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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
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.
The problem is surely the other way around - that financial institutions should be able to use common sense without ticking idiotic boxes.
Well, that is where I started from. Professionals should use their judgement and be made to take responsibility for their decisions, not tick boxes.
I think the key is in Charles' phrase that "Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well." That means that the box-ticking is an absolute requirement, even if it is clearly and unambiguously bonkers.
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.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
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.
The problem is surely the other way around - that financial institutions should be able to use common sense without ticking idiotic boxes.
Well, that is where I started from. Professionals should use their judgement and be made to take responsibility for their decisions, not tick boxes.
I think the key is in Charles' phrase that "Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well." That means that the box-ticking is an absolute requirement, even if it is clearly and unambiguously bonkers.
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.
The problem is surely the other way around - that financial institutions should be able to use common sense without ticking idiotic boxes.
Well, that is where I started from. Professionals should use their judgement and be made to take responsibility for their decisions, not tick boxes.
I think the key is in Charles' phrase that "Regulated persons are expected to exercise judgement and common sense as well." That means that the box-ticking is an absolute requirement, even if it is clearly and unambiguously bonkers.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
Apologies, I don't suffer fools gladly.
I have already told you which parts of what you posted are nonsense. On the third point, it's pretty obvious, surely? Asylum is completely separate from immigration policy. There is no relation between them. (There are also very few asylum seekers entering the UK; for some reason, people seem to think it's a large number).
And some laughable said if only Ed had been more left wing. It is absolutely clear despite general public opinion not exactly happy with bankers, inequality, cost of living crisis etc etc etc, faced with a return to the 70's and proper socialism, the world has moved on and the share of the electorate who want that is small.
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.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
You made a causal link (donors do well, therefore this government supports immigration) without proving it.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
Apologies, I don't suffer fools gladly.
I have already told you which parts of what you posted are nonsense. On the third point, it's pretty obvious, surely? Asylum is completely separate from immigration policy. There is no relation between them. (There are also very few asylum seekers entering the UK; for some reason, people seem to think it's a large number).
Chuckle.
Now go and have a look in the mirror to remind yourself how wonderful you are.
Now go and have a look in the mirror to remind yourself how wonderful you are.
It's hard to educate people like you, but I do my best! So, have you got it now? You understand the difference between immigration policy and our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention? Or is that too much to expect?
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.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
You made a causal link (donors do well, therefore this government supports immigration) without proving it.
Yes it was a casual link but the response suggested I'd hit a nerve. Mr Nabavi nearly dropped his Tory Pom Poms he got so upset. How dare somebody suggest impropriety.
Yes it was a casual link but the response suggested I'd hit a nerve. Mr Nabavi nearly dropped his Tory Pom Poms he got so upset. How dare somebody suggest impropriety.
Quite right too. Nothing to do with Tory pom-poms - I'd make exactly the same point about a Labour or any other government.
Now go and have a look in the mirror to remind yourself how wonderful you are.
It's hard to educate people like you, but I do my best! So, have you got it now? You understand the difference between immigration policy and our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention? Or is that too much to expect?
Your best clearly isn't good enough, I suspect you've heard that before.
I doubt it's the last we hear that a property developer, housing hundreds of asylum seekers at taxpayers expense is a Tory donor.
But for Labour it also delivers a pretty devastating paragraph. Labour might as well give up, they are finished.
On current boundaries we need 94 gains to secure a majority of 2. There are only 24 Conservative seats with a majority of less than 3000 over Labour. There are only two seats in Scotland where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 5000. We have a number of seats with narrow majorities to defend.
I do think she has massaged even that. IIRC there are only five or six seats where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 10000.
Mr kle4 Lower down (up?) thread you suggest Cameron should be the next leader of the Conservative Party. ie he should not resign There is logic to this. All politicians are flawed, we are all human after all, and all make mistakes. Cameron is no different. He is a bit to the left of where I instinctively sit although I am not as rancidly right wing as I used to be (I am older and wiser and see how stupid such people are) but I see how necesary it is to trim and tack with the wind to remake progress. So I am happy with Cameron. Any replacement will have to work hard to be as good, or if you do not like that word then to be as effective. However taken in the round I think it would still be best for him to follow through with his decision. 15 years is a long time. He would be wise to preserve his sanity and can still serve somewhere and somehow and will some authority if he wants to. However the Conservative Party needs to move on and renew itself and Cameron should not hold it back. Once the referendum is out of the way then it has an opportunity to do this. To do it successfully the Conservative Party will have to show it's mettle and treat the issue seriously and with some caution and respect. I happen to think the Conservative Party does have mettle, unlike Labour. But it still has to show it. Such challenges cannot be avoided, and are better faced up to.
