Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
I've only called you an arsehole. I explained why. I stand by that judgement.
I've given clear reasons why the "send 'em back" brigade haven't got a solution - there's nowhere to send 'em back to.
And you have now called me that 4 times simply for asking why you don't personally want to do more for these unfortunate people. You've given no reasonable responses to any of the points made this morning - choosing instead to hurl abuse at reasonable criticisms. Now if you had more imagination you could have 'Scharma'd' me and called me...'suburban'. Heigh ho it's better than 'tory scum'.
I personally want to do a lot for these people. I have no intention of discussing how with some arsehole off the internet (and if for example I announced that I had personally donated a large sum of money and was putting up 20 migrants at my own expense, I would without a pause be accused of virtue signalling by the exact same cretins who had been posing the question). It has nothing to do with what the nation should do.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
Yes, the first wave didn't have a massive wave of immigration just before it, whereas a second wave comes on top of having to address the first one.
But your agenda is transparently obvious, so I shall not engage with your pathetic slurs any more.
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
But even that CBC today poll you cite shows only 20 seats in it - that's a very small margin of I still see this as a value bet.
You are correct that the performance of the NDP is critical. But the Tory base is also loyal, and well-organised, and I don't see them dropping beneath 110 seats in almost any circumstances - bar a 1997 wipeout.
I see a Liberal majority as far too big an ask - it'd require over 135 gains, and I don't think they have the infrastructure for that.
The Tories are on about the same total in both projections, 119 seats or 120, the difference is that CBC has the Liberals picking up more seats from the NDP, which given present polling looks correct. I would also be suspicious of any election projection forecast which ignores election polls completely, Canadian polls do tend to be reasonably accurate
I would agree that the Tories are unlikely to drop below 110 seats and you are correct about the NDP. If the NDP collapse to the 37 seats or so they got in 2008 and their vote switches en masse to Trudeau then the Liberals could get close to or even surpass the 170 seats they need for a majority. CBC presently having the Liberals on 140 seats and the NDP on 74 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
And you mean we don't have any?
You might like to look at some economic indicators then.
I mean it is not necessary to fetishise austerity.
And how long will those figures last? What if millions more then come, seeing that Britain has relented and offers a route in with migrants happily sharing pictures on social media of their pleasant arrival in Folkestone on their iPhones? What then?
We are taking 20,000 from the camps directly over the next five years. If there's a massive deterioration, those figures can be revised, but they must always be taken 'from source' and we must return immigrants to their point of embarkation.
No incentive, no reward and no encouragement whatsoever to landing in Europe.
That's a spectacular amount of whataboutery. A proposal has been made right now. It looks pretty modest.
If circumstances change, we can consider new proposals then.
To be clear, I am, as I always have been, very strongly in favour of supporting the refugees in camps in the region. Britain has done well there, unlike other EU states. The long term solution lies in the Middle East. But we have a pressing short term problem to address in Europe.
It isn't whatabouttery. It's actuallyhappeningnowterry. It's simple cause and effect, not speculation.
Circumstances will never change with your highly naive approach. They will just deteriorate.
The pool of those who would like a better life here is virtually limitless - potentially in the hundreds of millions.
I will start listening to you seriously when you come up with a proposal to staunch the flow first, before then deciding how we address the plight of those less fortunate than us.
Until then, I will ignore you on this matter, and hope you stick to betting. Good day.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.
And that's why a sensible discussion is often impossible on this point.
That's exactly how they arrive here: we invite them in, greet them, herd them into buses and trains, post guards and medics along the way, and put them into temporary camps.
There's no reason why the same process can't work in reverse.
There is: the Turks are under no obligation to take them.
Antifrank: the lack of legal obligation works both ways though. We aren't under a legal obligation to take these people either, particularly when a significant number of them are not refugees in any case. Your argument is that we have a moral duty to help - but that equally applies to Turkey and other countries surrounding Syria.
If we base the argument on moral duty, then that does not just apply to us. Part of the irritation with the Bishops is that they seem to behave as if only the UK has some sort of moral duty and that it has been shirking it when it is at least arguable that (a) it has done more than other countries in terms of practical help; and (b) those countries which encourage people to risk death in trying to come here and which take no or little account of their own citizens' wishes are not being particularly moral either.
Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon are very fully meeting their moral duty to help, on a scale that dwarfs that undertaken by any EU country.
They are. And we should provide assistance to them, as we are doing. But as I have said before there are plenty of other countries in the region, with an equal moral duty, who are not. And we should not let them off the hook.
Why don't you name them ? E.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. All our "friends". We don't want to upset them , do we ?
Speaking of which, why does not Israel take on some Syrian Christians , for example ?
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years?
Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more.
The desire by some for us to take more because it'll make us feel better is the foreign policy equivalent of Carmen Batmanghelidjh[sp] hugging children and giving them £70,000 a year as therapy. Do that, and every kid on the block will turn up for their therapeutic cash instalment. Do that, and everyone from a country not as nice as the UK or Germany will flood the continent.
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
But even that CBC today poll you cite shows only 20 seats in it - that's a very small margin of I still see this as a value bet.
The Tories are on about the same total in both projections, 119 seats or 120, the difference is that CBC has the Liberals picking up more seats from the NDP, which given present polling looks accurate. I would also be suspicious of any election projection forecast which ignores election polls completely, Canadian polls do tend to be reasonably accurate
I would agree that the Tories are unlikely to drop below 110 seats and you are correct about the NDP. If the NDP collapse to the 37 seats or so they got in 2008 and their vote switches en masse to Trudeau then the Liberals could get close to or even surpass the 170 seats they need for a majority. CBC presently having the Liberals on 140 seats and the NDP on 74 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008
You fail to point out there that everyone underestimated the Tories last time by quite some way.
They got 39.6%.
So they were underestimated by 2.6%, 3.6% and 5.6% on those final polls. That's quite a chunk. If it's the same level of error this time, the Tories will be ahead on seats.
It's a brave man who relies solely on a polling surge in the last ten days. I don't say you're wrong, but I do think there's value in the betting for Tories most seats.
I agree with you that Harper's days are probably numbered.
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible (you can read reports of children being tortured and beheaded for being Christian) - simply for being Christian (regardless of how devout or not they are) and not Muslim. The same applies to Yazidis. To ignore this fact is shameful. We have to prioritise and I would put these groups in a higher priority precisely because of the very high risks they face. There may well be others - groups or individuals - who are also at very high risk. But to ignore the persecution of this group - as a lot of people want to do - is to show a lack of morality and compassion.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.
I
But Afghanistan is not exactly safe is it? It is racked by a Civil War that is a consequence of us being defeated by the Taliban. Somalia is not safe and has no functional government. Yemen is also at war with brutal massacres by both sides. Southern Sudan is bandit country. Iraq is a battle field where people get murdered and raped for being the wrong type of Islamist. The list goes on and on. At the moment Syria has scale and size forcing us to give it attention but, ultimately, why are those from these other countries less deserving?
