A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
For what it's worth, I asked my wife what she thought about Cameron using the term. In general, Jenny is well to the left of me but not particularly party political. Instinctively I think she'd be a Green although at local elections she'll vote on the merits of the individual and at national ones, competence also comes fairly strongly into play. Her thoughts were that it depended on the context in which the PM used it (she didn't see or hear PMQs), that of itself the term isn't offensive, that whether it is or not depends on the context in which it's used but that 'group' or 'collection' would have been better. So if someone with natural sympathies for the left-of-centre and for refugees in general isn't offended by the term in general, it's unlikely that Labour will gain any traction with swing voters.
It shows what a pickle the Labour Right is in. The issues that they'd die in the ditch for are defending mass immigration, and supporting EU integration, neither of which put them on the right side of public opinion.
That's putting it very mildly. We even have a poster on here who thinks Transgenderism is the biggest issue of the day.
Until Labour move on from their obsession with the identity politics of the mid 60s to mid 90s, they will never regain power. The trouble is that they move in social circles of media, arts, charities, think tanks, and political researchers who all think as they do.
eg Dawn Butler, who thinks it acceptable to criticise Kwasi Kwarteng for having too many White friends.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
snip
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
I've seen the replays. It is clear, to me at least, that the context was that the Labour leader was involved in various time-wasting exercises, one of which was going to spend time, "with a bunch of migrants". It was a massive mistake by Cameron, as it revealed his view of the world - i.e. there are important people and unimportant people.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet: the Challenger disaster was thirty years ago today.
The US space program never really recovered.
The shuttle had alot of accomplishments, the ISS and probably the Hubble repair being the top two that I can think of.
But fundamentally it always felt like a step back from Apollo. I mean that got to the moon !
RIP Challenger crew
The Shuttle was an ambitious program that, if it had reached its initial goals, would have changed space travel forever. Unfortunately those initial goals were both expanded and watered down. The X37 is an example of just part of what the program might have achieved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
As an aside, AIUI the Apollo program was cancelled not just due to cost: not a single Saturn V launch went as planned, and the engineers felt that it was a matter of time before there was a disaster. There were engine failures (particularly on the second stage) and pogoing that could have been disastrous.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
+1. A refugee is a refugee only until the point they reach somewhere that is safe. Once their move beyond that point (of their own free will) they are no longer a refugee in danger but a migrant trying to improve their economic opportunities...
Doing some modelling of Osborne's pension tax relief changes.... If the worst case scenario of abolishing salary sacrifice and restricting ta relief to 25% entails then I am looking at a £150-200k reduction in my pension pot at retirement.
It would also mean I'm subject to a 69%marginal tax rate (42% tax and NI, 9% student loan and George's 18% additional 'child benefit' tax rate too.
This is far worse than anything Brown ever did to pensions.
I wonder if there will be a big increase in the higher rate threshold in the budget as a sop?
You thought Osborne was on our side?
His super Google tax deal is now going to get the run over by the EU to see if it's state aid.
The number of stupid blunders by Osborne piles up as he attempts to grab the limelight on every govt announcement. Osborne is now likely to suffer a further embarrassment from the EC in about a year when this investigation is completed. A just reward for his pro-Remain activity.
I often refer to my crews as "a bunch of neer do wells"..and Sound men as "a bunch of Decibel Daisies"...none of them have taken me to court..sued me..or even cried..
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
About time you put your cards on the table instead of sitting on the fence
@SouthamObserver How much tax did Google pay during the Labour years? What we have now does not reflect the true tax worth but it's something more than a big fat zero.
Pull the other one - how many of these hand wringing luvvies would welcome these people into their own houses? Or even welcome them as neighbours?
None of them. They're happy to wring hands and call for something to be done, safe in the knowledge that it's someone else's money being spent, and any refugees will be housed in areas far away from their cosy Islington enclaves.
How many has Yvette Cooper taken into one of her taxpayer funded homes?
Corbyn and Labour are simply on the wrong side of this argument. Whether they are a 'bunch', a community or a tribe, they are in France... France, one of the richest democracies in the world. It is not British politicians' job to help them, it is French politicians'. Corbyn was 'wasting his time'; if he wanted to help these people, he should have been lobbying the French government, not the British. Cameron has been consistent. We will take those in need from the camps closest to the civil war in Syria. Anything else is merely creating pull factors leading to drownings and misery across southern Europe. British voters are not fools, so Labour supporters should be listening to them, not lecturing them and professing their virtue by demanding we open our doors to economic migrants with no claim.
Corbyn and Labour are simply on the wrong side of this argument. Whether they are a 'bunch', a community or a tribe, they are in France... France, one of the richest democracies in the world. It is not British politicians' job to help them, it is French politicians'. Corby was 'wasting his time'; if he wanted to help these people, he should have been lobbying the French government, not the British. Cameron has been consistent. We will take those in need from the camps closest to the civil war in Syria. Anything else is merely creating pull factors leading to drownings and misery across southern Europe. British voters are not fools, so Labour supporters should be listening to them, not lecturing them and professing their virtue by demanding we open our doors to economic migrants with no claim.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
It came at the end of a list of Britain-hostile things Corbyn had done in the last week - from memory it was something like ".. he gave away the Falklands on Monday, met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and said they could all come to the UK on Tuesday..."