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.
Asylum seekers have everything to do with immigration policy. Once they pass through the first safe country they become economic migrants.
But for Labour it also delivers a pretty devastating paragraph. Labour might as well give up, they are finished.
On current boundaries we need 94 gains to secure a majority of 2. There are only 24 Conservative seats with a majority of less than 3000 over Labour. There are only two seats in Scotland where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 5000. We have a number of seats with narrow majorities to defend.
I do think she has massaged even that. IIRC there are only five or six seats where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 10000.
Yes it was a casual link but the response suggested I'd hit a nerve. Mr Nabavi nearly dropped his Tory Pom Poms he got so upset. How dare somebody suggest impropriety.
Quite right too. Nothing to do with Tory pom-poms - I'd make exactly the same point about a Labour or any other government.
Well TSE was "speechless" at the news, immigration minister was deeply concerned, you don't see what all the fuss is about.
Am I an asylum seeker? I have a red door but I've lived here all my life. It's a pretty stupid system if true - that can often lead you to natives like myself.
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.
An absolutely mad policy change from the EU. Just what one has come to expect from them.
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.
The UK government and courts would simply say the ECJ has no competence in that area under the treaties we have signed and enacted into law.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
Apologies, I don't suffer fools gladly.
I have already told you which parts of what you posted are nonsense. On the third point, it's pretty obvious, surely? Asylum is completely separate from immigration policy. There is no relation between them. (There are also very few asylum seekers entering the UK; for some reason, people seem to think it's a large number).
Be fair, Mr. Nabavi, I think it quite reasonable to conclude that this government is very keen on immigration. Cameron has been PM for nigh on six years and he has yet to do anything to reduce it - were not the last year's figures a record, or close to it. Of course, Cameron talks about reducing immigration, he even makes promises (or are they aspirations) to do so. But talk is cheap and easy, judge a man by his actions not by his words.
Whether Conservative Party donors have ny influence on policy, I wouldn't know. The cynic in me says that of course they do why else would rich people and organisations stump up for any political party if not to promote their own interests. That said I doubt the the Conservative's actions on immigration has been bought and paid for, anymore than their insane energy policy is influenced by the fact that Cameron's own family benefit from it to to the tune of £10s of thousands per annum. Just happy coincidences.
Asylum though has no connection with immigration policy. Those people who make it to our shores and manage to shout the magic word have to be accommodated somewhere, of course. I was interested to read the other week that Mr. Arora was in the business of providing them shelter and there is no surer sign that serious money is to be made (never bet against that chap; he is charming, devastatingly intelligent, caring and has the commercial acumen that would make a levantine usurer blush.
Well TSE was "speechless" at the news, immigration minister was deeply concerned, you don't see what all the fuss is about.
Come on Narcissus, keep on message.
The fuss was about the red doors, presumably.
(Of course, it might just be that the guy bought a job lot of cheap paint. I can't see why he'd deliberately want to draw attention to his tenants in your barmy conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can come up with an explanation for us to laugh at?)
Whether Conservative Party donors have ny influence on policy, I wouldn't know.
If they do, I can unambiguously and without fear of sane contradiction assure you, from my personal experience of meeting donors, that the pressure they would seek to apply is to reduce immigration.
Well TSE was "speechless" at the news, immigration minister was deeply concerned, you don't see what all the fuss is about.
Come on Narcissus, keep on message.
The fuss was about the red doors, presumably.
(Of course, it might just be that the guy bought a job lot of cheap paint. I can't see why he'd deliberately want to draw attention to his tenants in your barmy conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can come up with an explanation for us to laugh at?)
Nah, I'm too busy laughing at you mate. All parties have them, the political equivalent of 14 year old football fans.
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.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
You made a causal link (donors do well, therefore this government supports immigration) without proving it.
Yes it was a casual link but the response suggested I'd hit a nerve. Mr Nabavi nearly dropped his Tory Pom Poms he got so upset. How dare somebody suggest impropriety.
Whether Conservative Party donors have ny influence on policy, I wouldn't know.
If they do, I can unambiguously and without fear of sane contradiction assure you, from my personal experience of meeting donors, that the pressure they would seek to apply is to reduce immigration.
Oh right, they do seek to apply pressure then, interesting.
Well TSE was "speechless" at the news, immigration minister was deeply concerned, you don't see what all the fuss is about.