We cannot take everyone from every god awful country in the world. We can't. And there are real problems, frankly, with taking people who have come from the sort of countries where there are civil wars, no functional governments, brutal massacres, bandits at loose and 57 varieties of Islamists. All these things are not things that fall out of the sky - they are the consequences of the actions, non-actions and cultures and world views of those same people. Letting those people in risks letting in the problems they are fleeing from. To put it bluntly, the people who come from the cesspits full of war and banditry and massacres are not without some responsibility from the fact that their countries have ended up in such a mess. At some level, people get the governments they deserve. If Somalia and Eritrea and such bloody awful places, tough as it may seem to say so, that has something - probably quite a lot to do - with Somalians and Eritreans and how they have organised their lives and societies.
God, you are so right. As are Sean Fear and JEO.
Antifrank, DavidL and Nick Palmer are wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong and fundamentally wrong.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
I had not realised that you are too a little Scotlander ! About a 10th of the size of a little Englander.
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
We are already the fastest growing major developed nation, what kind of growth do you propose that we don't already have? A new bubble?
Not that growth can get rid of structural deficits.
Ireland is growing far faster than UK. So is the USA.
World Bank data puts us ahead of the USA but even were we to be second to the USA we are still running at or about out long term trend growth rate. So growth is not an alternative, since what we already have can not be an alternative.
This thread is all about how some labour MP's view their consciences and their voters. If I know anything about MP's, they will glue their bums to their seats come what may, and if any do resign the whip they will not put themselves up for re-election in this parliament. The likes of Liam Byrne resigning because of Corbyn is farcical.
Sure. Repatriating people is difficult and expensive. We should help them with that too.
I'm with DavidL and antifrank on this one - we are ignoring a humanitarian crisis inside European borders if we neglect refugees in Europe because we fear a hypothetical risk that it might encourage others if we did. That is the kind of thinking which was originally applied against the Poor Law - if you give the poor shelter in workhouses, it will only encourage others to claim. It might be true, but the level of the crisis makes such speculation secondary.
And no offence - Cyclefree and I have managed to disagree totally on these things without any personal disrespect and I hope it will continue - I also think it's a truly awful idea to attempt selectively to help Christian refugees. How would this be done, even if it was desirable? Would we test refugees on their knowledge of the catechism? Would we really ignore the suffering of a sick refugee because the healthy refugee in the next bed ticked the right religious box? If the idea is that the Christian refugee might have a higher risk if sent back, the test should be level of risk, not purported religious belief. And if it's to weed out Islamic fanatics, I'm sure ISIS is capable of giving some confiscated Bibles and crucifixes to its agents.
What humanitarian crisis inside European borders? 4% of refugees have made it to Europe, they are in safe western nations now. There is no crisis there.
96% of the refugees are still in or around Syria. That's 24 refugees for every one in Europe and they are not in safe western conditions. That is the true crisis.
To give a single penny or a single home to assist those who are already in Europe means the Opportunity Cost of denying that assistance to those who truly need it. What possible reason do we have to prioritise the needs of those already safe versus the needs of those who are truly destitute and desperate?
Do we prioritise saving lives, or do we prioritise giving a far smaller number a Western standard of living?
Probably a bit of both. But if it were either/or my overall priority would be saving lives.
The reason I prioritise them and the Yazidis is that they are facing very real persecution and extermination in their home countries. There is very little chance - in the short term - that they will be able to return even when the fighting has stopped. There was a recent very good article by Patrick Cockburn who visited some parts of Syria where Christian villages had been retaken from Islamists but where the previous Christian inhabitants were still too afraid to return and unlikely to do so. So they have literally nowhere to go if we don't take them in and will in all likely be exterminated. If we're interested in what Bishops have to say, let's listen to those who really know like the Bishop of Aleppo or those in Iraq and elsewhere.
Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws. We are giving refuge to individuals who, because of their religion, are being persecuted. That seems to me exactly what we should be doing. I argued the same thing when Muslims were being persecuted in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
"Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws."
No, it's exactly what you're doing.
And the problem is that the situation's much more complex than the one-dimensional picture that seems to be your view of the region.
For instance, this claim from Amnesty that Kurds - obviously a group under threat - are razing villages they capture from IS. Should we take Muslims who've been forced out of those villages?
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
David - thanks for your spin-less answer to my question on whether the SNP failures in government were resonating with the public. I was at the movies seeing The Martian (which I wholeheartedly recommend) and came out to the excitement of a 13% Tory lead, missing the post somewhat!
I see the latest poll sees the Tories taking over as official opposition in Holyrood. About time too.
LOL, yes half a dozen consolation list seats is really encouraging. Will they win even one real seat, and your leader knifing someone in Edinburgh to get on the list there as they don't even expect one list seat there. Deader than Dodo's.
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years?
As I wrote earlier, I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k Poles came into this country and helped us grow faster than the rest of Europe.
Just for the record, Poles are invariably white and Christian as they keep reminding everyone else.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.
I honestly struggle with that because I frankly don't get it. I would be interested to hear the views of those that did. Nick has sort of explained but I find his reasoning on this difficult to follow.
[snip for length]
I think there is much that Labour can do on social mobility, the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, structural investment planning (where Osborne has of course pinched their idea because it was a good one) and housing but it has to be done in a context where money is extremely short. This requires the sort of hard thinking that I don't believe Corbyn is even capable of conceiving let alone doing.
Thank you for that reply. I have said before that I think Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Its members have had what they've never had before, 13 years continuously in government. And they didn't like it. A few d...
I'll have another go. I don't know any Labour people who are positively against good management or think that huge deficits are a fine thing. And I think that most of us would accept that good management of the economy is a necessary precondition of everything else. But Innocent is right that we don't see it as the main purpose, but just as a precondition for the main purpose, which is social justice and greater equality of outcomes (including but not restricted to equality of opportunity). Unless we start from that basis, as Corbyn does, it's a waste of time to talk about preconditions.
I'm under no illusions that it's easy to win on that basis. But unless we have something we think valuable to achieve, I'm not that interested in whether we win or not.
So economic growth is secondary to helping people get the same outcomes? I get that as a point. I don't see how it is affordable without a) unlimited borrowing and b) massive expropriation of wealth.
Nick - I wonder how you would have answered the question directed to Caroline Lucas in Parliament this week. When should we stop borrowing?
You may wonder why it did not occur to the comprehensive lobby that schools embedded in a “neighbourhood” community were inevitably going to be socially narrow, class-based, and self-limiting – prisoners of the street culture and low expectations of local households. I have to tell you that they were fully aware of this: it was part of the plan.