I thought that it was dismissive of Corbyn's attitude towards migrants which Cameron was implying was credulous. I thought it was an effective line of Cameron's and imo Labour are unwise to keep returning to it.
SO..Then the people on the Left need to try growing up..if they feel there is a case to make in letting all of those in Calais come over then they should stand up and make it..stop simpering and handwringing on the sidelines.
Doing some modelling of Osborne's pension tax relief changes.... If the worst case scenario of abolishing salary sacrifice and restricting ta relief to 25% entails then I am looking at a £150-200k reduction in my pension pot at retirement.
It would also mean I'm subject to a 69%marginal tax rate (42% tax and NI, 9% student loan and George's 18% additional 'child benefit' tax rate too.
This is far worse than anything Brown ever did to pensions.
I wonder if there will be a big increase in the higher rate threshold in the budget as a sop?
You thought Osborne was on our side?
His super Google tax deal is now going to get the run over by the EU to see if it's state aid.
The number of stupid blunders by Osborne piles up as he attempts to grab the limelight on every govt announcement. Osborne is now likely to suffer a further embarrassment from the EC in about a year when this investigation is completed. A just reward for his pro-Remain activity.
As it should be. Osborne was a fool to allow such a deal to be signed and an even bigger one to then go an trumpet it as a victory for the government/taxpayer.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
I think it is a case of stupidity on the left. These people have chosen to live in that awful camp, they could go to the French government and claim asylum if they are in real need, but they don't. They want to come here, not because they are in need, but for economic reasons. I need to have the worldview of supporting illegal immigration explained to me, because I don't see it as anything other than basic stupidity.
It would be darkly funny if the Government within around a year won a General Election on the premise that that the economy was doing well and a referendum on the premise that it was doing badly.
Succinct Nick, Osborne will soon run out of fingers to point
@SO - As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
Arch lefty Bonnie Greer referred to “a bunch of Romanian migrants” – outcry, zero.
It's not what is said that upsets the left, it is who says it - and it's called double standards.
Corbyn and Labour are simply on the wrong side of this argument. Whether they are a 'bunch', a community or a tribe, they are in France... France, one of the richest democracies in the world. It is not British politicians' job to help them, it is French politicians'. Corbyn was 'wasting his time'; if he wanted to help these people, he should have been lobbying the French government, not the British. Cameron has been consistent. We will take those in need from the camps closest to the civil war in Syria. Anything else is merely creating pull factors leading to drownings and misery across southern Europe. British voters are not fools, so Labour supporters should be listening to them, not lecturing them and professing their virtue by demanding we open our doors to economic migrants with no claim.
Indeed.
The French will do nothing. It makes no sense to do otherwise, or they'll simply encourage more migrants to arrive in Calais.
richardDodd It will be interesting to see if Sweden removes 80k people from its territory.
'I think meaningful numbers of deportations would make a big difference to the migrant flow. You risk life and limb because you think you'll get a better life in the West. If there is a significant chance that you are risking your life to end up back where you started, then the incentive is greatly reduced.'
About the same chance as Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
The Swedish government knows perfectly well that this will be blocked by HR lawyers & the ECHR and in the unlikely event that fails there's no place to deport them to .
Just soundbites to try and pacify a very concerned public.
Doing some modelling of Osborne's pension tax relief changes.... If the worst case scenario of abolishing salary sacrifice and restricting ta relief to 25% entails then I am looking at a £150-200k reduction in my pension pot at retirement.
It would also mean I'm subject to a 69%marginal tax rate (42% tax and NI, 9% student loan and George's 18% additional 'child benefit' tax rate too.
This is far worse than anything Brown ever did to pensions.
I wonder if there will be a big increase in the higher rate threshold in the budget as a sop?
You thought Osborne was on our side?
His super Google tax deal is now going to get the run over by the EU to see if it's state aid.
The number of stupid blunders by Osborne piles up as he attempts to grab the limelight on every govt announcement. Osborne is now likely to suffer a further embarrassment from the EC in about a year when this investigation is completed. A just reward for his pro-Remain activity.
As it should be. Osborne was a fool to allow such a deal to be signed and an even bigger one to then go an trumpet it as a victory for the government/taxpayer.
Osborne dilutes his time across a widening range of issues and loses sight of what his own department's functions are doing. If he had let the HMRC make the announcement, then the civil servants such as the awful Lin Homer would have borne the brunt.
Economic perceptions are not necessarily particularly closely tied to economic reality. It may be as much a spillover about wider concerns about what's going on as to do with people's own economic experience.
There's nothing much in the data to suggest that the economy is heading for the rocks any time soon. Wage inflation taking off looks as much a risk as economic slowdown.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
But they aren't genuinely upset - this is a classic example of faux outrage in order to distract attention from their own failings.