Come on Narcissus, keep on message.
The fuss was about the red doors, presumably.
(Of course, it might just be that the guy bought a job lot of cheap paint. I can't see why he'd deliberately want to draw attention to his tenants in your barmy conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can come up with an explanation for us to laugh at?)
Nah, I'm too busy laughing at you mate. All parties have them, the political equivalent of 14 year old football fans.
Come on, I'm eager to hear the full bonkers conspiracy theory. I get the bit about a Tory donor using his influence to make the Conservative Party keen on immigration - bonkers, but at least vaguely rational in some parallel universe. I'm struggling with the next bit - that this has anything to do with asylum, but I can see that the really naive might think it does.
But what about the next bit? I'd really like to know where the red doors come in. Come on, have a try. You're a Kipper, surely you can entertain us with something?
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.
Mr Nabavi you do get cross very easily, you know what they say about insults and debate.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
You made a causal link (donors do well, therefore this government supports immigration) without proving it.
Yes it was a casual link but the response suggested I'd hit a nerve. Mr Nabavi nearly dropped his Tory Pom Poms he got so upset. How dare somebody suggest impropriety.
Yes it was you being your usual crass self.
Look out, flight paths here to chuck a few insults around.
Well TSE was "speechless" at the news, immigration minister was deeply concerned, you don't see what all the fuss is about.
Come on Narcissus, keep on message.
The fuss was about the red doors, presumably.
(Of course, it might just be that the guy bought a job lot of cheap paint. I can't see why he'd deliberately want to draw attention to his tenants in your barmy conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can come up with an explanation for us to laugh at?)
Nah, I'm too busy laughing at you mate. All parties have them, the political equivalent of 14 year old football fans.
Come on, I'm eager to hear the full bonkers conspiracy theory. I get the bit about a Tory donor using his influence to make the Conservative Party keen on immigration - bonkers, but at least vaguely rational in some parallel universe. I'm struggling with the next bit - that this has anything to do with asylum, but I can see that the really naive might think it does.
But what about the next bit? I'd really like to know where the red doors come in. Come on, have a try. You're a Kipper, surely you can entertain us with something?
Who mentioned red doors? Look Mr Nabavi you've tied yourself in absolute knots here, once again, with your absolute and slavish defence of anything that suggests this govt is anything other than perfect. Under this govt, visitors from abroad are being targeted and intimidated, to make matters worse taxpayers are helping to make a Tory donor onto the Sunday Times Rich List.
You keep calling me names, I'll keep pointing out the truth - deal?
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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
Interesting about your mother, ta. But I think we should bear in mind that Attlee was around at a time there were Communist MPs winning seats to parliament, Communists attempting to join and organise in (I suppose we could say "infiltrate") the Labour movement and political structures, and there were attempts by Communist movements to affiliate with the Labour party. Attlee on the other hand was an anti-Communist Cold Warrior whose solution to the (Communist-led) London dock strikes of 1949 was to send in thousands of troops. I take your point about Laski being leftier than Corbyn, but would contend that a Laski-led Labour party would have encouraged a similar bunch of fellow-travellers to join the "movement" as Corbyn has.
I think of Corbyn as hard-left rather than far-left. But we all know he has substantial support among the far-left, the kind of folk that Attlee wouldn't have wanted to let within two bargepoles of his party.
Can you honestly imagine Major Attlee giving the time of day to Salma Yaqoob? Let alone trying to sort out a seat for her? Yet I've seen so many lefties sing her praises in recent years (including "proper Labour people", not necessarily Corbynistas, but certainly "non-Blairite").
If a supercentenarian Clem (and how delightful would it be if politicians were all pensioned off by 70-odd, yet could hang around to deliver the odd address in the Lords til their 150th or 200th birthday or so, whenever the repeating footsteps of history were encroaching the turf they'd toiled with in their historical heydays) could give them a blast of his opinion on Ms Yaqoob's treatment of British soldiers, I'm sure a lot of youngsters would disavow the reactionary militaristic old fogey.