The comprehensive movement was one aspect of a wider educational philosophy which preached anti-elitism and veneration for the “equally valid” working-class culture which was to be regarded as inviolate...Mercifully, there are fewer and fewer people who talk this way now, and most of them are talking to themselves, confined as they are within the Corbyn asylum.
It is possible Harper could make it tighter than most of the polls suggest, it is also possible the NDP vote could collapse further giving Trudeau an outside chance of a majority
But even that CBC today poll you cite shows only 20 seats in it - that's a very small margin of I still see this as a value bet.
The Tories are on about the same total in both projections, 119 seats or 120, the difference is that CBC has the Liberals picking up more seats from the NDP, which given present polling looks accurate. I would also be suspicious of any election projection forecast which ignores election polls completely, Canadian polls do tend to be reasonably accurate
For example here were the last 3 polls in 2011
Nanos Tories 37% Liberals 21% NDP 31%
Forum Tories 36% Liberals 19% NDP 33%
EKOS Tories 34% Liberals 21% NDP 31%
The result was Tories 39% Liberals 18% NDP 30%
I would agr
You fail to point out there that everyone underestimated the Tories last time by quite some way.
They got 39.6%.
So they were underestimated by 2.6%, 3.6% and 5.6% on those final polls. That's quite a chunk. If it's the same level of error this time, the Tories will be ahead on seats.
It's a brave man who relies solely on a polling surge in the last ten days. I don't say you're wrong, but I do think there's value in the betting for Tories most seats.
I agree with you that Harper's days are probably numbered.
It is all about momentum, Harper had a clear lead and momentum in 2011 and did slightly better than the final polls had it, Trudeau now has a clear lead and momentum in 2015 and may well do slightly better than the final polls have it but we shall see. Even if the Tories were underestimated by 2 or 3% they would still be on only about 33/34%, way off a majority and probably still likely to fall short on most seats. As the NDP have refused to back a Harper government even if Harper did get most seats, helped by the NDP vote holding firm, he is unlikely to have the numbers to form a new government anyway as you suggest
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
Does your TV block out women and children ?
They are in a very small minority unless you have special rosy coloured specs on that transform men to women and children.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
On topic if I was an MP on the right (of Labour) then I would absolutely not resign the whip, I would batten down the hatches and try and ride out Corbynism until its inevitable demise. Realistically even if Corbyn survives five years he is gone after the election (barring a dramatic General Election victory). If Corbyn's Labour does dreadfully at the General Election (worse than Foot would be my guess) then surely even the Labour Party would learn its lesson and elect a Kinnock style character.
If Corbyn himself can survive decades in the wilderness of the backbenchers then the likes of Danczuk etc can survive five years.
The exception would be if deselection became real. At that point resign the whip and stand as an independent, like Livingstone did to Blair.
The reason I prioritise them and the Yazidis is that they are facing very real persecution and extermination in their home countries. There is very little chance - in the short term - that they will be able to return even when the fighting has stopped. There was a recent very good article by Patrick Cockburn who visited some parts of Syria where Christian villages had been retaken from Islamists but where the previous Christian inhabitants were still too afraid to return and unlikely to do so. So they have literally nowhere to go if we don't take them in and will in all likely be exterminated. If we're interested in what Bishops have to say, let's listen to those who really know like the Bishop of Aleppo or those in Iraq and elsewhere.
Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws. We are giving refuge to individuals who, because of their religion, are being persecuted. That seems to me exactly what we should be doing. I argued the same thing when Muslims were being persecuted in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
"Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws."
No, it's exactly what you're doing.
And the problem is that the situation's much more complex than the one-dimensional picture that seems to be your view of the region.
For instance, this claim from Amnesty that Kurds - obviously a group under threat - are razing villages they capture from IS. Should we take Muslims who've been forced out of those villages?
It's an absolute mess. And picking people on the basis of religion does not seem a very good criteria.
Bringing people in because they are at risk does not bring more religion into our laws. That is entirely within our control. I am arguing for prioritising people on the basis of risk. And being a Christian or a Yazidi in some parts of Islamist-controlled parts of this area is to be at very high risk. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
In an area where religion does very much determine your life chances and may put you at risk, very severe risk, it is beyond absurd to ignore that fact when deciding whom to prioritise in the help we are able to bring.
Other groups, such as the ones you mention, may also be at risk. But the fact that there are so many multiple problems where last year's victim may well end up being tomorrow's oppressor, is precisely why a "let's let all the poor people in" without some hard thinking is so pathetic, lacking in morality and likely to as much harm as good.
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years?
As I wrote earlier, I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k Poles came into this country and helped us grow faster than the rest of Europe.
Just for the record, Poles are invariably white and Christian as they keep reminding everyone else.
I recall you and the rest of the Labour party shouting "British Jobs For British Workers" back in 2007.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
I'm guessing few on here would disagree that taking in immigrants who are 'house trained' (an awful phrase to use, btw), schooled and ready for work is good.
Sadly, to do that we need to differentiate between them and the immigrants who do not meet those criteria. Or are you saying that all immigrants meet those criteria automagically?
And I'm glad you agree with the government's plans to remove child benefits from the third and more child, to hopefully discourage women from having their twelfth child.
Mr. Roger, apart from the cost, social cohesion, highly dangerous journeys, enriching people smugglers, and encouraging more as increasing numbers of people from various countries decide to follow suit?
Also, your population point only makes sense if you sterilise migrants, which is not something I'd support.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
I had not realised that you are too a little Scotlander ! About a 10th of the size of a little Englander.
I had not realized that you were a bleeding heart liberal do gooder who wanted to harm people rather than help them. You and your ilk only help the criminals and the fit young male economic migrants, to the detriment of the real refugees who need assistance. All our efforts and cash are now being spent helping these economic migrants select the country of their choice and assisting the criminals to make a fortune. The criminals don't even need to buy decent boats as we are funding the pick up and delivery of the cargoes they have charged for. Your need to feel virtuous is making you deluded.
The Tories are on about the same total in both projections, 119 seats or 120, the difference is that CBC has the Liberals picking up more seats from the NDP, which given present polling looks accurate. I would also be suspicious of any election projection forecast which ignores election polls completely, Canadian polls do tend to be reasonably accurate
I would agree that the Tories are unlikely to drop below 110 seats and you are correct about the NDP. If the NDP collapse to the 37 seats or so they got in 2008 and their vote switches en masse to Trudeau then the Liberals could get close to or even surpass the 170 seats they need for a majority. CBC presently having the Liberals on 140 seats and the NDP on 74 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008
You fail to point out there that everyone underestimated the Tories last time by quite some way.
They got 39.6%.
So they were underestimated by 2.6%, 3.6% and 5.6% on those final polls. That's quite a chunk. If it's the same level of error this time, the Tories will be ahead on seats.
It's a brave man who relies solely on a polling surge in the last ten days. I don't say you're wrong, but I do think there's value in the betting for Tories most seats.