And by continuing to peddle this particular line, they are only making themselves look more and more out of touch
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
snip
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
I've seen the replays. It is clear, to me at least, that the context was that the Labour leader was involved in various time-wasting exercises, one of which was going to spend time, "with a bunch of migrants". It was a massive mistake by Cameron, as it revealed his view of the world - i.e. there are important people and unimportant people.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
Don't make me laugh. These people are the French governments responsibility, why was Corbyn there?
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
But they aren't genuinely upset - this is a classic example of faux outrage in order to distract attention from their own failings.
And by continuing to peddle this particular line, they are only making themselves look more and more out of touch
I disagree - I think a lot of people are genuinely upset. But I also agree that this probably makes them out of touch with majority opinion.
GDP figures are literally steady as she goes. Manufacturing remains in the dumps, services are still strong and construction looks to have recovered.
I think the problem for Osborne is that steady as she goes isn't enough to close the deficit without further cuts, we can see this year that the deficit target it going to be missed because nominal growth of 2.1% doesn't cut it.
He is going to have to u-turn on his u-turn and re-instate tax credit cuts, I don't see any other way that £8-10bn worth of additional savings can be made over the next 4 years in order to balance the books at this lower rate of growth.
Doing some modelling of Osborne's pension tax relief changes.... If the worst case scenario of abolishing salary sacrifice and restricting ta relief to 25% entails then I am looking at a £150-200k reduction in my pension pot at retirement.
It would also mean I'm subject to a 69%marginal tax rate (42% tax and NI, 9% student loan and George's 18% additional 'child benefit' tax rate too.
This is far worse than anything Brown ever did to pensions.
I wonder if there will be a big increase in the higher rate threshold in the budget as a sop?
You thought Osborne was on our side?
His super Google tax deal is now going to get the run over by the EU to see if it's state aid.
The number of stupid blunders by Osborne piles up as he attempts to grab the limelight on every govt announcement. Osborne is now likely to suffer a further embarrassment from the EC in about a year when this investigation is completed. A just reward for his pro-Remain activity.
As it should be. Osborne was a fool to allow such a deal to be signed and an even bigger one to then go an trumpet it as a victory for the government/taxpayer.
Osborne dilutes his time across a widening range of issues and loses sight of what his own department's functions are doing. If he had let the HMRC make the announcement, then the civil servants such as the awful Lin Homer would have borne the brunt.
Because McDonnell is an imbecile Osborne has no-one holding him to account. It turns out Balls was very good for him.
In my experience, barking is evidence of an over excited or anxious doggy. Calm submissive is the emotional state needed to shut up. That's totally in the space of the owner.
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
snip
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
I've seen the replays. It is clear, to me at least, that the context was that the Labour leader was involved in various time-wasting exercises, one of which was going to spend time, "with a bunch of migrants". It was a massive mistake by Cameron, as it revealed his view of the world - i.e. there are important people and unimportant people.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
Don't make me laugh. These people are the French governments responsibility, why was Corbyn there?
Why was Corbyn meddling in the affairs of a neighbouring country and ally? How would we feel if Hollande walked around the flats of Glasgow and remarked about how awful their situation was with life expectancies worse than parts of Africa?
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
snip
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
I've seen the replays. It is clear, to me at least, that the context was that the Labour leader was involved in various time-wasting exercises, one of which was going to spend time, "with a bunch of migrants". It was a massive mistake by Cameron, as it revealed his view of the world - i.e. there are important people and unimportant people.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
Don't make me laugh. These people are the French governments responsibility, why was Corbyn there?
Why was Corbyn meddling in the affairs of a neighbouring country and ally? How would we feel if Hollande walked around the flats of Glasgow and remarked about how awful their situation was with life expectancies worse than parts of Africa?
Economic perceptions are not necessarily particularly closely tied to economic reality. It may be as much a spillover about wider concerns about what's going on as to do with people's own economic experience.
There's nothing much in the data to suggest that the economy is heading for the rocks any time soon. Wage inflation taking off looks as much a risk as economic slowdown.
Not in our economic data, but look at Europe. A record monetary stimulus programme and Germany can muster 1.3% annual growth, France just 1% and Italy 0.8%, the ECB can't continue to print money indefinitely as it stores up a lot of long term problems and because it is so late the EMU nations are not benefiting from higher than trend growth in the manner that we did or the US did. To me it does look like the EU is just turning into a massive version of Japan, little to no growth, ageing populations, massive pension liabilities and rising healthcare costs.
If we get blown off course it will be because of something that happens on the continent rather than over here, meaning the impact won't be as bad as people expect (or in the case of the Labour leadership, hope).
I don't know Blanchflowers predictions but was his mass unemployment claim based on what Osborne said he was going to do (eliminate the deficit in a single parliament) or what he actually did ( follow Labour's spending plans)?
His prediction of five million unemployed was based on what Osborne said he was going to do, which was in fact quite close to what he did do. The slower reduction in deficit came largely as a result of the negative impact of the Euro-crisis on the UK economy.
