Why would they? They are likely to win London, and apparently the round of locals is not that unfavourable for Labour so even a poor performance will result in a net loss which could be spun as 'not that bad' (even if it is). So the party members are not likely to turn on him after that sort of performance, not so soon, and the MPs aren't going to break cover en masse without something to back it up like member support, and finally who would stand up to offer an alternative?
Maybe next year, unless the unions get him first.
If it is to be the unions, who is the union puppet, er, candidate they put forward when they give Corbyn the long drop? Given the unions are realistically the only ones who can intervene (they pay the piper), then I guess the hugely disgruntled PLP will get behind whoever is the ABC offer foisted upon them...
The unions are as left-wing as the membership. Also, it's not Corbyn personally that the electorate's rejecting; it's his policies. So replacing him with another from his wing won't work.
I think what is being rejected is a mixture of Corbyn personally and his foreign and "defence" policies. It seems to me that we don't know whether someone who was equally left wing on economic policy could have greater appeal if they cut out the terrorist-hugging and were less hapless all round.
The Tories can be confident they won't face a Blairite in 2020 but I think they should be asking themselves if there is any leftwing alternative to Corbyn who could be an electoral threat.
I think a left-winger who wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeaked could do fine - if he were a patriot.
Corbyn & allies aren't patriots.
That's the lesson for me about the UK and the US at the moment, and Western politics perhaps more broadly too.
It's not about the money anymore. It's about culture and identity.
Which means voters will never sacrifice more immigration for more money in the current climate.
Perhaps never again.
I think a Jim Callaghan/Denis Healey/Harold Wilson type party could do very well now. But, that ship has sailed.
Yes, or a Roy Hattersely one. Particularly if they could reassure on the nation's purse strings.
Why is everyone worrying (!) about Jezza's ratings? They are +100% amongst those he cares about.
Not a huge, general election-winning group, admittedly but fine as far as Jezza is concerned.
Not in his wildest dreams did he think he would be here as LotO and love or hate him, no human could amend his expectations or aspirations as completely as would be required for him to think he could actually become PM.
So he is perfectly happy where he is, applying his agitprop student politics to a wondrously wider audience.
If Cameron decides to have that third shredded wheat, Labour will be facing an extinction level event in 2020 if they are led by Jez
Yes. Someone should persuade him.
I'll do it.
I've blown my fuse at Cameron (on here) more than once. But I've recently started to feel I'll miss him when he goes, even though it's likely to still be a few years away.
I dislike his EUphilia, and new Labour-lite social policy but, putting that aside, I think he's at heart a patriot, a monarchist, a strong believer in family, his community and his country and I identify with his Shire Tory roots.
I've reached the same conclusion (that I'll miss him when he's gone) though I think I'm coming from a different political direction to you. We could do vastly worse than Cameron.
If Cameron decides to have that third shredded wheat, Labour will be facing an extinction level event in 2020 if they are led by Jez
Yes. Someone should persuade him.
I'll do it.
I've blown my fuse at Cameron (on here) more than once. But I've recently started to feel I'll miss him when he goes, even though it's likely to still be a few years away.
I dislike his EUphilia, and new Labour-lite social policy but, putting that aside, I think he's at heart a patriot, a monarchist, a strong believer in family, his community and his country and I identify with his Shire Tory roots.
I've been writing a piece on who should be Cameron's successor, and I can only come up with one name.
Why would they? They are likely to win London, and apparently the round of locals is not that unfavourable for Labour so even a poor performance will result in a net loss which could be spun as 'not that bad' (even if it is). So the party members are not likely to turn on him after that sort of performance, not so soon, and the MPs aren't going to break cover en masse without something to back it up like member support, and finally who would stand up to offer an alternative?
Maybe next year, unless the unions get him first.
If it is to be the unions, who is the union puppet, er, candidate they put forward when they give Corbyn the long drop? Given the unions are realistically the only ones who can intervene (they pay the piper), then I guess the hugely disgruntled PLP will get behind whoever is the ABC offer foisted upon them...
The unions are as left-wing as the membership. Also, it's not Corbyn personally that the electorate's rejecting; it's his policies. So replacing him with another from his wing won't work.
I think what is being rejected is a mixture of Corbyn personally and his foreign and "defence" policies. It seems to me that we don't know whether someone who was equally left wing on economic policy could have greater appeal if they cut out the terrorist-hugging and were less hapless all round.
The Tories can be confident they won't face a Blairite in 2020 but I think they should be asking themselves if there is any leftwing alternative to Corbyn who could be an electoral threat.
I think a left-winger who wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeaked could do fine - if he were a patriot.
Corbyn & allies aren't patriots.
I agree with that. And furthermore, on issues like Trident, he's associating opposition with being anti-British and reckless in defence. I'd be happy to see the back of Trident as it's a relic which isn't up to the challenges of today which are far more security and intelligence based and less about nuking Moscow. But it's never going to happen as Corbyn has associated concern about Trident with fringe-left extremism. I'm not the only person very frustrated - what a gift for the Tories.