I agree with you that Harper's days are probably numbered.
Do Canadian Tories also lie to the Pollsters ? What's the matter with you lot ? Why are you so ashamed to say you are a Tory ?
Underlying the vote is the more fundamental problem for Labour: what does it offer in an age of austerity? Austerity will not end when the budget deficit goes (if it does), it needs to address the debt.
Alternatives to austerity might include economic growth.
And you mean we don't have any?
You might like to look at some economic indicators then.
I mean it is not necessary to fetishise austerity.
There is no austerity. I keep posting the public spending figures, but I can't be arsed to keep doing it. Government spending is going up, not down.
Even if that's true, so what? It is very possible to think that the EU is a very flawed institution that could be made better while simultaneously thinking that despite the flaws we are better in than out.
Cameron could have four years ago said we will have an immediate referendum to settle the issue and he is backing in. Instead he's taken the opportunity of the referendum to try and improve the EU first - that is a sensible move for anyone who supports in unless they think the EU is completely perfect already (which would mean you are delusional).
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
a) a newspaper report on how Merkel's our doors are open plea to migrants is resonating throughout some awfully disadvantaged region of the world b) claims that there is no evidence that letting large numbers of refugees and migrants into Europe would encourage more to come.
This isn't even a situation where hindsight would be of benefit. It is a situation where basic literacy would be of benefit. And taking off those blinkers, too.
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.
.
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
Ship them back to where they came from or put them in a camp somewhere till you find out.
Great to agree with you MalcG - he keeps asking the same question and ignores the answer or calls them arseholes - nice man!
Does not take a rocket scientist to know that if you rescue them and help their passage , every man and their dog from everywhere is going to head for Eldorado. Has been proven many times that the only way to discourage this is tough love. Shipped back ASAP or interned in a camp. The majority that you see on TV are not Syrian and are almost exclusively young men , all economic migrants who should not be there. As ever the bleeding heart liberals are making sure real refugees do not get help by wanting to throw money at millions and millions of economic migrants , most of whom will have shoved refugees out of the way. Soft thick headed whinging liberals will be the ruination of this country.
I had not realised that you are too a little Scotlander ! About a 10th of the size of a little Englander.
I had not realized that you were a bleeding heart liberal do gooder who wanted to harm people rather than help them. You and your ilk only help the criminals and the fit young male economic migrants, to the detriment of the real refugees who need assistance. All our efforts and cash are now being spent helping these economic migrants select the country of their choice and assisting the criminals to make a fortune. The criminals don't even need to buy decent boats as we are funding the pick up and delivery of the cargoes they have charged for. Your need to feel virtuous is making you deluded.
Bringing people in because they are at risk does not bring more religion into our laws. That is entirely within our control. I am arguing for prioritising people on the basis of risk. And being a Christian or a Yazidi in some parts of Islamist-controlled parts of this area is to be at very high risk. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
In an area where religion does very much determine your life chances and may put you at risk, very severe risk, it is beyond absurd to ignore that fact when deciding whom to prioritise in the help we are able to bring.
Other groups, such as the ones you mention, may also be at risk. But the fact that there are so many multiple problems where last year's victim may well end up being tomorrow's oppressor, is precisely why a "let's let all the poor people in" without some hard thinking is so pathetic, lacking in morality and likely to as much harm as good.
Again, I disagree. By selecting on the basis of religion - as you keep on arguing for by mentioning 'Christians' - is putting religion into our laws. Worse, it simplifies what is an exceptionally complex situation and makes the groups you discriminate for automatically better than the ones you do not.
And BTW, I'm not arguing for "Let's let all the poor people in."
Do Canadian Tories also lie to the Pollsters ? What's the matter with you lot ? Why are you so ashamed to say you are a Tory ?
I thought we'd settled on a view it was lazy Labour rather than shy Tories that was the issue.
But if it is shyness, I suppose the widely repeated view that the Tories are evil that is the issue. We're not, but if every time we open our mouths we're told we are then why should we tell anyone what we really think?
Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible (you can read reports of children being tortured and beheaded for being Christian) - simply for being Christian (regardless of how devout or not they are) and not Muslim. The same applies to Yazidis. To ignore this fact is shameful. We have to prioritise and I would put these groups in a higher priority precisely because of the very high risks they face. There may well be others - groups or individuals - who are also at very high risk. But to ignore the persecution of this group - as a lot of people want to do - is to show a lack of morality and compassion.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
Well, perhaps we're making a distinction without a difference. I favour the current doctrine (embraced in principle by all civilised governments) that priority should be given to refugees most at risk. You say, and you may well be right, that this will often turn out to be Christians. In such cases, we should give priority to them - not because they're Christian, which is a matter on which we should be neutral in this context, but because they're at extreme risk. If we find someone else at equally high risk (an atheist, say, or a Muslim with the wrong sort of belief for fundamentalists), they should get the same high priority. Someone with views that ISIS would consider uncontroversial would clearly get lower priority.
The reason I prioritise them and the Yazidis is that they are facing very real persecution and extermination in their home countries. There is very little chance - in the short term - that they will be able to return even when the fighting has stopped. There was a recent very good article by Patrick Cockburn who visited some parts of Syria where Christian villages had been retaken from Islamists but where the previous Christian inhabitants were still too afraid to return and unlikely to do so. So they have literally nowhere to go if we don't take them in and will in all likely be exterminated. .
"Second, I don't think by giving refuge to such groups we are bringing more religion into our state and laws."
No, it's exactly what you're doing.
And the problem is that the situation's much more complex than the one-dimensional picture that seems to be your view of the region.
For instance, this claim from Amnesty that Kurds - obviously a group under threat - are razing villages they capture from IS. Should we take Muslims who've been forced out of those villages?
It's an absolute mess. And picking people on the basis of religion does not seem a very good criteria.
Bringing people in because they are at risk does not bring more religion into our laws. That is entirely within our control. I am arguing for prioritising people on the basis of risk. And being a Christian or a Yazidi in some parts of Islamist-controlled parts of this area is to be at very high risk. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
In an area where religion does very much determine your life chances and may put you at risk, very severe risk, it is beyond absurd to ignore that fact when deciding whom to prioritise in the help we are able to bring.
Other groups, such as the ones you mention, may also be at risk. But the fact that there are so many multiple problems where last year's victim may well end up being tomorrow's oppressor, is precisely why a "let's let all the poor people in" without some hard thinking is so pathetic, lacking in morality and likely to as much harm as good.
While Lebanon, Israel and Egypt have significant Christian minorities, and Georgia and Armenia Christian majorities, the prospects for Christian refugees elsewhere in the region are frying pan to fire. There are multiple Muslim majority states that could demonstrate the worldwide unity of their faith by absorbing refugees. Bishops supporting fellow Christians seems very laudable to me!