Osborne most certainly did not follow Labour's spending plans and was opposed at each and every turn by Miliband and Balls. While Darling had a nominal objective of halving the deficit by the end of the parliament (which is what I presume you refer to), he never laid out plans to get there, and nor did his successors.
In any case, even if there was a deviation between what Osborne said he'd do and what he actually did, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough to explain the discrepancy between on the one hand Blanchflower's predictions of unemployment much worse than the 1980s, and on the other, the reality of the highest employment of all time.
As you say - he could not follow labours spending plans because they did not have any. They did not have a spending review before the election. Osborne did not promise to eliminate the deficit in a parliament, he promised to eliminate the structural deficit. That still might leave elements of the cyclical deficit. As the OOB figures pointed out at the time, the structural deficit turned out to be bigger than supposed.
Doing some modelling of Osborne's pension tax relief changes.... If the worst case scenario of abolishing salary sacrifice and restricting ta relief to 25% entails then I am looking at a £150-200k reduction in my pension pot at retirement.
It would also mean I'm subject to a 69%marginal tax rate (42% tax and NI, 9% student loan and George's 18% additional 'child benefit' tax rate too.
This is far worse than anything Brown ever did to pensions.
I wonder if there will be a big increase in the higher rate threshold in the budget as a sop?
You thought Osborne was on our side?
His super Google tax deal is now going to get the run over by the EU to see if it's state aid.
The number of stupid blunders by Osborne piles up as he attempts to grab the limelight on every govt announcement. Osborne is now likely to suffer a further embarrassment from the EC in about a year when this investigation is completed. A just reward for his pro-Remain activity.
As it should be. Osborne was a fool to allow such a deal to be signed and an even bigger one to then go an trumpet it as a victory for the government/taxpayer.
Osborne dilutes his time across a widening range of issues and loses sight of what his own department's functions are doing. If he had let the HMRC make the announcement, then the civil servants such as the awful Lin Homer would have borne the brunt.
Because McDonnell is an imbecile Osborne has no-one holding him to account. It turns out Balls was very good for him.
I mentioned it earlier, but the loss of Balls to the UK left is going to leave a very big gap in terms of knowledge and ability. I didn't like Balls and found him to be quite irritating, but he knew what he was talking about and had a way to get under Osborne's skin that McIRA just doesn't have.
It's fair to say I'm a critic of Cameron, but that's based on what he does not what he says. This latest wailing over "bunch" is pathetic, it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to. But a note to tories defending him, if Farage had said it you'd be jumping up and down too, you're no better than the luvvies you castigate.
Why was Corbyn meddling in the affairs of a neighbouring country and ally? How would we feel if Hollande walked around the flats of Glasgow and remarked about how awful their situation was with life expectancies worse than parts of Africa?
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
What google tax fiasco. How much google tax did Labour collect. Google is expanding its operation in Britain. Its spending £1 billion on a new HQ. Would you rather it transferred to France? I have not a clue how you work out which if any tax domain google belongs to, but its paying a massive percent more tax now than it did with Labour and is spending a massive amount in Britain to employ British workers. A whole bunch of them.
It's fair to say I'm a critic of Cameron, but that's based on what he does not what he says. This latest wailing over "bunch" is pathetic, it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to. But a note to tories defending him, if Farage had said it you'd be jumping up and down too, you're no better than the luvvies you castigate.
No, we wouldn't. Indeed, Farage almost certainly will have said something along those lines and I very much doubt there was any meaningful criticism from the Tories.
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
What google tax fiasco. How much google tax did Labour collect. Google is expanding its operation in Britain. Its spending £1 billion on a new HQ. Would you rather it transferred to France? I have not a clue how you work out which if any tax domain google belongs to, but its paying a massive percent more tax now than it did with Labour and is spending a massive amount in Britain to employ British workers. A whole bunch of them.
A 'bunch'? I'm disgusted. Oh wait, they're British? Who cares about them. As you were.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
SO if these were people genuinely in need they would have gone to the French state and claimed asylum or refugee status. The issue is that they are not in need. They are economic migrants who want to come here by whatever means necessary so they have built this shanty town camp in Calais hoping to jump into a Lorry while they wait at traffic lights.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
As I say, this is a case of very different world views. I totally get the point you are making. But I totally get why people on the left are upset by what Cameron said.
But they aren't genuinely upset - this is a classic example of faux outrage in order to distract attention from their own failings.
And by continuing to peddle this particular line, they are only making themselves look more and more out of touch
I disagree - I think a lot of people are genuinely upset. But I also agree that this probably makes them out of touch with majority opinion.
No - they have been told that they should be upset and so they are. They may believe that this is genuine - but it isn't. It just fits their twisted world view - that doesn't make it genuine.
It is so typical of the tumblr/twitterati - divorced from reality and the real world and just living in a bubble of mutual reinforcement.
The Tory MP for Dover has done PR shoots in Calais looking caring and concerned. Of course when Corbyn does it he gets slated by tories. When the Dover MP turned up for a meeting with the Mayor of Calais she didn't even bother to attend herself, she sent her deputy along.
A bunch of 50 migrants stormed a ferry last week, every night they run into the tunnel - do you think the French give a toss?