How is Palin viewed by the Republican base these days?
I heard her described as "a rock star within the conservative movement", for whatever that's worth.
I was in Dallas just after she was named as McCain's running mate in 2008. It seemed as though they were about to replace Christianity with Palin-worship.
Corbyn is getting oversold.My conservative neighbours like the fact that he tries to answer questions rather then the standard evasions from most mainstream politicians.My Tory neightbours loathe Osborne becasue of his sneering student persona and gesture politics if the next electionship was Corbyn v Osborne - Corbyn could win the leadership ratings .Incidentally if Corbyn could win a Labour leadership Phillip Davies 100/1 could win a Tory leadership contest with the rank and file provided he could get enough Tory MP`s support initially which of course he won`t.Davies appears to be one of the few Tory MP`s prepared to genuinely take on the politically correct lobby and that is one of driving reasons behind Trumps support with the republican base in the USA
No. Corbyn and his ilk are feared by70-75% of the voters.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
Corbyn is getting oversold.My conservative neighbours like the fact that he tries to answer questions rather then the standard evasions from most mainstream politicians.My Tory neightbours loathe Osborne becasue of his sneering student persona and gesture politics if the next electionship was Corbyn v Osborne - Corbyn could win the leadership ratings .Incidentally if Corbyn could win a Labour leadership Phillip Davies 100/1 could win a Tory leadership contest with the rank and file provided he could get enough Tory MP`s support initially which of course he won`t.Davies appears to be one of the few Tory MP`s prepared to genuinely take on the politically correct lobby and that is one of driving reasons behind Trumps support with the republican base in the USA
No. Corbyn and his ilk are feared by70-75% of the voters.
Also, liking the fact that he's a bit different is very far from voting for him.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Yeah, I understand they were operating under onerous anti-money laundering laws but it's still faintly ludicrous that they result is that every bank can trust every other banks' address checking acumen but not their own.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
If thousands of those "Syrian" refugees pour into the UK as a result of Merkel's insanity and that Brussels ruling, then that's curtains for our membership of the EU, IMHO.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
It would be very good for Leave - decisive even - if the UK were forced to accept a quota against its will. However, I expect Cameron won't neglect to point that out.
The European Union's top official warned Tuesday the bloc has just two months to get its migration strategy in order amid criticism that its current policies are putting thousands of people in danger and creating more business for smugglers.
'We have no more than two months to get things under control,' European Council President Donald Tusk told EU lawmakers, warning that a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on March 17-18 'will be the last moment to see if our strategy works.'
Tusk warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work 'we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen,' the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
Corbyn is getting oversold.My conservative neighbours like the fact that he tries to answer questions rather then the standard evasions from most mainstream politicians.
No he doesn't. Either he does the same thing (as in the recent Independent interview on confirming he would not, rather than implying, recommend Ken for a Peerage, when he replied that he 'has no plan to', a very standard evasion - not that he is likely intending it, but he gave himself wiggle room), or he evades in other ways. Oh, he will be direct and try to answer questions that other politicians will evade on some topics (and then moan that people are focusing on those areas), but that's more a reflection on his personal political priorities being different to most than his character being different. Is he a little more direct? I believe so, and it is one of his better qualities, but he is not transformative or unique.
However, perception is what matters, and your neighbours' view is the generally accepted one I would say, so he should definitely build on that for his appeal, it has the possibility of overcoming a lot of policy dislike if he can pull it off.
As Corbyn's support vanishes among the few mainstream voters who were up for giving him a chance, it only hardens among his visceral band of backers. Labour are in terrible trouble with him as leader.
If they do get elected though they could effectively ban the POTUS but receive Abu Hamza with open arms. Not exactly a vote winning strategy I have to say.
If anyone doesn't believe that watch Dromeys interview from this morning.
The extraordinary thing was there was no hesitation. Ban king of Saudi Arabia? No. Ban President of China? No.
I didnt hear Robert Magabu but Guido claims that was asked also, with a similar point.
The bizarre one was banning Trump but not wanting to ban Putin. Putin sponsored a brutal murder on British soil.
TSE: I've been writing a piece on who should be Cameron's successor, and I can only come up with one name.
David William Donald Cameron
Cameron does not immediately strike people are great leader material. He is a bit mushy and understated, and I have doubts about his competence in some areas. He could even find himself ousted within a year or two depending on referendums and rivals.
But assuming he can win the referendum and does not decide to go out on a personal high (and as a gesture to heal the Tory rift that will result), they could do a lot worse. I know people who find him unbearable, but personally I've always found him to have a reassuring sort of presence, not too flashy (despite the flashman thing people mention), and very very middle of the road politically. Now, some on the right think he is far too left, and some on the left pull their hair out that people cannot see he is a lot more to the right than people think, but whatever the truth of that, he comes across as generally reasonable, comfortable in the centre ground and not weird.