Christian and Yazidi refugees should get priority for settlement, though even these communities have significant social issues with "honour" killings etc.
Any suggestion that we can comfortably absorb more migrants is an implicit admission that the supposed problems with housing, education, the health service etc are insignificant, overblown or unreal.
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
David - thanks for your spin-less answer to my question on whether the SNP failures in government were resonating with the public. I was at the movies seeing The Martian (which I wholeheartedly recommend) and came out to the excitement of a 13% Tory lead, missing the post somewhat!
I see the latest poll sees the Tories taking over as official opposition in Holyrood. About time too.
LOL, yes half a dozen consolation list seats is really encouraging. Will they win even one real seat, and your leader knifing someone in Edinburgh to get on the list there as they don't even expect one list seat there. Deader than Dodo's.
I trust you saw the poll last night which indicates we may well take a seat from the Nats in the real (Westminster) elections in 2020.....
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
David - thanks for your spin-less answer to my question on whether the SNP failures in government were resonating with the public. I was at the movies seeing The Martian (which I wholeheartedly recommend) and came out to the excitement of a 13% Tory lead, missing the post somewhat!
I see the latest poll sees the Tories taking over as official opposition in Holyrood. About time too.
LOL, yes half a dozen consolation list seats is really encouraging. Will they win even one real seat, and your leader knifing someone in Edinburgh to get on the list there as they don't even expect one list seat there. Deader than Dodo's.
I trust you saw the poll last night which indicates we may well take a seat from the Nats in the real (Westminster) elections in 2020.....
Any suggestion that we can comfortably absorb more migrants is an implicit admission that the supposed problems with housing, education, the health service etc are insignificant, overblown or unreal.
Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible (you can read reports of children being tortured and beheaded for being Christian) - simply for being Christian (regardless of how devout or not they are) and not Muslim. The same applies to Yazidis. To ignore this fact is shameful. We have to prioritise and I would put these groups in a higher priority precisely because of the very high risks they face. There may well be others - groups or individuals - who are also at very high risk. But to ignore the persecution of this group - as a lot of people want to do - is to show a lack of morality and compassion.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
Well, perhaps we're making a distinction without a difference. I favour the current doctrine (embraced in principle by all civilised governments) that priority should be given to refugees most at risk. You say, and you may well be right, that this will often turn out to be Christians. In such cases, we should give priority to them - not because they're Christian, which is a matter on which we should be neutral in this context, but because they're at extreme risk. If we find someone else at equally high risk (an atheist, say, or a Muslim with the wrong sort of belief for fundamentalists), they should get the same high priority. Someone with views that ISIS would consider uncontroversial would clearly get lower priority.
Can we agree on that?
Its not often that the Express has an article as good as this:
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
Any suggestion that we can comfortably absorb more migrants is an implicit admission that the supposed problems with housing, education, the health service etc are insignificant, overblown or unreal.
Or that the numbers of migrants being talked about are a rounding error of insignificance for us to absorb. 2000 babies a day are born in the UK and we're talking about bringing in an average of 11 people a day. We're not even talking 1%.
The Tories are on about the same total in both projections, 119 seats or 120, the difference is that CBC has the Liberals picking up more seats from the NDP, which given present polling looks accurate. P 33%
You fail to point out there that everyone underestimated the Tories last time by quite some way.
They got 39.6%.
So they were underestimated by 2.6%, 3.6% and 5.6% on those final polls. That's quite a chunk. If it's the same level of error this time, the Tories will be ahead on seats.
It's a brave man who relies solely on a polling surge in the last ten days. I don't say you're wrong, but I do think there's value in the betting for Tories most seats.
I agree with you that Harper's days are probably numbered.
Do Canadian Tories also lie to the Pollsters ? What's the matter with you lot ? Why are you so ashamed to say you are a Tory ?
Shy Tories only occur with dull centre left leaders in my theory in a tight election eg. Ed Miliband or Isaac Herzog or leaders seen as not credible e.g. Kinnock. Charismatic centre left leaders e.g. Obama and Tsipras and probably Trudeau often even outperform final polling
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
"Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible"
I'm sure they are as are many others if the Assad regime falls. I really can't understand why Assad isn't getting more support. Fortunately if this becomes a possibility most will be able to cross the Becaa Valley where they will be welcomed into East Beirut
I am absolutely in favour of the government's policy of helping and supporting refugees in the proximity to Syria. It is not only cost effective, it creates the best chance of the huge numbers actually going home one day. Cameron has finally found something genuinely useful to do with our aid budget which has a direct benefit for us and he is to be commended for it.
But that is the easy bit. What do we do with those already here? Again agreeing Merkel was an idiot and that her original position was extremely foolish is the easy bit. It does not answer the question.
I agree with Cyclefree that we cannot provide a haven for all the failed countries of the world. Once you accept that must be so, however, you get to the more difficult bit again: where do we draw the line? Our laws on refugees are simply not close to being fit for purpose in the modern world. The Dublin Convention which removes our obligations once the refugee reaches the first safe country was built on the assumption that first country could cope.
These are genuinely difficult questions. If there were easy answers we would have found them. People accuse me of seeking to muddle through. I plead guilty. We have to do the best we can and recognise that it won't be enough, not nearly.
"Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible"
I'm sure they are as are many others if the Assad regime falls. I really can't understand why Assad isn't getting more support. Fortunately if this becomes a possibility most will be able to cross the Becaa Valley where they will be welcomed into East Beirut
The moment Assad falls the entire Alewite community as well as the Christians of West Syria will become instant refugees.
Little is mentioned here that because the Assad regime is secular, Christians prefer him to some fundamentalists !
"Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible"
I'm sure they are as are many others if the Assad regime falls. I really can't understand why Assad isn't getting more support. Fortunately if this becomes a possibility most will be able to cross the Becaa Valley where they will be welcomed into East Beirut
The only long term solution is to divide the country up. Let the Alawites run a state in the West, and let Sunni Muslims have their own, non-ISIS run state in the East.
Did we discuss here on PB that the country where 5000 British and US and allied soldiers died and we helped install a Shia-led government [ Iraq ] is now in a military pact along with Iran, Syria and Russia.
Also enrage all the Sunni's in the meantime.
When that tyrant's statue was pulled down, who would have thunk that ?
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
A lot of people on between 40k and 50k a year are families with young kids, with one parent working as a professional and the other taking a year off. Given they are already struggling with student loans and housing costs, a 30% tax rate there would pretty much finish them off from living in London. We already have a massive brain drain of people in their and early 30s who realise that living in damp, congested London is a poor deal compared to what can be got in the USA and Australia.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
Mortimer, you asked how I'd respond on "when should we stop borrowing?" I assume you mean "stop increasing the deficit", since we've had a national debt for centuries? Reasonably soon, say 2020, I'd suggest.
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
Thanks for replying Nick - very kind of you. Does it not worry you that we'll likely have a cyclical downturn by 2020? It scares me rigid.