I think all of us are prisoners of our preconceptions. Blanchflower, as a left wing economist, will tend to see things enacted by Labour governments as good, and those enacted by Conservative governments as bad. Cognitive dissonance is strong with most of us, and we all have a tendency to assume the next crisis will be exactly like the last one.
I agree. That is why his despair at what is passing for an economic argument at the top of the Labour Party is all the more telling.
The photographs in this article is the true face of this bunch of law breakers the other side of the channel. If it's so bad why don't they apply for asylum in France? Well....why don't they? ( or any of The countries they passed through to get to France after Merkels open invitation)
Still don't understand why Labour and the left wing are howling to the moon about the word bunch and yet...yet... Not complaining to the great socialist leader and his party on the other side of the channel about the appalling conditions the French are leaving these people in. Come on why is their no criticism of socialist Hollande for not providing doctors and nurses, accommodation ....asylum etc etc. Why no offers of asylum? Why only criticism of the British government upholding the law?
We all know why of course.
On the other hand and perhaps of equal important why have these so called refugees ( they are not in any sense of the word given their location) not applied to France for legal status if they feel they have a genuine case?
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
What google tax fiasco. How much google tax did Labour collect. Google is expanding its operation in Britain. Its spending £1 billion on a new HQ. Would you rather it transferred to France? I have not a clue how you work out which if any tax domain google belongs to, but its paying a massive percent more tax now than it did with Labour and is spending a massive amount in Britain to employ British workers. A whole bunch of them.
My own reaction is way out of tune with the public opinion. I think this might be under the counter state-aid but, if so, I'm glad to see it.
Will that work for Zac, I wonder (assuming it really is Crosby's plan).
The "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" poster seemed quite good (as in likely to be effective) to me.
It's all part of the same attack line. Making him Corbyn's candidate is what opens him up to be attacked on terror given Corbyn's position on ISIS and other terror organisations. While that might be tenuous on its own given that Khan isn't Corbyn, but his relationship to Babar Ahmed will make it stick.
It is a classic Crosby wedge, just like the Lab/SNP wedge. Terrorism is probably the one issue that motivates Outer Londoners more than anything else, if Khan is seen to be weak on terror and extremists it will get them to turn out to vote, which is probably the most important aspect to the mayoral vote.
Will that work for Zac, I wonder (assuming it really is Crosby's plan).
The "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" poster seemed quite good (as in likely to be effective) to me.
Apathy will do for Zac, in a contest of mediocre candidates I think not enough will positively turn out against Khan for Zac to win.
Which is why Crosby is moving it to a classic wedge issue where Khan and Labour are weak. If he can make Khan look weak on terror or a terrorist sympathiser because of his links to Babar Ahmed then it will get outer Londoners to go and vote while a lot of the soft left will stay home.
Well quite - long predicted - and the reason Khan will lose.
In the age of terror attacks, an ISIL sympathising party with an ISIL sympathising leader can't win with a Muslim candidate who has gone out of his way to help a terrorist Islamic mate who is a convicted Islamic terrorist.
I would say bunch gate is a storm in a teacup, but it isn't even that. It's a subatomic light breeze in a thimble.
To become indignant over the use of one entirely innocuous, and widely-used, everyday collective noun in the middle of a sentence is beyond ridiculous.
It isn't about the word. Cameron's real "crime" is nothing more than to be dismissive of those who wish to value-signal at the expense of the wider British population.
British Museum LIVE on #Periscope: Go behind the scenes with our #SicilyExhibition curators to see some of the incredible objects! https://t.co/CXhCmwaEGf
Well quite - long predicted - and the reason Khan will lose.
In the age of terror attacks, an ISIL sympathising party with an ISIL sympathising leader can't win with a Muslim candidate who has gone out of his way to help a terrorist Islamic mate who is a convicted Islamic terrorist.
A halfway credible and competent opposition would be making hay right now, what with the referendum, the Google tax fiasco, the pensions grab, the tax credit climbdown and so on. The government has had a very poor time of it since the election. But it is unscathed because Labour is led by a moron who surrounds himself with morons.
That is the real tragedy of Corbyn. The Labour party have no time for anything other than their own feuding. Never has such a thin government majority seemed so secure.
And yet it wasn't just the Corbynists jumping on that bandwagon (are we allowed to use 'bandwagon'?). Chukka Ummuna was just as vocal and outraged. Even Robert Peston was tweeting that Corbyn missed an opportunity in the House when he didn't pick up on "bunch" (but then maybe that's a measure of Peston's declining skills and influence).
snip
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
I've seen the replays. It is clear, to me at least, that the context was that the Labour leader was involved in various time-wasting exercises, one of which was going to spend time, "with a bunch of migrants". It was a massive mistake by Cameron, as it revealed his view of the world - i.e. there are important people and unimportant people.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
No calls from you for Hollande to do anything then? Anything....anything at all? They are in his country you know. Perhaps we should rename France Afghanifrance? Would at least make the lefts "refugee" claim at least a little more logical but not much.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
It came at the end of a list of Britain-hostile things Corbyn had done in the last week - from memory it was something like ".. he gave away the Falklands on Monday, met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and said they could all come to the UK on Tuesday..."