It's harder than it seems.
I feel like the biggest barriers to Cameron staying on are:
a)would he even want to b)would his rivals let him
If the Tories feel that they could win against anyone Labour put up in 2020, that seems to make Cameron staying on more unlikely. He would not feel it necessary to ensure the party won, and the restless parts of the party would think they could win without him, so his rivals would act.
When the referendum looked to be late 2017 I thought perhaps he would, after securing victory, announce he planned to step down, but over a long timescale, say, a year, so that a new leader would come in with 6-8 months before the 2020 GE. So a Tory leadership campaign would occur over several months, and he would stay above it as Osborne failed to connect to voters, May failed to excite and Boris began to flounder, and a few young opportunists did not achieve wide support. At the same time, Labour begin to catch the Tories in the polls as the contenders snipe at each other, and people begin to whisper perhaps 2020 is not for certain after all.
Osborne, seeing it just was not going to work, announces he is pulling out and says Cameron has to stay on to secure another victory for party and country, and Cameron reluctantly accepts.
The main reason this could not work, is that a contest having begun, I presume a new contender cannot just enter it part way through. IIRC, the narrow down to the final two happens pretty quickly. So unless they have a ungodly long pre-official campaign period like Labour withe the race to get 35 nominations, it wouldn't work.
As Corbyn's support vanishes among the few mainstream voters who were up for giving him a chance, it only hardens among his visceral band of backers. Labour are in terrible trouble with him as leader.
If they do get elected though they could effectively ban the POTUS but receive Abu Hamza with open arms. Not exactly a vote winning strategy I have to say.
If anyone doesn't believe that watch Dromeys interview from this morning.
The extraordinary thing was there was no hesitation. Ban king of Saudi Arabia? No. Ban President of China? No.
I didnt hear Robert Magabu but Guido claims that was asked also, with a similar point.
The bizarre one was banning Trump but not wanting to ban Putin. Putin sponsored a brutal murder on British soil.
Dromey supports freedom of speech don't you know he said so. Except for that nasty Mr Trump he crossed a line so there.
You can currently get 1.66 on Trump to win New Hampshire on Betfair.
The current RCP average is Trump 31, Kasich 13, Rubio 11.5, Cruz 11.
None of the latter three are likely to establish themselves. Only Cruz stands a chance, if he carries through momentum from Iowa, but that's a 7/1 sort of a shot.
My advice is take it, with or without a Cruz component.
@charles Thanks but again both say it has been opened. The problem is they can say you broke it got it fixed then have returned with a further fault for us to fix. I can sort of see their points up to the point I know it's never been opened and it's presented as it came out of the box.
That's the frustrating part I can only prove the point by opening the IPhone and as soon as you do that ( and even if you don't like me) all they have to do is infer it and walk away. It's just no hope for the customer situation. I certainly will look into section 75 claim thanks for that pointer but it will come down to proof yet again I suspect.
Mrsquare Root Thanks but I dare not take the chance Why should I anyway I have done nothing wrong here someone else has. I would really like to do just that though I really would.
Many thanks both anyway i like the idea of trading standards to be honest but it can only be for them to keep an eye out for others. They then are in the same position as me.
I am wondering whether to go direct to Apple and say I think you have a problem in delivery systems but huge organisation they won't care.
I would go back to the shop and keep complaining since your contract is with them. Surely the onus is on them to prove you opened it up?
I am no expert about iphones (to put it mildly), but I think you can check the IMEI to see whether your iphone was used before you had it? I suspect it was. http://www.imei.info/how-to-check-iPhone-warrranty/
The basic problem is that iPhones have a high value. Hence the temptation to scumbaggery.
The staff in phone stores are under enormous pressure to deliver - think Foxtons style sales targets. The next bubble bursting may the ludicrous proliferation of mobile phone stores.
The European Union's top official warned Tuesday the bloc has just two months to get its migration strategy in order amid criticism that its current policies are putting thousands of people in danger and creating more business for smugglers.
'We have no more than two months to get things under control,' European Council President Donald Tusk told EU lawmakers, warning that a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on March 17-18 'will be the last moment to see if our strategy works.'
Tusk warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work 'we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen,' the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
You would think that someone in Tusk's position would have been told that Schengen is already dead. When the even the Swedes have reintroduced border controls then the game is up.
Why would they? They are likely to win London, and apparently the round of locals is not that unfavourable for Labour so even a poor performance will result in a net loss which could be spun as 'not that bad' (even if it is). So the party members are not likely to turn on him after that sort of performance, not so soon, and the MPs aren't going to break cover en masse without something to back it up like member support, and finally who would stand up to offer an alternative?
Maybe next year, unless the unions get him first.
If it is to be the unions, who is the union puppet, er, candidate they put forward when they give Corbyn the long drop? Given the unions are realistically the only ones who can intervene (they pay the piper), then I guess the hugely disgruntled PLP will get behind whoever is the ABC offer foisted upon them...