Mr kle4 Lower down (up?) thread you suggest Cameron should be the next leader of the Conservative Party. ie he should not resign There is logic to this. All politicians are flawed, we are all human after all, and all make mistakes. Cameron is no different. He is a bit to the left of where I instinctively sit although I am not as rancidly right wing as I used to be (I am older and wiser and see how stupid such people are) but I see how necesary it is to trim and tack with the wind to remake progress. So I am happy with Cameron. Any replacement will have to work hard to be as good, or if you do not like that word then to be as effective. However taken in the round I think it would still be best for him to follow through with his decision. 15 years is a long time. He would be wise to preserve his sanity and can still serve somewhere and somehow and will some authority if he wants to. However the Conservative Party needs to move on and renew itself and Cameron should not hold it back. Once the referendum is out of the way then it has an opportunity to do this. To do it successfully the Conservative Party will have to show it's mettle and treat the issue seriously and with some caution and respect. I happen to think the Conservative Party does have mettle, unlike Labour. But it still has to show it. Such challenges cannot be avoided, and are better faced up to.
I am far too averse to being definitive to have intended to suggest he should be the next leader, merely that they could to a lot worse and none of the current lot have demonstrated the potential to match the extent of his appeal. But we shall see when they step out from his shadow. And as you say, to carry on would mean being leader of the party for a very long time, they do not want to fail to evolve a new generation for the party by being stunted under his long reign which drags on too far.
Asylum seekers have everything to do with immigration policy. Once they pass through the first safe country they become economic migrants.
Not exactly. The key is in the word 'seeker'. If someone turns up and seeks asylum, they are immediately outside the scope of immigration policy.
If large numbers of economic migrants understand this fact then it's very relevant to immigration policy.
How does someone from India arrive as an asylum seeker? India, a member of the commonwealth. How does someone from Syria actually arrive, migrant or asylum seeker or whatever?
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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Mr kle4 Lower down (up?) thread you suggest Cameron should be the next leader of the Conservative Party. ie he should not resign There is logic to this. All politicians are flawed, we are all human after all, and all make mistakes. Cameron is no different. He is a bit to the left of where I instinctively sit although I am not as rancidly right wing as I used to be (I am older and wiser and see how stupid such people are) but I see how necesary it is to trim and tack with the wind to remake progress. So I am happy with Cameron. Any replacement will have to work hard to be as good, or if you do not like that word then to be as effective. However taken in the round I think it would still be best for him to follow through with his decision. 15 years is a long time. He would be wise to preserve his sanity and can still serve somewhere and somehow and will some authority if he wants to. However the Conservative Party needs to move on and renew itself and Cameron should not hold it back. Once the referendum is out of the way then it has an opportunity to do this. To do it successfully the Conservative Party will have to show it's mettle and treat the issue seriously and with some caution and respect. I happen to think the Conservative Party does have mettle, unlike Labour. But it still has to show it. Such challenges cannot be avoided, and are better faced up to.
I am far too averse to being definitive to have intended to suggest he should be the next leader, merely that they could to a lot worse and none of the current lot have demonstrated the potential to match the extent of his appeal. But we shall see when they step out from his shadow. And as you say, to carry on would mean being leader of the party for a very long time, they do not want to fail to evolve a new generation for the party by being stunted under his long reign which drags on too far.
Night all.
Good night Yes, I was generalising a bit about you saying he should not resign. You are right, they could do a lot worse.
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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Not really a different note. It's the same PB virtue signalling on the exact same subject. Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party
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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Not really a different note. It's the same PB virtue signalling on the exact same subject. Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party
Not really a different note. It's the same PB virtue signalling on the exact same subject. Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning?
There's a lot of young lefties I know (primarily metropolitan types in London) who, from what I can see, would rather quickly change their tune about various "approved historical figures" and "approved foreign countries" if they knew a bit more about them. That's my point, really - lots of people labour under a rather misleading and idealised vision of people and times and places they know little about. (Nick Palmer, of course, is very well acquainted with both Labour history and Scandinavia - my attention was turned towards those who are less well-informed and might have some surprises in store.)
Not that that invalidates the idea of wanting to be more like Scandinavia, for instance. Just that young lefties wanting a more "Scandinavian" society generally are aiming for something that isn't quite like what modern Scandinavia is like. There are centre-right/liberal-minded people who want Britain to become more Scandinavian too, but the bits of Scandinavian society they are looking at are quite different - ideas like free schools, very autonomous local governments, more economic liberalism - while there are many aspects of life there they are willfully blind to. There are even ultra-conservative to far-right fans of "Scandinavia" who imagine a quaint and homogeneous society with deep historical roots, something they feel that Britain is in danger of losing or has already lost, but I'd note those folk generally haven't got a bleeding clue what the place is really like. "Scandinavia" in British political speak seems to be something of an ambigram, all things to all people.
Really not sure what you mean by "Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party".
I've not gone into detail on this one but, generally-speaking, if all formalities are not complied with, one may not claim citizenship under what, time-and-again, has been held to be congressional generosity or indulgence to people who (like Cruz) would otherwise be aliens.