I thought that it was dismissive of Corbyn's attitude towards migrants which Cameron was implying was credulous. I thought it was an effective line of Cameron's and imo Labour are unwise to keep returning to it.
Don't forget the unions secondary picketing on Wednesday...or was that Monday? So many now hard to keep track TBH.
'Speaking to ITV on Monday following his visit, Mr Corbyn called for a humane response to the migration in Calais.
He said: 'I'm not saying all 9,000 should come. Start with those that have a British connection and a British passport - that's an obvious one.
'And the Home Office can let up a bit and be reasonable in those cases.'
Mr Corbyn said he had been 'surprised' by how many people at the camp he had met who held British passports.
Why are they in the camp if they hold a British passport. Are they fake? Am I missing something here?
And if they have a valid UK passport, they don't need to be sitting in camp in Calais...
But then Corbyn might have been confused because he met some of the volunteers who have gone over there to help - and they have UK Passports (and bleeding hearts)
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
It came at the end of a list of Britain-hostile things Corbyn had done in the last week - from memory it was something like ".. he gave away the Falklands on Monday, met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and said they could all come to the UK on Tuesday..."
I thought that it was dismissive of Corbyn's attitude towards migrants which Cameron was implying was credulous. I thought it was an effective line of Cameron's and imo Labour are unwise to keep returning to it.
Don't forget the unions secondary picketing on Wednesday...or was that Monday? So many now hard to keep track TBH.
Still waiting for anyone from the Labour camp to come up with a reason the British people should allow several thousand economic migrants, now camped in Calais, into the country..all I hear is handwringing noises and lots of tutting about a word..
Anyone choosing to stay in Calais is dismissable Southam unless there is a reason they can't apply for asylum in France. What is so horrendous about France that they are seeking refuge from France to the UK?
'Speaking to ITV on Monday following his visit, Mr Corbyn called for a humane response to the migration in Calais.
He said: 'I'm not saying all 9,000 should come. Start with those that have a British connection and a British passport - that's an obvious one.
'And the Home Office can let up a bit and be reasonable in those cases.'
Mr Corbyn said he had been 'surprised' by how many people at the camp he had met who held British passports.
Why are they in the camp if they hold a British passport. Are they fake? Am I missing something here?
And if they have a valid UK passport, they don't need to be sitting in camp in Calais...
But then Corbyn might have been confused because he met some of the volunteers who have gone over there to help - and they have UK Passports (and bleeding hearts)
it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to.
Nah.....its always been like this. Each election is 'the dirtiest to date'. Each campaign 'more vicious than the last'. Each Prime Minister 'the most shameful disgrace' to hold the office.
But, curiously enough, we're still here, in one of the most prosperous, safe large country in the world....
What 'bunchgate' tells me is that we have an opposition flailing to articulate an alternative on the issue that wouldn't see them haemorrhage votes while still ferociously virtue signalling.
'Speaking to ITV on Monday following his visit, Mr Corbyn called for a humane response to the migration in Calais.
He said: 'I'm not saying all 9,000 should come. Start with those that have a British connection and a British passport - that's an obvious one.
'And the Home Office can let up a bit and be reasonable in those cases.'
Mr Corbyn said he had been 'surprised' by how many people at the camp he had met who held British passports.
Why are they in the camp if they hold a British passport. Are they fake? Am I missing something here?
A humane response would be to (a) ask for ID/documentation (b) if they have none, to detain, photograph, fingerprint and interview them (c) put them in a secure facility - give them 7 days to claim asylum or admit they have no legal reason for entry (d) if they do claim asylum, to rigorously interview them and cross-check stories (d) if the stories don't add up (keep interviewing again and again for inconsistency) or they refuse to admit a country of origin make them subject to deportation within 30 days to a secure facility/ refugee camp in MENA (e) once they are there they can apply for further help and aid, where it is the only place it will be offered, or give up and go back home.
Why are they in the camp if they hold a British passport
Perhaps they like the vibrant, diverse community there.
Perhaps they are attracted by the prospect of free housing and much else. Or perhaps they just like appearing on the telly with Jezza Corbyn.
I was interviewed on LBC about BBC filming Songs of Praise at the jungle, I pointed out there plenty of churches in the UK and it was a waste of licence payer's money. The response was this was a geopolitical issue.
There you have it, the BBC is now politicising Songs of Praise.
CR The Government should not go near that Camp in Calais..It is full of people who are trying to bully their way through the system..let them get into the queue and apply formally..they will know how to do it..most will be better informed than the legal advisers out there..
it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to.
Nah.....its always been like this. Each election is 'the dirtiest to date'. Each campaign 'more vicious than the last'. Each Prime Minister 'the most shameful disgrace' to hold the office.
But, curiously enough, we're still here, in one of the most prosperous, safe large country in the world....
What 'bunchgate' tells me is that we have an opposition flailing to articulate an alternative on the issue that wouldn't see them haemorrhage votes while still ferociously virtue signalling.