The unions are as left-wing as the membership. Also, it's not Corbyn personally that the electorate's rejecting; it's his policies. So replacing him with another from his wing won't work.
I think what is being rejected is a mixture of Corbyn personally and his foreign and "defence" policies. It seems to me that we don't know whether someone who was equally left wing on economic policy could have greater appeal if they cut out the terrorist-hugging and were less hapless all round.
The Tories can be confident they won't face a Blairite in 2020 but I think they should be asking themselves if there is any leftwing alternative to Corbyn who could be an electoral threat.
I think a left-winger who wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeaked could do fine - if he were a patriot.
Corbyn & allies aren't patriots.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Save 20% of say 100k for 20 years and you have 400k , double it by growth and you are still miles under the limit.
Hardly middle earners.
People like to think it would be them one day though. If it sounds unfair, even if it does not hit middle earners, it could catch on, particularly as people will not really understand the issue at all - that could be good for defenders or opponents of the policy, depending on who judges the initial public reaction well.
The European Union's top official warned Tuesday the bloc has just two months to get its migration strategy in order amid criticism that its current policies are putting thousands of people in danger and creating more business for smugglers.
'We have no more than two months to get things under control,' European Council President Donald Tusk told EU lawmakers, warning that a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on March 17-18 'will be the last moment to see if our strategy works.'
Tusk warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work 'we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen,' the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
Why would they? They are likely to win London, and apparently the round of locals is not that unfavourable for Labour so even a poor performance will result in a net loss which could be spun as 'not that bad' (even if it is). So the party members are not likely to turn on him after that sort of performance, not so soon, and the MPs aren't going to break cover en masse without something to back it up like member support, and finally who would stand up to offer an alternative?
Maybe next year, unless the unions get him first.
If it is to be the unions, who is the union puppet, er, candidate they put forward when they give Corbyn the long drop? Given the unions are realistically the only ones who can intervene (they pay the piper), then I guess the hugely disgruntled PLP will get behind whoever is the ABC offer foisted upon them...
The unions are as left-wing as the membership. Also, it's not Corbyn personally that the electorate's rejecting; it's his policies. So replacing him with another from his wing won't work.
I think what is being rejected is a mixture of Corbyn personally and his foreign and "defence" policies. It seems to me that we don't know whether someone who was equally left wing on economic policy could have greater appeal if they cut out the terrorist-hugging and were less hapless all round.
The Tories can be confident they won't face a Blairite in 2020 but I think they should be asking themselves if there is any leftwing alternative to Corbyn who could be an electoral threat.
I think a left-winger who wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeaked could do fine - if he were a patriot.
Corbyn & allies aren't patriots.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Oh, that's easy: both would have had him expelled from the party in an instant. They were merciless in the 1940s in getting rid of the crypto-commies and assorted fellow travellers.
the penalty I've just seen taken in the last minute by yeovil, clearly was ed miliband.
Take the 12/1 on Exeter winning tomorrow
No way mate. Leicester, that's the bet. Spurs have never beaten Ranieri.
Should be an interesting game. Our reserves are in fine form and trying to break into the first game squad. I think Okazaki will start, with Vardy on the bench. Gray to score.
The European Union's top official warned Tuesday the bloc has just two months to get its migration strategy in order amid criticism that its current policies are putting thousands of people in danger and creating more business for smugglers.
'We have no more than two months to get things under control,' European Council President Donald Tusk told EU lawmakers, warning that a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on March 17-18 'will be the last moment to see if our strategy works.'
Tusk warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work 'we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen,' the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
Why would they? They are likely to win London, and apparently the round of locals is not that unfavourable for Labour so even a poor performance will result in a net loss which could be spun as 'not that bad' (even if it is). So the party members are not likely to turn on him after that sort of performance, not so soon, and the MPs aren't going to break cover en masse without something to back it up like member support, and finally who would stand up to offer an alternative?
Maybe next year, unless the unions get him first.
If it is to be the unions, who is the union puppet, er, candidate they put forward when they give Corbyn the long drop? Given the unions are realistically the only ones who can intervene (they pay the piper), then I guess the hugely disgruntled PLP will get behind whoever is the ABC offer foisted upon them...
The unions are as left-wing as the membership. Also, it's not Corbyn personally that the electorate's rejecting; it's his policies. So replacing him with another from his wing won't work.
I think what is being rejected is a mixture of Corbyn personally and his foreign and "defence" policies. It seems to me that we don't know whether someone who was equally left wing on economic policy could have greater appeal if they cut out the terrorist-hugging and were less hapless all round.
The Tories can be confident they won't face a Blairite in 2020 but I think they should be asking themselves if there is any leftwing alternative to Corbyn who could be an electoral threat.
I think a left-winger who wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeaked could do fine - if he were a patriot.