Let's hear no more nonsense about this man being an NBC...
"Some nightclubs in Denmark are reportedly refusing entry to migrants unless they speak either Danish, English or German.
It comes after claims that asylum seekers and refugees have been harassing female guests.
Women in at least three Danish cities, Thisted, Haderslev and Sonderborg, have recently reported they feel uncomfortable at night because of how some migrants behave in bars and clubs."
I've not gone into detail on this one but, generally-speaking, if all formalities are not complied with, one may not claim citizenship under what, time-and-again, has been held to be congressional generosity or indulgence to people who (like Cruz) would otherwise be aliens.
Let's hear no more nonsense about this man being an NBC...
The richest Scottish students are 3.53 times more likely to enter university via UCAS than the poorest one, compared with 2.58 in Northern Ireland, 2.56 in Wales and 2.52 in England. For a poor young person wishing to go to university, Scotland is easily the worst country in the UK to grow up.
I've not gone into detail on this one but, generally-speaking, if all formalities are not complied with, one may not claim citizenship under what, time-and-again, has been held to be congressional generosity or indulgence to people who (like Cruz) would otherwise be aliens.
Let's hear no more nonsense about this man being an NBC...
…
The list of enemies of Ted Cruz get's longer and longer.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Well, yes and no - as I've cheerfully admitted, I was a supporter of the Danish Communist Party in my teens, who wanted to change all that. But in retrospect I've come to feel that it worked quite well, and I was mistaken to want to change it. Mainly I liked the lack of major wealth differences and the high-tax, excellent-service model. I am less bothered about who owns the services, to be honest.
In other news, in between chatting here I've just won a 'Horse' poker tournament for $556, so am heading cheerfully to bed. No more boom and bust, one might say. Good night!
Well, yes and no - as I've cheerfully admitted, I was a supporter of the Danish Communist Party in my teens, who wanted to change all that. But in retrospect I've come to feel that it worked quite well, and I was mistaken to want to change it. Mainly I liked the lack of major wealth differences and the high-tax, excellent-service model. I am less bothered about who owns the services, to be honest.
In other news, in between chatting here I've just won a 'Horse' poker tournament for $556, so am heading cheerfully to bed. No more boom and bust, one might say. Good night!
Sorry, I'd forgotten thought - thought your communist phase came later!
You're spot on about the redistributive nature of the system there. I know lots of lefties who look at the high tax rates there and assume it's some kind of socialist/statist utopia, driven by central planning and a top-down delivery model, but the truth is something quite different. They're the kind of people (rather than you) who I think might be unpleasantly surprised by a closer examination of the facts - but it might also be an eye-opener. British political discussion seems to have only a very limited interpretation of what "tax and spend" might mean, which often reduces debate to a matter of its degree, rather than thinking about its flavour.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Well, yes and no - as I've cheerfully admitted, I was a supporter of the Danish Communist Party in my teens, who wanted to change all that. But in retrospect I've come to feel that it worked quite well, and I was mistaken to want to change it. Mainly I liked the lack of major wealth differences and the high-tax, excellent-service model. I am less bothered about who owns the services, to be honest.
In other news, in between chatting here I've just won a 'Horse' poker tournament for $556, so am heading cheerfully to bed. No more boom and bust, one might say. Good night!
I'd like to learn how to play Poker some time. I don't have a clue about the game at the moment.
The great Nationalist fallacy.....that as people get older they don't change their minds....
More alarmingly for the Unionists, the poll showed that a clear majority of Scots under the age of 55 already support independence. It’s only a matter of time now.
The great Nationalist fallacy.....that as people get older they don't change their minds....
More alarmingly for the Unionists, the poll showed that a clear majority of Scots under the age of 55 already support independence. It’s only a matter of time now.
The richest Scottish students are 3.53 times more likely to enter university via UCAS than the poorest one, compared with 2.58 in Northern Ireland, 2.56 in Wales and 2.52 in England. For a poor young person wishing to go to university, Scotland is easily the worst country in the UK to grow up.
The richest Scottish students are 3.53 times more likely to enter university via UCAS than the poorest one, compared with 2.58 in Northern Ireland, 2.56 in Wales and 2.52 in England. For a poor young person wishing to go to university, Scotland is easily the worst country in the UK to grow up.
The conclusion might be true but does not really follow from that ratio.
