if we hadn't heard that one before.
I'm not in the electorate, but I find Zac electorally much more appealing than Boris, for what it's worth. Yet I can see the star quality in Boris. Are you sure that you don't find his speeches, at the very least, somewhat amusing? The delivery is in a peculiar, personal style but if you don't hold someone up to a conventional checklist, he's a better speaker than Osborne or May. He's certainly the one you'd pay more to go to an after-dinner speech by, if you're into that kind of thing.
The politics of Boris remain an enigma, and his bumbling persona lets him get away with chameleoning even more than Cameron does. That's possibly the biggest thing I have against him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-mays-curbs-on-foreign-students-a-silly-idea-say-lib-dems-9939000.html
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ex-lib-dem-minister-norman-baker-slams-theresa-may-1-3593912#axzz3npUJJffP
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3482948/Clash-over-Theresa-Mays-visa-clamp-bid.html
http://stephentall.org/2013/10/11/the-17th-tory-policy-lib-dems-have-blocked-clegg-rejects-theresa-mays-plans-to-impose-new-immigration-regulations-on-private-landlords/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/06/coalition-war-vince-cable-tory-immigration-target
But, for now, she has a very good excuse.
Are there any grown-ups?
In any case, surgeries don't need to be open extra hours, just different ones. Opening 12-8 rather than 9-5, and closing on Wednesday to open on Saturday, would be an improvement on today's arrangements.
If one did a right/left head-counting thing on Radio 4 comedy, we all know which way that would point. In a publicly funded and supposedly neutral organisation I'm not sure that's justifiable (not the same thing as requiring every show to be utterly impartial, more about getting a balance overall) and probably isn't sustainable.
Complaints about BBC neutrality being examined by the BBC ... not ideal. (Though I'm sure if it was set up as an "independent" complaints body, then it would be staffed by approximately the same people from approximately the same organisational culture.)
It'd be possible to go on. I think it's fairly clear some things are going to change. I can't see that the BBC is about to abolished or even gravely undermined. Your zugzwang comment is neat, but I think you can reflect it back on the BBC's most prominent political critics too. Aren't they also in a similar bind? If they call for the BBC to be chopped, they are saying that they want their constituents to not have Strictly and EastEnders anymore, which isn't going to go down all that well.
I may be wrong about this - since the Out side has made zero effort to define what Out would look like, it's hard to say. But since they assure us that trade would be unaffected, one can only assume the obvious.
But you don't need a subscription model. Look at the way Public Broadcasting works here. They broadcast both radio - NPR - and television - PBS. They don't carry advertising and are available to anyone who wants to tune in. 2 or 3 times a year they have 'pledge drives', scheduled for about 10 days (over 2 weekends). During programming they have pledge breaks where they beg you to call and subscribe, offering 'gifts' for various subscription levels. They watch like hawks who calls during which break of which program, and offer more programming according to the numbers. It's the ultimate feedback - people putting their money where their mouth is.
The government gives funding to set up and maintain the studio equipment - PBS always has the best equipped studios in town - and the quid pro quo is that PBS will produce high quality children's programming.
Other than that almost all programming funding is from folks who give to their local PBS/NPR station.
It works.
Will that be enough to get rates down? Probably not IMHO but it's not nothing. What would you rather she had said today and be realistic (ie leave the EU is not on the agenda)
I have about half a dozen books on my bookshelf dedicated to exactly how the UK could leave the EU so I really do not know why you keep banging on about defining what Out will look like. If you choose to bury your head in the sand that is up to you.
Do I think this is enough to get the numbers down as she suggests? No, I don't. But I'm simply saying that, for now, she has an excuse for not having got them down so far. We'll have to see what she can achieve over the next couple of years. TBH I'm not holding my breath. As long as the UK remains the most dynamic economy in Europe, people are going to want to come here and Brits are going to want to stay here rather than emigrate.
None of these account for the failure of May to do what she said she would do. Yet she trots out her same old speech on the siubject. Colour me unimpressed.
Being self-employed I take the hit on my own. I had an appointment recently that required me to cancel several clients. This was expensive, but BUPA is also expensive.
On the flip side, in lower-wage and insecure employment, people are often under severe pressure to turn up to work and there is a fear that time off to go to the doc could count as a "strike" against their name. This is really something that employment rights legislation should be combating, but for e.g. people on temp contracts etc the pressure of feeling you have to turn up" is always going to be there.
If taxes have to go up to make access to the NHS more convenient, that's something a lot of folk (including me) would be willing to stomach.
As someone who is still undecided on this, I have to say that both sides have done a poor job at spelling out what their vision is. I don't what the Remain side want the EU to look like, and I don't know what the Leave side want the FTA to look like.
Suspect Cameron was seething, because stuff like this undermines what he's worked very hard for - even if what May said reflects a widespread sentiment in the electorate.
(It's not about the content of the speech, by the way, nor the delivery, so much as the way everyone knew in advance how the thing would be reported. Even if that reportage is kneejerk and unfair.)
As I said what do you think she should have said instead that would be within her remit.
http://www.efta.int/about-efta/european-free-trade-association
A commercial broadcaster could quite easily run that type of show.
To me her speech seemed to be seeking to balance a few competing interests - the manifesto commitment, the public demand for change but the simultaneous demand for action for refugees and the refugees welcome chants. I loved for instance the suggestion that the government will assist those who've said they'll open their homes to be able to actually do so. Let's see how many follow up with that claim now!
That she is being criticised for going too far and not far enough simultaneously is noteworthy. I'm not sure what point isam is trying to make posting that headline.
Ooops http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13806548.Alex_Salmond_comes_under_fire_from_Catalonia_s_independentistes/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/29/richard-tyndall-on-laying-the-groundwork-for-an-out-vote/
explicitly argue that we should sign up to the EEA. Fair enough, but you can't argue that and simultaneously use immigration as an argument in favour of leaving the EU.
Others don't say that, but talk of negotiating a trade treaty, never explaining how a trade treaty involving a free market in services (crucial to us, not important to our EU friends) could be achieved without signing up to a Swiss-style deal.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/651509292416245760
As for being outvoted I concede this is my single greatest worry with the EU and the reform I most desire is a change to QMV. I don't expect it but if we get that I'd change from probably stay to almost definitely stay. If we don't I'd become more 55-45.
As for going too far. Yes those areas you mentioned. I support our armed forces and don't want to see them ever abolished and merged into some continental army where the EU decides matters of war.
Chic-Fil-A opened its first New York restaurant this week
This week, McDonald's starts serving breakfast all day
Seen the pix on my FB of the new puppy - Bernie (not Sanders!!!! Bernoulli for his seeming ability to fly like superman over tall grass)? Tiny next to the cat, let alone Aoife.
Mrs Thatcher, mark 2.
The German polls are still extremely stable, but there's a slight erosion in the parties in government (CDU and SPD) in favour of the far left (up to 10%) and anti-immigrant right (AfD up to 6%).