Corbyn & allies aren't patriots.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Oh, that's easy: both would have had him expelled from the party in an instant. They were merciless in the 1940s in getting rid of the crypto-commies and assorted fellow travellers.
I think a lot of young lefties with Bevan-quoting "Lower Than Vermin" t-shirts and who would name Attlee as #1, #2 and #3 on the list of top 3 all-time PMs might actually have a bit of a shock if they found a bit out about what they actually believed, in a similar way to how lots of Scandinavia-loving lefties would have their their visions rather soiled if they were to find out a little about life, culture and economic structures there.
Time to keep a close eye on Hillary's firebreak of South Carolina. There's not been a poll this year but ifthat starts to swing further Sanders' way then Hillary may come under establishment pressure to withdraw.
Time to keep a close eye on Hillary's firebreak of South Carolina. There's not been a poll this year but ifthat starts to swing further Sanders' way then Hillary may come under establishment pressure to withdraw.
I agree - NH is close to home for Sanders, and prefers the local kid. Iowa's polling has been everywhere.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Bevin is one of my political heroes, a great man who has not achieved the place in popular history that I think he deserves. I think that he would have despised Corbyn and done everything in his power to destroy his political career.
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Yeah, I understand they were operating under onerous anti-money laundering laws but it's still faintly ludicrous that they result is that every bank can trust every other banks' address checking acumen but not their own.
If they could rely on their own systems it would introduce a significant weakness to the system: once into one firm you could easily abuse the system.
Relying on third party validation massively improves security.
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
It would be very good for Leave - decisive even - if the UK were forced to accept a quota against its will. However, I expect Cameron won't neglect to point that out.
Considering the UK has an opt-out the odds of the UK being forced to accept a quota against its will is 0.00%
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
As would exiting the EU as without being members with that rule there would be zero obligation on other EU states accepting returned members back from us anyway.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Bevin is one of my political heroes, a great man who has not achieved the place in popular history that I think he deserves. I think that he would have despised Corbyn and done everything in his power to destroy his political career.
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
While we are on anecdotes, my all time favourite has to be Winston Churchill's excuse for a refusal to see Sir Stafford Cripps at short notice:
"Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time"
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Bevin is one of my political heroes, a great man who has not achieved the place in popular history that I think he deserves. I think that he would have despised Corbyn and done everything in his power to destroy his political career.
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
The reality of modern Britain is such that the grand Christian-socialist ideology of Atlee and Bevin has been generally embraced, state ownership of businesses aside. We are all Bevinites and Beveridgites today - and have been since the 60s.
The new left define themselves with laughable identity politics. It is no wonder Labour is dying.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
It would be very good for Leave - decisive even - if the UK were forced to accept a quota against its will. However, I expect Cameron won't neglect to point that out.
Considering the UK has an opt-out the odds of the UK being forced to accept a quota against its will is 0.00%
High enough to justify a Mail front page splash then.
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Which becomes interesting if the migrants start turning in large numbers up at Britsh bases in Cyprus....
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
I don't think it would prevent Britain returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states. In the absence of a replacement to the Dublin agreement, the situation would revert to the pre-Dublin position under international law:
According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
The UK can and should keep well out of this mess, which is entirely the creation of Germany and other Schengen countries. They chose to ignore our warnings:
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
For the 67,987th time in its history, Britain is relieved to be an island.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Yeah, I understand they were operating under onerous anti-money laundering laws but it's still faintly ludicrous that they result is that every bank can trust every other banks' address checking acumen but not their own.
If they could rely on their own systems it would introduce a significant weakness to the system: once into one firm you could easily abuse the system.
Relying on third party validation massively improves security.
Is the problem though that these rules is rules policies that allow no room for common sense just create a box ticking culture. Rather than having a professionals making professional judgements, and being held to account for them, we just have people who are concerned to make sure the boxes are ticked, safe in the knowledge that they then cannot be criticised. We know where that culture leads - the Baby P case is one axample and the failure of the old FSA to actually regulate financial markets is another.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
It would be very good for Leave - decisive even - if the UK were forced to accept a quota against its will. However, I expect Cameron won't neglect to point that out.
Considering the UK has an opt-out the odds of the UK being forced to accept a quota against its will is 0.00%
High enough to justify a Mail front page splash then.
And a few hundred or thousand more posts about it here and elsewhere too ...
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Which becomes interesting if the migrants start turning in large numbers up at Britsh bases in Cyprus....
Don't we just hand them over to the Cypriot authorities - after releasing them from arrest as being unlawfully in a SB area?
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
I don't think it would prevent Britain returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states. In the absence of a replacement to the Dublin agreement, the situation would revert to the pre-Dublin position under international law:
According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
The UK can and should keep well out of this mess, which is entirely the creation of Germany and other Schengen countries. They chose to ignore our warnings:
I don't see how it's the problem of other Schengen countries when plenty of non-Schengen states - the ex-Yugoslav ones, for example - have been equally affected. Schengen is largely a red herring here.