There's merit in that, it's to Cameron's credit it's all they have to beat him up with, the use of swarm and bunch. My point is the tories are even worse, they spend hours laughing at Miliband eating a sandwich.
I have not heard it, but calling a large group of people with very different stories a "bunch of migrants" does sound pretty dismissive to me. It potentially conveys contempt for individuals living in atrocious conditions whose motivations are often complex and whose experiences are sometimes truly tragic. It sounds like Cameron was using the phrase to have a dig at Corbyn. That only works if these people are thought of as dismissible.
I am not surprised many on the left have expressed dismay and anger at the words and how they were used. I think they are absolutely genuine in doing so. This looks to me to be a case of very different world views. We are all sensitive to different things.
It came at the end of a list of Britain-hostile things Corbyn had done in the last week - from memory it was something like ".. he gave away the Falklands on Monday, met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and said they could all come to the UK on Tuesday..."
I thought that it was dismissive of Corbyn's attitude towards migrants which Cameron was implying was credulous. I thought it was an effective line of Cameron's and imo Labour are unwise to keep returning to it.
Don't forget the unions secondary picketing on Wednesday...or was that Monday? So many now hard to keep track TBH.
It's is as if Corbyns been in a Trance and now woken as the embedded Tory sleeper agent. Just needs a white fluffy pussy and we have the next storyline for a bond movie .......or more likely Dads Army.
it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to.
Nah.....its always been like this. Each election is 'the dirtiest to date'. Each campaign 'more vicious than the last'. Each Prime Minister 'the most shameful disgrace' to hold the office.
But, curiously enough, we're still here, in one of the most prosperous, safe large country in the world....
What 'bunchgate' tells me is that we have an opposition flailing to articulate an alternative on the issue that wouldn't see them haemorrhage votes while still ferociously virtue signalling.
There's merit in that, it's to Cameron's credit it's all they have to beat him up with, the use of swarm and bunch. My point is the tories are even worse, they spend hours laughing at Miliband eating a sandwich.
Good morning all. The Calais camp is one reason while I'm unpersuaded that Germany's migrants will stay put.
As many others have asked, why are they not settling down in France, getting jobs and learning the lingo? That's always the line that people use to placate those who worry about immigration. Why is Calais a UK issue?
it shows just how low thew standards of politics in this country has fallen to.
Nah.....its always been like this. Each election is 'the dirtiest to date'. Each campaign 'more vicious than the last'. Each Prime Minister 'the most shameful disgrace' to hold the office.
But, curiously enough, we're still here, in one of the most prosperous, safe large country in the world....
What 'bunchgate' tells me is that we have an opposition flailing to articulate an alternative on the issue that wouldn't see them haemorrhage votes while still ferociously virtue signalling.
There's merit in that, it's to Cameron's credit it's all they have to beat him up with, the use of swarm and bunch. My point is the tories are even worse, they spend hours laughing at Miliband eating a sandwich.
Comments
Normally these economic findings feed through to the VI and leadership ratings.
Being dismissive of those in the Calais camps is exactly how we should be, they are not genuinely in need of our help and are taking advantage of a situation to try and elicit sympathy from bleeding heart liberals over here. If they want to come here as economic migrants then they should use the proper channels, not try and get in via France illegally.
The left has collectively lost its mind over immigration, Corbyn's comments about letting those in Calais come here just shows how bad it has become. At least Blair tried to get Sangatte closed rather than make it our problem.
Corbyn totally blew this one. A half decent debater who was quick on his/her feet, like Hague or Blair, would have pounced like a big game cat on that one.
Perhaps we're all underestimating Corbyn?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
As an aside, AIUI the Apollo program was cancelled not just due to cost: not a single Saturn V launch went as planned, and the engineers felt that it was a matter of time before there was a disaster. There were engine failures (particularly on the second stage) and pogoing that could have been disastrous.
Pull the other one - how many of these hand wringing luvvies would welcome these people into their own houses? Or even welcome them as neighbours?
How much tax did Google pay during the Labour years? What we have now does not reflect the true tax worth but it's something more than a big fat zero.
Nick Cohen
Never thought I'd say this but Michael Gove is a thoroughly admirable politician
https://t.co/xILp4eWp3X
How many has Yvette Cooper taken into one of her taxpayer funded homes?
It is not British politicians' job to help them, it is French politicians'.
Corbyn was 'wasting his time'; if he wanted to help these people, he should have been lobbying the French government, not the British.
Cameron has been consistent. We will take those in need from the camps closest to the civil war in Syria. Anything else is merely creating pull factors leading to drownings and misery across southern Europe.
British voters are not fools, so Labour supporters should be listening to them, not lecturing them and professing their virtue by demanding we open our doors to economic migrants with no claim.
@JohnRentoul It's interesting the things people used to fret about. https://t.co/EaSXhXFWJE
I thought that it was dismissive of Corbyn's attitude towards migrants which Cameron was implying was credulous. I thought it was an effective line of Cameron's and imo Labour are unwise to keep returning to it.