From the article:
North of the Tweed, the poorer your family is the more debt you graduate with. Scottish students from families earning £16,999 or less will graduate with £5,000 more debt than those from families earning over £34,000, as research from Lucy Hunter Blackburn shows. And students who are assessed as mature and independent of their families (who are disproportionately from poorer backgrounds) get lumbered with £8,000 more in debt than students from the wealthiest families.
So in summary:
- Poor Scots are the least likely to go to University compared to their rich peers of any country in the UK and
- Those that do end up with greater debts the poorer they are.
Maintaining free university tuition while cutting student grants has amounted to a £20m transfer to middle-class students at the expense of less advantaged ones......In 2013/14 alone, spending on grants for low-income students was cut by 40 per cent.
I've not gone into detail on this one but, generally-speaking, if all formalities are not complied with, one may not claim citizenship under what, time-and-again, has been held to be congressional generosity or indulgence to people who (like Cruz) would otherwise be aliens.
Let's hear no more nonsense about this man being an NBC...
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.
Don't think so. I grew up in Denmark -liked the culture and economic system though I'd have preferred it further left (those were my commie days); I've been back frequently and still like it despite the strains that are evident. As for Attlee, his Corbyn was Harold Laski, who was arguably left of Corbyn (hard to compare in the different environments) - he didn't throw him out, though he had his "A period of silence would now be welcome" put-down.
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
On a different note ... when you were in Denmark, you presumably hardly noticed the fact that the ambulance and fire service were privatised. It didn't enrage you. It didn't make you furious at the hyper-capitalist neoliberalism that was controlling the socio-economic structure of the country. It was just there, the way things were, ticking along in the background... and it "worked" (at least in that social, cultural, political, geographical, economic context - I'm not saying it is a model suitable for immediate transcription to English climes).
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Not really a different note. It's the same PB virtue signalling on the exact same subject. Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party
While I Often take your general point on this, you might be over doing it
The richest Scottish students are 3.53 times more likely to enter university via UCAS than the poorest one, compared with 2.58 in Northern Ireland, 2.56 in Wales and 2.52 in England. For a poor young person wishing to go to university, Scotland is easily the worst country in the UK to grow up.
The conclusion might be true but does not really follow from that ratio.
From the article:
North of the Tweed, the poorer your family is the more debt you graduate with. Scottish students from families earning £16,999 or less will graduate with £5,000 more debt than those from families earning over £34,000, as research from Lucy Hunter Blackburn shows. And students who are assessed as mature and independent of their families (who are disproportionately from poorer backgrounds) get lumbered with £8,000 more in debt than students from the wealthiest families.
So in summary:
- Poor Scots are the least likely to go to University compared to their rich peers of any country in the UK and
- Those that do end up with greater debts the poorer they are.
Maintaining free university tuition while cutting student grants has amounted to a £20m transfer to middle-class students at the expense of less advantaged ones......In 2013/14 alone, spending on grants for low-income students was cut by 40 per cent.
Imagine the fuss if the Tories had done this?
The UCAS figure is misleading as it doesn't cover all admissions in Scotland, no comparison is given to debt burdens for student in the rest of the UK for comparison (hint despite the degree being 1 year shorter English students have more debt) , no comparison is made to the start of the SNP governments term (has it got worse or better?) and they also think the SNP has been in government since 2001.
Comments
Ironically, my vaguely Tory mum met Laski at a tea party and thought him charming, but they didn't talk politics at all and she was surprised to learn from me that he was a noted left-winger. Also met Beatrice Webb, whom she didn't take to.
Your chum TSE has stated on here that immigration is good which is why Osborne is encouraging it (arguing with May according to TSE). A Tory donor owns hundreds of properties let out to asylum seekers (paid for by taxpayers). I've no idea what your third point is.
Now perhaps you could calm down and tell me which part of what I posted is nonsense.
Only the rotten Labour ones such as Eccleston I assume.
I have already told you which parts of what you posted are nonsense. On the third point, it's pretty obvious, surely? Asylum is completely separate from immigration policy. There is no relation between them. (There are also very few asylum seekers entering the UK; for some reason, people seem to think it's a large number).
And some laughable said if only Ed had been more left wing. It is absolutely clear despite general public opinion not exactly happy with bankers, inequality, cost of living crisis etc etc etc, faced with a return to the 70's and proper socialism, the world has moved on and the share of the electorate who want that is small.
Now go and have a look in the mirror to remind yourself how wonderful you are.
I doubt it's the last we hear that a property developer, housing hundreds of asylum seekers at taxpayers expense is a Tory donor.
Move along, nothing to see here.