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Bevin is one of my political heroes, a great man who has not achieved the place in popular history that I think he deserves. I think that he would have despised Corbyn and done everything in his power to destroy his political career.
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
While we are on anecdotes, my all time favourite has to be Winston Churchill's excuse for a refusal to see Sir Stafford Cripps at short notice:
"Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time"
The Earl of Sandwich to John Wilkes - "You, Sir, will die of the poxy or upon the gallows" John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich - "That, Sir, depends on whether I embrace your principles or your wife"
I don't see how it's the problem of other Schengen countries when plenty of non-Schengen states - the ex-Yugoslav ones, for example - have been equally affected. Schengen is largely a red herring here.
Schengen prevents (in theory at least) states from putting up border controls as a matter of routine, so has made the problem worse.
The Earl of Sandwich to John Wilkes - "You, Sir, will die of the poxy or upon the gallows" John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich - "That, Sir, depends on whether I embrace your principles or your wife"
"Your mistress".
[There's some dispute as to who first came up with the line - it might have been Samuel Foote]
I try to imagine what Major Attlee would do if presented with Corbyn. Or Bevin... I think there would have been rude words.
Bevin is one of my political heroes, a great man who has not achieved the place in popular history that I think he deserves. I think that he would have despised Corbyn and done everything in his power to destroy his political career.
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
Churchill ranked Bevin as the most impressive figure the Labour movement produced in his lifetime. I wouldn't dissent. It was of course Bevin who destroyed George Lansbury's leadership, a leader not dissimilar to Corbyn.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
I really hope we can block this. Or even better that we're out by then...
We can, we have an absolute veto on asylum policies being forced on the UK. So no, for us it is not decided by QMV.
Even with an opt-out I believe the ECJ could intervene if they felt that we violated the CFR. Someone more legally minded may be able to comment further on this.
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Which becomes interesting if the migrants start turning in large numbers up at Britsh bases in Cyprus....
Don't we just hand them over to the Cypriot authorities - after releasing them from arrest as being unlawfully in a SB area?
At what point do the Cypriot authorities stop accepting them?
No need to fret, the Immigration Minister is "deeply concerned".
You've told me plenty of times that immigration is good for the UK Mr Eagles, I'm sure the people of Middlesborough agree wholeheartedly, both the residents and their guests.
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Which becomes interesting if the migrants start turning in large numbers up at Britsh bases in Cyprus....
Don't we just hand them over to the Cypriot authorities - after releasing them from arrest as being unlawfully in a SB area?
At what point do the Cypriot authorities stop accepting them?
Good question.
Considering the state of Anglo-Cypriot relations, maybe never.
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Yeah, I understand they were operating under onerous anti-money laundering laws but it's still faintly ludicrous that they result is that every bank can trust every other banks' address checking acumen but not their own.
If they could rely on their own systems it would introduce a significant weakness to the system: once into one firm you could easily abuse the system.
Relying on third party validation massively improves security.
Is the problem though that these rules is rules policies that allow no room for common sense just create a box ticking culture. Rather than having a professionals making professional judgements, and being held to account for them, we just have people who are concerned to make sure the boxes are ticked, safe in the knowledge that they then cannot be criticised. We know where that culture leads - the Baby P case is one axample and the failure of the old FSA to actually regulate financial markets is another.
Following the rules is not a sufficient defence under the FCA code of conduct. Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well.
As I understand it, the potential change in the EU's refugee policy is simply to abandon the Dublin Convention that refugees must claim asylum in the first EU state they arrive in. That would not oblige Britsin to accept new consignments of refugees but it would prevent it returning refugees that reached Britain to other EU states.
Which becomes interesting if the migrants start turning in large numbers up at Britsh bases in Cyprus....
Don't we just hand them over to the Cypriot authorities - after releasing them from arrest as being unlawfully in a SB area?
At what point do the Cypriot authorities stop accepting them?
If they do then we use some of the riches of the DfID budget and bribe the Cypriot authorities to change their mind.
However, given the distance of Cyprus from the places of embarkation as compared to some of the Greek islands, the chances of mass illegal landings on sovereign bases is remote.
Following the rules is not a sufficient defence under the FCA code of conduct. Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well.
If so, it is a principle more honoured in the breach than in the observation.
It's interesting to discover that Stuart Monk is a Tory donor, no wonder this govt is so keen on immigration, it's donors are doing very nicely out of it.
It's interesting to discover that Stuart Monk is a Tory donor, no wonder this govt is so keen on immigration, it's donors are doing very nicely out of it.
Do you really believe all this utter nonsense you come up with? Seriously, do you actually believe there is the slightest smidgen of an iota of truth in it?