It is interesting examine the the rhetoric, sometimes.
What strikes me most about your post is that you see the tax credit changes as 'slashing tax credits for low paid workers' as bad, although the current system keeps people in poverty by creating a wealth trap dis-incentivising full time or multiple job working amongst the worse off - i.e. a suboptimal use of resources amongst those who can afford least to be suboptimal.
Whilst also wanting to tax assets because they're often suboptimal uses of resources.
I won't even get (properly) started on the tax increases (assuming you're ignoring the PA and actually wanting to create a whole new band of 30% taxation amongst the aspirational middle classes - in which I include myself; grammar school lad, second person in my family to go to Uni, first to Oxbridge). But I'm sure raising taxes on teachers, higher paid nurses and policemen, along with most Doctors, would be really popular in the Midlands marginals.
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
"While Lebanon, Israel and Egypt have significant Christian minorities, and Georgia and Armenia Christian majorities,"
shortly after the last Lebanese war they reckoned the population was roughly 50/50 Christian Muslim and as part of the settlement they tried to split the government in those proportions (Christian President Muslim PM etc.) Since then the Muslims have been breeding at a much faster rate which is now skewing the percentages which is causing some serious worry.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
There are several problems with this. The first is that many immigrants are a lot less skilled than the average UK child. The second is that it takes time to integrate immigrants, so if your population has too many of them it reduces national cohesiveness and erodes the functioning of democracy into ethnic bloc voting. The third is that immigrants overwhelmingly head to London, causing excessive congestion in an already congested part of the country, whereas natural population growth is more widespread across the UK.
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years?
People like yourself and nick Palmer would not be as enthusiastic to take them in that's for sure
Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible (you can read reports of children being tortured and beheaded for being Christian) - simply for being Christian (regardless of how devout or not they are) and not Muslim. The same applies to Yazidis. To ignore this fact is shameful. We have to prioritise and I would put these groups in a higher priority precisely because of the very high risks they face. There may well be others - groups or individuals - who are also at very high risk. But to ignore the persecution of this group - as a lot of people want to do - is to show a lack of morality and compassion.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
Well, perhaps we're making a distinction without a difference. I favour the current doctrine (embraced in principle by all civilised governments) that priority should be given to refugees most at risk. You say, and you may well be right, that this will often turn out to be Christians. In such cases, we should give priority to them - not because they're Christian, which is a matter on which we should be neutral in this context, but because they're at extreme risk. If we find someone else at equally high risk (an atheist, say, or a Muslim with the wrong sort of belief for fundamentalists), they should get the same high priority. Someone with views that ISIS would consider uncontroversial would clearly get lower priority.
Can we agree on that?
Do we actually do anything to enact your last sentence? Right now, as long as you haven't actively signed up to a terrorist group or a preacher, I understand you could be a die-hard Islamist and it wouldn't count against you getting into the UK.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
Crikey, the feminists would have a fit. The idea that a couple should be treated as a couple for tax (and benefit) purposes would be seen as a return to the time when a woman was held to be no more than a chattel and her income and property the possession of her husband.
Your suggestion might indeed be fairer and have positive social consequences but no government will ever dare propose it. Just look at the fuss when Cameron suggested a married couple's' tax allowance, which he has still failed to introduce.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
Cutting working tax credits does contrast with cutting Inheritance tax for over a million.
Tax Credits are complicated for many. The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
Cutting working tax credits does contrast with cutting Inheritance tax for over a million.
Tax Credits are complicated for many. The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
I can also guarantee that those who are shouting, we can't take anymore will keep quiet.
I am not sure Carson would be welcomed though despite his views. Trump would be.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
Cutting working tax credits does contrast with cutting Inheritance tax for over a million.
Tax Credits are complicated for many. The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
I'm always confused whether the argument with immigration is about numbers or whether it's about the cultural background of the immigrants. I wonder whether there would be the same reaction if there were thousands of Australians Canadians and South African whites looking for shelter? Would we then struggle to take 20,000 over five years?
People like yourself and nick Palmer would not be as enthusiastic to take them in that's for sure
If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
I can also guarantee that those who are shouting, we can't take anymore will keep quiet.
I am not sure Carson would be welcomed though despite his views. Trump would be.
I would certainly be protesting if we had hundreds of thousands of white segregationists and apartheid-supporters coming to the UK.
Your unfounded allegations of racism towards anyone that disagrees with you shows the weak intellectual basis of the Labour Left, and also the nasty toxic notions that underpin it. Thankfully, the decent British public will reject Corbynism and everything it stands in no uncertain terms. I look forward to that complete and abject failure of your ideology with relish.
If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
I don't recall such apoplexy when 750k - 1m East European migrants [ legally though ] came to Britain. Yes, there were a few murmurs, UKIPs numbers went up to 3% in 2010 !
What's the difference between 750k Poles and 750k Syrians ? I can think of one.
The poles weren't illegal immigrants?
Good point. So your problem with not taking 750k Syrians has nothing to do with numbers but to do with legality ?
Off topic - Is £6.5k for a 4 kw solar system a fair price ?
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave!
Cutting working tax credits does contrast with cutting Inheritance tax for over a million.
Tax Credits are complicated for many. The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
Any suggestion that we can comfortably absorb more migrants is an implicit admission that the supposed problems with housing, education, the health service etc are insignificant, overblown or unreal.
Or that the numbers of migrants being talked about are a rounding error of insignificance for us to absorb. 2000 babies a day are born in the UK and we're talking about bringing in an average of 11 people a day. We're not even talking 1%.
Annual income £20/0/0- annual expenditure £19/19/11.5 - result happiness. Annual income £20/0/0 - annual expenditure £20/0/0.5 - result misery. DONT underestimate the effect on margins of only a small change in absolute values.
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
Crikey, the feminists would have a fit. The idea that a couple should be treated as a couple for tax (and benefit) purposes would be seen as a return to the time when a woman was held to be no more than a chattel and her income and property the possession of her husband.
Your suggestion might indeed be fairer and have positive social consequences but no government will ever dare propose it. Just look at the fuss when Cameron suggested a married couple's' tax allowance, which he has still failed to introduce.
The tax system would apply the same way if the female was the bread-winner. It would also help out a large number of women who have young children and feel terrible pressure between staying with their children and being forced to go back to work before they are ready. Anyone truly representing women should support such a measure.
Cameron's failure to introduce the married couple tax allowance so far has been a great shame, but now we have an unelectable Labour Party there is no reason not to introduce it. We should go further, so that the allowance also covers your partner's unused portion of the 20% tax band if you are paying 40%. That would be fairly simple to introduce.
We want to be the party of the family, and we need to have policies that back that up. We could introduce it at the same time as extending child care for working parents to show that we support families whatever choice they make.