But for Labour it also delivers a pretty devastating paragraph. Labour might as well give up, they are finished.
On current boundaries we need 94 gains to secure a majority of 2. There are only 24 Conservative seats with a majority of less than 3000 over Labour. There are only two seats in Scotland
where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 5000. We have a number of
seats with narrow majorities to defend.
I do think she has massaged even that. IIRC there are only five or six seats where the SNP majority over Labour is less than 10000.
Lower down (up?) thread you suggest Cameron should be the next leader of the Conservative Party.
ie he should not resign
There is logic to this.
All politicians are flawed, we are all human after all, and all make mistakes. Cameron is no different. He is a bit to the left of where I instinctively sit although I am not as rancidly right wing as I used to be (I am older and wiser and see how stupid such people are) but I see how necesary it is to trim and tack with the wind to remake progress.
So I am happy with Cameron. Any replacement will have to work hard to be as good, or if you do not like that word then to be as effective.
However taken in the round I think it would still be best for him to follow through with his decision. 15 years is a long time. He would be wise to preserve his sanity and can still serve somewhere and somehow and will some authority if he wants to. However the Conservative Party needs to move on and renew itself and Cameron should not hold it back. Once the referendum is out of the way then it has an opportunity to do this. To do it successfully the Conservative Party will have to show it's mettle and treat the issue seriously and with some caution and respect.
I happen to think the Conservative Party does have mettle, unlike Labour. But it still has to show it. Such challenges cannot be avoided, and are better faced up to.
Come on Narcissus, keep on message.
Whether Conservative Party donors have ny influence on policy, I wouldn't know. The cynic in me says that of course they do why else would rich people and organisations stump up for any political party if not to promote their own interests. That said I doubt the the Conservative's actions on immigration has been bought and paid for, anymore than their insane energy policy is influenced by the fact that Cameron's own family benefit from it to to the tune of £10s of thousands per annum. Just happy coincidences.
Asylum though has no connection with immigration policy. Those people who make it to our shores and manage to shout the magic word have to be accommodated somewhere, of course. I was interested to read the other week that Mr. Arora was in the business of providing them shelter and there is no surer sign that serious money is to be made (never bet against that chap; he is charming, devastatingly intelligent, caring and has the commercial acumen that would make a levantine usurer blush.
(Of course, it might just be that the guy bought a job lot of cheap paint. I can't see why he'd deliberately want to draw attention to his tenants in your barmy conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can come up with an explanation for us to laugh at?)
But what about the next bit? I'd really like to know where the red doors come in. Come on, have a try. You're a Kipper, surely you can entertain us with something?
You keep calling me names, I'll keep pointing out the truth - deal?
It's snowing there, so I doubt she can see much at all.
I think of Corbyn as hard-left rather than far-left. But we all know he has substantial support among the far-left, the kind of folk that Attlee wouldn't have wanted to let within two bargepoles of his party.
Can you honestly imagine Major Attlee giving the time of day to Salma Yaqoob? Let alone trying to sort out a seat for her? Yet I've seen so many lefties sing her praises in recent years (including "proper Labour people", not necessarily Corbynistas, but certainly "non-Blairite").
If a supercentenarian Clem (and how delightful would it be if politicians were all pensioned off by 70-odd, yet could hang around to deliver the odd address in the Lords til their 150th or 200th birthday or so, whenever the repeating footsteps of history were encroaching the turf they'd toiled with in their historical heydays) could give them a blast of his opinion on Ms Yaqoob's treatment of British soldiers, I'm sure a lot of youngsters would disavow the reactionary militaristic old fogey.
Perhaps Kasich
Night all.
How does someone from Syria actually arrive, migrant or asylum seeker or whatever?
Now, if I were to announce on Facebook my hypothetical strong belief that Britain should adopt the Danish approach to emergency services provision, I imagine that would go down like a nice hot drink of cocoa with a dose of hygge.
Until I explained what it actually meant, in which case there would be a miraculous and immediate transubstantiation of warm drink to cold sick.
Yes, I was generalising a bit about you saying he should not resign. You are right, they could do a lot worse.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/resources/election-forecast-evaluation-report.pdf
It took Thatcher and Blair 15 years to go bonkers, has it taken Trump 15 weeks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyfUu_fNQfM
There's a lot of young lefties I know (primarily metropolitan types in London) who, from what I can see, would rather quickly change their tune about various "approved historical figures" and "approved foreign countries" if they knew a bit more about them. That's my point, really - lots of people labour under a rather misleading and idealised vision of people and times and places they know little about. (Nick Palmer, of course, is very well acquainted with both Labour history and Scandinavia - my attention was turned towards those who are less well-informed and might have some surprises in store.)