Sorry for another O/T rant, but: I received a letter yesterday from the council, in response to my application for a place for my middle daughter at primary school next year. In order to verify her address, they want: 1) an NHS card or a tax credit letter, 2) a tenancy agreement or a mortgage statement, and 3) a utility bill or a council tax bill
Now the council are normally pretty good, but this strikes me as incredibly inefficient. Why are they asking me for a council tax bill? Surely they have a reference of who they send these bills too?
When I became treasurer of a university society the bank required proof of address for me, despite being an account holder at the very branch the society account was held at.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
A chum had to make a new will so he went to the solicitor that had drawn up the original one and who had acted for him in various matters going back decades. Furthermore, they had been best men at each other's weddings and stood god-father for each others children. He had to produce photographic ID, rules is rules.
Yeah, I understand they were operating under onerous anti-money laundering laws but it's still faintly ludicrous that they result is that every bank can trust every other banks' address checking acumen but not their own.
If they could rely on their own systems it would introduce a significant weakness to the system: once into one firm you could easily abuse the system.
Relying on third party validation massively improves security.
Is the problem though that these rules is rules policies that allow no room for common sense just create a box ticking culture. Rather than having a professionals making professional judgements, and being held to account for them, we just have people who are concerned to make sure the boxes are ticked, safe in the knowledge that they then cannot be criticised. We know where that culture leads - the Baby P case is one axample and the failure of the old FSA to actually regulate financial markets is another.
Following the rules is not a sufficient defence under the FCA code of conduct. Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well.
I am pleased to hear it, Mr.Charles. I wonder when we will see some prosecutions/removal of licences when people have ticked the boxes.
It's interesting to discover that Stuart Monk is a Tory donor, no wonder this govt is so keen on immigration, it's donors are doing very nicely out of it.
Do you really believe all this utter nonsense you come up with? Seriously, do you actually believe there is the slightest smidgen of an iota of truth in it?
Which bit are you questioning? Are you saying Monk has never donated to the Tory party?
A few days ago we were talking about income inequality and how it was only natural that the older generations would have higher income than the younger.
There's been a huge shift in median incomes/wealth between the age brackets over the last 50 years and would you believe it, it follows the baby boomers as they age.
I see the Ox Union, one of the few clubs that I remain a member of, has proved itself to be an irrelevance in the world of public policy yet again this evening.
It's interesting to discover that Stuart Monk is a Tory donor, no wonder this govt is so keen on immigration, it's donors are doing very nicely out of it.
Do you really believe all this utter nonsense you come up with? Seriously, do you actually believe there is the slightest smidgen of an iota of truth in it?
Which bit are you questioning? Are you saying Monk has never donated to the Tory party?
He may well have done, but only a complete loon - the sort who thinks aliens control the US Federal government - would think that (a) the government is keen on immigration, and (b) that Conservative donors have any influence on making the Tories 'keen' on immigration, and (c) that asylum seekers have anything at all to do with immigration policy.
Comments
Not a huge, general election-winning group, admittedly but fine as far as Jezza is concerned.
Not in his wildest dreams did he think he would be here as LotO and love or hate him, no human could amend his expectations or aspirations as completely as would be required for him to think he could actually become PM.
So he is perfectly happy where he is, applying his agitprop student politics to a wondrously wider audience.
"a high-quality person"
What an odd phrase. It's not even a mis-speak or an off-the-cuff remark, its a written down, proof-read statement.
They would accept a bank statement from a competitor - just as long as it wasn't from them.
So quite a snub for Cruz. Palin's daughter had a blog post slamming him yesterday.
Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc’s migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.
The “first-country” requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.
The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.
The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is “outdated” and “unfair”, and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.
The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b32102b2-bec1-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html#axzz3xjM6PiLN
However since Britain has an opt-out from any common asylum position etc it is utterly irrelevant to us.
The European Union's top official warned Tuesday the bloc has just two months to get its migration strategy in order amid criticism that its current policies are putting thousands of people in danger and creating more business for smugglers.
'We have no more than two months to get things under control,' European Council President Donald Tusk told EU lawmakers, warning that a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on March 17-18 'will be the last moment to see if our strategy works.'
Tusk warned that if Europe fails to make the strategy work 'we will face grave consequences such as the collapse of Schengen,' the 26-nation passport-free travel zone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406179/Doctors-Without-Borders-raps-attempts-deter-migrants.html#ixzz3xjOF5HOC
However, perception is what matters, and your neighbours' view is the generally accepted one I would say, so he should definitely build on that for his appeal, it has the possibility of overcoming a lot of policy dislike if he can pull it off.
David William Donald Cameron
Cameron does not immediately strike people are great leader material. He is a bit mushy and understated, and I have doubts about his competence in some areas. He could even find himself ousted within a year or two depending on referendums and rivals.
But assuming he can win the referendum and does not decide to go out on a personal high (and as a gesture to heal the Tory rift that will result), they could do a lot worse. I know people who find him unbearable, but personally I've always found him to have a reassuring sort of presence, not too flashy (despite the flashman thing people mention), and very very middle of the road politically. Now, some on the right think he is far too left, and some on the left pull their hair out that people cannot see he is a lot more to the right than people think, but whatever the truth of that, he comes across as generally reasonable, comfortable in the centre ground and not weird.