Surbiton ... how many Poles have blown up trains and buses...this is the basis of most people fears and anger..
How many Syrians have blown up trains and buses in the UK ? OR , as far as you are concerned, Syrians and Pakistanis are the same. They look the same to you, don't they ?
The Pakistanis were born in the UK, by the way. Do you wish to deport them ?
Off topic - Is £6.5k for a 4 kw solar system a fair price ?
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
If hundreds of thousands of white God fearing right wing Americans from the Deep South and white Afrikaans South Africans were illegally immigrating to the UK it is unthinkable that those on the 'virtue signalling' side of the argument today would be saying the same as they are now
I can also guarantee that those who are shouting, we can't take anymore will keep quiet.
I am not sure Carson would be welcomed though despite his views. Trump would be.
I would certainly be protesting if we had hundreds of thousands of white segregationists and apartheid-supporters coming to the UK.
Your unfounded allegations of racism towards anyone that disagrees with you shows the weak intellectual basis of the Labour Left, and also the nasty toxic notions that underpin it. Thankfully, the decent British public will reject Corbynism and everything it stands in no uncertain terms. I look forward to that complete and abject failure of your ideology with relish.
I am not from the Labour left. I didn't vote for JC. I voted for Cooper and Burnham and then blanks.
Comments
But your agenda is transparently obvious, so I shall not engage with your pathetic slurs any more.
For example here were the last 3 polls in 2011
Nanos Tories 37% Liberals 21% NDP 31%
Forum Tories 36% Liberals 19% NDP 33%
EKOS Tories 34% Liberals 21% NDP 31%
The result was Tories 39% Liberals 18% NDP 30%
So Nanos and Forum were not far off, while EKOS significantly underestimated the Tories. Now it looks like the reverse with EKOS underestimating the Liberals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011
I would agree that the Tories are unlikely to drop below 110 seats and you are correct about the NDP. If the NDP collapse to the 37 seats or so they got in 2008 and their vote switches en masse to Trudeau then the Liberals could get close to or even surpass the 170 seats they need for a majority. CBC presently having the Liberals on 140 seats and the NDP on 74
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008
Circumstances will never change with your highly naive approach. They will just deteriorate.
The pool of those who would like a better life here is virtually limitless - potentially in the hundreds of millions.
I will start listening to you seriously when you come up with a proposal to staunch the flow first, before then deciding how we address the plight of those less fortunate than us.
Until then, I will ignore you on this matter, and hope you stick to betting. Good day.
We don't want to upset them , do we ?
Speaking of which, why does not Israel take on some Syrian Christians , for example ?
They got 39.6%.
So they were underestimated by 2.6%, 3.6% and 5.6% on those final polls. That's quite a chunk. If it's the same level of error this time, the Tories will be ahead on seats.
It's a brave man who relies solely on a polling surge in the last ten days. I don't say you're wrong, but I do think there's value in the betting for Tories most seats.
I agree with you that Harper's days are probably numbered.
It's almost as if some people (and I do not accuse you as I appreciate our polite disagreements) want to ignore the fact that people in these countries do suffer because they have the wrong religion in the wrong place in the wrong time. I think this is a factor which our politicians should take into account when deciding to whom to give refuge.
World Bank data puts us ahead of the USA but even were we to be second to the USA we are still running at or about out long term trend growth rate. So growth is not an alternative, since what we already have can not be an alternative.
This thread is all about how some labour MP's view their consciences and their voters. If I know anything about MP's, they will glue their bums to their seats come what may, and if any do resign the whip they will not put themselves up for re-election in this parliament. The likes of Liam Byrne resigning because of Corbyn is farcical.
No, it's exactly what you're doing.
And the problem is that the situation's much more complex than the one-dimensional picture that seems to be your view of the region.
For instance, this claim from Amnesty that Kurds - obviously a group under threat - are razing villages they capture from IS. Should we take Muslims who've been forced out of those villages?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34511134
It's an absolute mess. And picking people on the basis of religion does not seem a very good criteria.
Just for the record, Poles are invariably white and Christian as they keep reminding everyone else.
Nick - I wonder how you would have answered the question directed to Caroline Lucas in Parliament this week. When should we stop borrowing?
https://twitter.com/DavidJo52951945/status/655653117363625984
"Mr. Royale, you're spot on. Rewarding illegal and dangerous journeys will only encourage more."
What is your problem with taking more? If we are worried about becoming overpopulated wouldn't a better solution be to stop excessive breeding? Surely taking an immigrant who is house trained schooled and ready for work makes more economic sense than someone giving birth to their twelfth child?
If Corbyn himself can survive decades in the wilderness of the backbenchers then the likes of Danczuk etc can survive five years.
The exception would be if deselection became real. At that point resign the whip and stand as an independent, like Livingstone did to Blair.
In an area where religion does very much determine your life chances and may put you at risk, very severe risk, it is beyond absurd to ignore that fact when deciding whom to prioritise in the help we are able to bring.
Other groups, such as the ones you mention, may also be at risk. But the fact that there are so many multiple problems where last year's victim may well end up being tomorrow's oppressor, is precisely why a "let's let all the poor people in" without some hard thinking is so pathetic, lacking in morality and likely to as much harm as good.
Sadly, to do that we need to differentiate between them and the immigrants who do not meet those criteria. Or are you saying that all immigrants meet those criteria automagically?
And I'm glad you agree with the government's plans to remove child benefits from the third and more child, to hopefully discourage women from having their twelfth child.
Also, your population point only makes sense if you sterilise migrants, which is not something I'd support.
Cameron could have four years ago said we will have an immediate referendum to settle the issue and he is backing in. Instead he's taken the opportunity of the referendum to try and improve the EU first - that is a sensible move for anyone who supports in unless they think the EU is completely perfect already (which would mean you are delusional).
a) a newspaper report on how Merkel's our doors are open plea to migrants is resonating throughout some awfully disadvantaged region of the world
b) claims that there is no evidence that letting large numbers of refugees and migrants into Europe would encourage more to come.
This isn't even a situation where hindsight would be of benefit. It is a situation where basic literacy would be of benefit. And taking off those blinkers, too.
And BTW, I'm not arguing for "Let's let all the poor people in."
But if it is shyness, I suppose the widely repeated view that the Tories are evil that is the issue. We're not, but if every time we open our mouths we're told we are then why should we tell anyone what we really think?
"I had not realised that you are too a little Scotlander ! About a 10th of the size of a little Englander. "
Aren't all Scottish nationalists 'little Scotlanders'? that's what nationalism has always been.
Can we agree on that?
Christian and Yazidi refugees should get priority for settlement, though even these communities have significant social issues with "honour" killings etc.
I also like Cameron's negotiating positions. He will probably win 3 out of 4, if not all 4 and declare "Mission Accomplished" !
Interestingly, the much debated point re: "free movement of people", it appears is not even on the agenda !