Not that that invalidates the idea of wanting to be more like Scandinavia, for instance. Just that young lefties wanting a more "Scandinavian" society generally are aiming for something that isn't quite like what modern Scandinavia is like. There are centre-right/liberal-minded people who want Britain to become more Scandinavian too, but the bits of Scandinavian society they are looking at are quite different - ideas like free schools, very autonomous local governments, more economic liberalism - while there are many aspects of life there they are willfully blind to. There are even ultra-conservative to far-right fans of "Scandinavia" who imagine a quaint and homogeneous society with deep historical roots, something they feel that Britain is in danger of losing or has already lost, but I'd note those folk generally haven't got a bleeding clue what the place is really like. "Scandinavia" in British political speak seems to be something of an ambigram, all things to all people.
Really not sure what you mean by "Virtue = Conservatives, evil = Labour Party".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HsyEvr5Pnw
http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-that-ted-cruz-did-not-become-a-us-citizen-at-birth
I've not gone into detail on this one but, generally-speaking, if all formalities are not complied with, one may not claim citizenship under what, time-and-again, has been held to be congressional generosity or indulgence to people who (like Cruz) would otherwise be aliens.
Let's hear no more nonsense about this man being an NBC...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politics/sarah-palin-energy-secretary/
You can calm down.
It comes after claims that asylum seekers and refugees have been harassing female guests.
Women in at least three Danish cities, Thisted, Haderslev and Sonderborg, have recently reported they feel uncomfortable at night because of how some migrants behave in bars and clubs."
http://news.sky.com/story/1625755/danish-clubs-bar-migrants-in-language-row
GOP Sen. Ron Johnson Agrees With Trump: Cruz Should Get Declaratory Judgement On Eligibility - BuzzFeed News http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-johnson-agrees-with-trump-cruz-should-get-declaratory-ju?utm_term=.dcldaZO0a …
The list of enemies of Ted Cruz get's longer and longer.
USA!
USA!
Averages: Remain 44%, Leave 40%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
(from a distance though)
R&T: Lab 39%, Con 33%, LD 15%.
BBC: Lab 38%, Con 31%, LD 16%.
UKIP weren't included, maybe because they were still in single figures in the opinion polls at the time.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/02/local-elections-and-question-ukip/
The richest Scottish students are 3.53 times more likely to enter university via UCAS than the poorest one, compared with 2.58 in Northern Ireland, 2.56 in Wales and 2.52 in England. For a poor young person wishing to go to university, Scotland is easily the worst country in the UK to grow up.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2016/01/what-snp-doesnt-understand-about-tuition-fees
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/01/plp-boots-jeremy-corbyn-ally-nec-battle-control-just-beginning
In other news, in between chatting here I've just won a 'Horse' poker tournament for $556, so am heading cheerfully to bed. No more boom and bust, one might say. Good night!
You're spot on about the redistributive nature of the system there. I know lots of lefties who look at the high tax rates there and assume it's some kind of socialist/statist utopia, driven by central planning and a top-down delivery model, but the truth is something quite different. They're the kind of people (rather than you) who I think might be unpleasantly surprised by a closer examination of the facts - but it might also be an eye-opener. British political discussion seems to have only a very limited interpretation of what "tax and spend" might mean, which often reduces debate to a matter of its degree, rather than thinking about its flavour.
Congrats on the poker win!
More alarmingly for the Unionists, the poll showed that a clear majority of Scots under the age of 55 already support independence. It’s only a matter of time now.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-scottish-tories-theyre-serfs-too-to-the-rest-of-the-party.12567
North of the Tweed, the poorer your family is the more debt you graduate with. Scottish students from families earning £16,999 or less will graduate with £5,000 more debt than those from families earning over £34,000, as research from Lucy Hunter Blackburn shows. And students who are assessed as mature and independent of their families (who are disproportionately from poorer backgrounds) get lumbered with £8,000 more in debt than students from the wealthiest families.
So in summary:
- Poor Scots are the least likely to go to University compared to their rich peers of any country in the UK and
- Those that do end up with greater debts the poorer they are.
Maintaining free university tuition while cutting student grants has amounted to a £20m transfer to middle-class students at the expense of less advantaged ones......In 2013/14 alone, spending on grants for low-income students was cut by 40 per cent.
Imagine the fuss if the Tories had done this?
But apart from that a great article.