It's harder than it seems.
I feel like the biggest barriers to Cameron staying on are:
a)would he even want to
b)would his rivals let him
If the Tories feel that they could win against anyone Labour put up in 2020, that seems to make Cameron staying on more unlikely. He would not feel it necessary to ensure the party won, and the restless parts of the party would think they could win without him, so his rivals would act.
When the referendum looked to be late 2017 I thought perhaps he would, after securing victory, announce he planned to step down, but over a long timescale, say, a year, so that a new leader would come in with 6-8 months before the 2020 GE. So a Tory leadership campaign would occur over several months, and he would stay above it as Osborne failed to connect to voters, May failed to excite and Boris began to flounder, and a few young opportunists did not achieve wide support. At the same time, Labour begin to catch the Tories in the polls as the contenders snipe at each other, and people begin to whisper perhaps 2020 is not for certain after all.
Osborne, seeing it just was not going to work, announces he is pulling out and says Cameron has to stay on to secure another victory for party and country, and Cameron reluctantly accepts.
The main reason this could not work, is that a contest having begun, I presume a new contender cannot just enter it part way through. IIRC, the narrow down to the final two happens pretty quickly. So unless they have a ungodly long pre-official campaign period like Labour withe the race to get 35 nominations, it wouldn't work.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZHZFudW0AEQMeV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZHWjFQWYAAQ5jg.jpg
The current RCP average is Trump 31, Kasich 13, Rubio 11.5, Cruz 11.
None of the latter three are likely to establish themselves. Only Cruz stands a chance, if he carries through momentum from Iowa, but that's a 7/1 sort of a shot.
My advice is take it, with or without a Cruz component.
The staff in phone stores are under enormous pressure to deliver - think Foxtons style sales targets. The next bubble bursting may the ludicrous proliferation of mobile phone stores.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/index.html
Sanders 60 +10
Hillary 33 -7
Hardly middle earners.
If he tries to rob earners in the 43k to 70k bracket he's in political trouble.
He might announce a pensions crackdown and lift the 40p threshold by more than expected at the same time.
It's just the sort of move he'd hope would confuse the Mail and the Tory backbenches so he gets away with it.
It's the pensioners time to get it from the government (just after an election where pensioners voted almost 2-1 Tory).
I shall be singing "can we play you every week.."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406583/2-100-rise-migrants-crossing-Mediterranean-Shocking-figures-reveal-31-244-arrived-Greece-16-days-2016.html
Which gives me an excuse for a Bevin anecdote (some of the youngsters on here might not have heard it before and it may even be true). Bevin hated fellow labour MP Herbert Morrison. One day an MP said in Bevin's hearing that Morrison was his own worst enemy. Quick as a flash Bevin responded, "Not while I am alive he ain't".
Real old Labour, whilst flawed in many ways and with some policies that were positively harmful to the Country, had giants in its ranks. Big men and women who thought big thoughts and had wide visions of what they wanted to achieve and Britain's place in the world. We will, I fear, never see their like again in any political party. Corbyn (who, is let's face it, just a thick middle class tosser) and his mates aren't fit to lick the boots of men like Bevin.
Relying on third party validation massively improves security.
Future pensioners (today's savers) are.
IE I as a young(ish) man would be affected, those who post here who are already retired would not.
"Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time"
The new left define themselves with laughable identity politics. It is no wonder Labour is dying.
According to this use of the concept, asylum-seekers/refugees may be returned to countries where they have, or could have, sought asylum and where their safety would not be jeopardized, whether in that country or through return there from to the country of origin.
http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccec.html
The UK can and should keep well out of this mess, which is entirely the creation of Germany and other Schengen countries. They chose to ignore our warnings:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/04/16/thatcher-schengen/
CNBC suffered quite a ratings hit after their debate disaster.
John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich - "That, Sir, depends on whether I embrace your principles or your wife"
https://twitter.com/boygriffin/status/689581715313029120
[There's some dispute as to who first came up with the line - it might have been Samuel Foote]
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/26/gallows-pox/
You've told me plenty of times that immigration is good for the UK Mr Eagles, I'm sure the people of Middlesborough agree wholeheartedly, both the residents and their guests.
Considering the state of Anglo-Cypriot relations, maybe never.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12109067&cc=12083568
However, given the distance of Cyprus from the places of embarkation as compared to some of the Greek islands, the chances of mass illegal landings on sovereign bases is remote.
As this FT article shows that is not the casehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/60d77d08-b20e-11e4-b380-00144feab7de.html#axzz3xjbkkphB
There's been a huge shift in median incomes/wealth between the age brackets over the last 50 years and would you believe it, it follows the baby boomers as they age.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8938006