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/608224/christian-martyrs-George-Weidenfeld-Patrick-Sookhdeo-Syria-Barnabus-Fund-relocate-charity
But I'd do it differently from things like slashing tax credits for low-paid workers. Personally I'd have a 30p rate for income between £40K and £50K, and a 45p rate for income between £80K and £120K, then a 50p rate. I'd have a wealth tax, like Switzerland, in particular taxing the value of land, which I know from my own family is often unexploited because it just sits there untaxed and the owners don't bother to consider whether that's optimal. I'd increase the value of land in compensation by relaxing some of the restrictions that prevent construction of homes. I'd not renew Trident, and would eye other giant projects with suspicion. And quite a lot more.
But as I'm largely retired from politics (though in 15 minutes I'm going canvassing with Corbyn and a group of London Labour people), my personal views aren't too relevant. I certainly don't speak for anyone else.
"Nick: Syrian and Iraqi Christian communities are at very real risk of genocide if they stay. It's not a question of their knowledge of the catechism as you put it but because they are at very very high risk of being slaughtered - and in the most brutal way possible"
I'm sure they are as are many others if the Assad regime falls. I really can't understand why Assad isn't getting more support. Fortunately if this becomes a possibility most will be able to cross the Becaa Valley where they will be welcomed into East Beirut
I am absolutely in favour of the government's policy of helping and supporting refugees in the proximity to Syria. It is not only cost effective, it creates the best chance of the huge numbers actually going home one day. Cameron has finally found something genuinely useful to do with our aid budget which has a direct benefit for us and he is to be commended for it.
But that is the easy bit. What do we do with those already here? Again agreeing Merkel was an idiot and that her original position was extremely foolish is the easy bit. It does not answer the question.
I agree with Cyclefree that we cannot provide a haven for all the failed countries of the world. Once you accept that must be so, however, you get to the more difficult bit again: where do we draw the line? Our laws on refugees are simply not close to being fit for purpose in the modern world. The Dublin Convention which removes our obligations once the refugee reaches the first safe country was built on the assumption that first country could cope.
These are genuinely difficult questions. If there were easy answers we would have found them. People accuse me of seeking to muddle through. I plead guilty. We have to do the best we can and recognise that it won't be enough, not nearly.
Little is mentioned here that because the Assad regime is secular, Christians prefer him to some fundamentalists !
Also enrage all the Sunni's in the meantime.
When that tyrant's statue was pulled down, who would have thunk that ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
Of course, the sensible option is tax people on a family basis rather than an individual basis. Why should a family with one earner getting 50k a year be charged more tax than one where both parents earn 25k a year? The better is far better for bringing up the next generation.
It is interesting examine the the rhetoric, sometimes.
What strikes me most about your post is that you see the tax credit changes as 'slashing tax credits for low paid workers' as bad, although the current system keeps people in poverty by creating a wealth trap dis-incentivising full time or multiple job working amongst the worse off - i.e. a suboptimal use of resources amongst those who can afford least to be suboptimal.
Whilst also wanting to tax assets because they're often suboptimal uses of resources.
I won't even get (properly) started on the tax increases (assuming you're ignoring the PA and actually wanting to create a whole new band of 30% taxation amongst the aspirational middle classes - in which I include myself; grammar school lad, second person in my family to go to Uni, first to Oxbridge). But I'm sure raising taxes on teachers, higher paid nurses and policemen, along with most Doctors, would be really popular in the Midlands marginals.
"While Lebanon, Israel and Egypt have significant Christian minorities, and Georgia and Armenia Christian majorities,"
shortly after the last Lebanese war they reckoned the population was roughly 50/50 Christian Muslim and as part of the settlement they tried to split the government in those proportions (Christian President Muslim PM etc.) Since then the Muslims have been breeding at a much faster rate which is now skewing the percentages which is causing some serious worry.
Your suggestion might indeed be fairer and have positive social consequences but no government will ever dare propose it. Just look at the fuss when Cameron suggested a married couple's' tax allowance, which he has still failed to introduce.
Tax Credits are complicated for many.
The Mirror after the budget,made a good attempt to explain, surprisingly better than most broadsheets, when I have tried to understand the changes for my extended family.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-budget-affect-tax-credits-6031675
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/basil-iis-odd-childhood.html
People who earn more than that still get tax credits, but they're whittled down as income rises.
This threshold is now being almost halved to £3,850 a year ."
Did I read this correctly ? The bastards.
I am not sure Carson would be welcomed though despite his views. Trump would be.
"Confused? So are we! Here's an example
NEW SYSTEM
You earn £13,850 a year, so you're £10,000 above the income threshold.
The government deducts 48% of £10,000 from your tax credits - so you lose £4,800 from whatever you were entitled to get.
OLD SYSTEM
You earn £13,850 a year, so you're £7,430 above the income threshold.
The government deducts 41% of £7,430 from your tax credits - so you lose £3,046 from whatever you were entitled to get.
THE DIFFERENCE
That means if you're eligible to claim more than £4,800, for instance if you have two children, the new system is taking away £1,754 a year ."
I take it the pay-rise will fill the £4800.
Any odds on when the U-turn will take place ?
Yes I believe that is correct.
Also the taper.
In a double blow , tax credits are also vanishing more steeply once you hit £3,850.
The government is ramping up the proportion of credits it takes away above this threshold - a mechanism called the ' taper rate '.
The current taper rate is 41% . It's being raised to 48% .
Your unfounded allegations of racism towards anyone that disagrees with you shows the weak intellectual basis of the Labour Left, and also the nasty toxic notions that underpin it. Thankfully, the decent British public will reject Corbynism and everything it stands in no uncertain terms. I look forward to that complete and abject failure of your ideology with relish.
I went round to a friend's house where this price was quoted (They are looking into panels too); and the price seems fair enough to produce a decent rate of return from my own estimates... but I have seen some systems for sub £5k looking today (Are these cheap for a reason tho... ? ) . Obviously I'm needing to move quite fast on this as the 20 year guaranteed FiT falls off a cliff at the end of the year.
"So you're advocating even more tax credit cuts? Brave, Rog, brave! "
I was thinking of a more herodian solution
So, a £1 increase results in 19p. Would someone get out of bed ? Where are the people who clamour on about incentives ?
Even if they are not tax payers, that would still be 39p. Talking about incentivising people to work !
Cameron's failure to introduce the married couple tax allowance so far has been a great shame, but now we have an unelectable Labour Party there is no reason not to introduce it. We should go further, so that the allowance also covers your partner's unused portion of the 20% tax band if you are paying 40%. That would be fairly simple to introduce.
We want to be the party of the family, and we need to have policies that back that up. We could introduce it at the same time as extending child care for working parents to show that we support families whatever choice they make.
The Pakistanis were born in the UK, by the way. Do you wish to deport them ?
;-)