Arch lefty Bonnie Greer referred to “a bunch of Romanian migrants” – outcry, zero.
It's not what is said that upsets the left, it is who says it - and it's called double standards.
The French will do nothing. It makes no sense to do otherwise, or they'll simply encourage more migrants to arrive in Calais.
richardDodd It will be interesting to see if Sweden removes 80k people from its territory.
'I think meaningful numbers of deportations would make a big difference to the migrant flow. You risk life and limb because you think you'll get a better life in the West. If there is a significant chance that you are risking your life to end up back where you started, then the incentive is greatly reduced.'
About the same chance as Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
The Swedish government knows perfectly well that this will be blocked by HR lawyers & the ECHR and in the unlikely event that fails there's no place to deport them to .
Just soundbites to try and pacify a very concerned public.
There's nothing much in the data to suggest that the economy is heading for the rocks any time soon. Wage inflation taking off looks as much a risk as economic slowdown.
And by continuing to peddle this particular line, they are only making themselves look more and more out of touch
I think the problem for Osborne is that steady as she goes isn't enough to close the deficit without further cuts, we can see this year that the deficit target it going to be missed because nominal growth of 2.1% doesn't cut it.
He is going to have to u-turn on his u-turn and re-instate tax credit cuts, I don't see any other way that £8-10bn worth of additional savings can be made over the next 4 years in order to balance the books at this lower rate of growth.
Cesar is superb at this stuff.
Canvassing
If we get blown off course it will be because of something that happens on the continent rather than over here, meaning the impact won't be as bad as people expect (or in the case of the Labour leadership, hope).
Osborne did not promise to eliminate the deficit in a parliament, he promised to eliminate the structural deficit. That still might leave elements of the cyclical deficit. As the OOB figures pointed out at the time, the structural deficit turned out to be bigger than supposed.
You'd immediately blame it on the SNP of course..
Times Archive
March 1939. Look at the "sits wanted" columns in @thetimes #HolocaustMemorialDay https://t.co/7kzTV9J0x0
Google is expanding its operation in Britain. Its spending £1 billion on a new HQ. Would you rather it transferred to France?
I have not a clue how you work out which if any tax domain google belongs to, but its paying a massive percent more tax now than it did with Labour and is spending a massive amount in Britain to employ British workers. A whole bunch of them.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/28/london-labour-offers-no-alternative-budget/
It is so typical of the tumblr/twitterati - divorced from reality and the real world and just living in a bubble of mutual reinforcement.
A bunch of 50 migrants stormed a ferry last week, every night they run into the tunnel - do you think the French give a toss?
The "Jeremy Corbyn's candidate" poster seemed quite good (as in likely to be effective) to me.
The photographs in this article is the true face of this bunch of law breakers the other side of the channel. If it's so bad why don't they apply for asylum in France? Well....why don't they? ( or any of The countries they passed through to get to France after Merkels open invitation)
Still don't understand why Labour and the left wing are howling to the moon about the word bunch and yet...yet... Not complaining to the great socialist leader and his party on the other side of the channel about the appalling conditions the French are leaving these people in. Come on why is their no criticism of socialist Hollande for not providing doctors and nurses, accommodation ....asylum etc etc. Why no offers of asylum? Why only criticism of the British government upholding the law?
We all know why of course.
On the other hand and perhaps of equal important why have these so called refugees ( they are not in any sense of the word given their location) not applied to France for legal status if they feel they have a genuine case?
It is a classic Crosby wedge, just like the Lab/SNP wedge. Terrorism is probably the one issue that motivates Outer Londoners more than anything else, if Khan is seen to be weak on terror and extremists it will get them to turn out to vote, which is probably the most important aspect to the mayoral vote. Which is why Crosby is moving it to a classic wedge issue where Khan and Labour are weak. If he can make Khan look weak on terror or a terrorist sympathiser because of his links to Babar Ahmed then it will get outer Londoners to go and vote while a lot of the soft left will stay home.
In the age of terror attacks, an ISIL sympathising party with an ISIL sympathising leader can't win with a Muslim candidate who has gone out of his way to help a terrorist Islamic mate who is a convicted Islamic terrorist.
City regulators to investigate former #HBOS managers as part of investigation that could see them banned from working in financial services
The murderer of Milly Dowling has confessed to her murder, along with others. Let's stop wasting money on oxygen thieves and execute him.
To become indignant over the use of one entirely innocuous, and widely-used, everyday collective noun in the middle of a sentence is beyond ridiculous.
It isn't about the word. Cameron's real "crime" is nothing more than to be dismissive of those who wish to value-signal at the expense of the wider British population.
British Museum
LIVE on #Periscope: Go behind the scenes with our #SicilyExhibition curators to see some of the incredible objects! https://t.co/CXhCmwaEGf
They are in his country you know. Perhaps we should rename France Afghanifrance? Would at least make the lefts "refugee" claim at least a little more logical but not much.
'Speaking to ITV on Monday following his visit, Mr Corbyn called for a humane response to the migration in Calais.
He said: 'I'm not saying all 9,000 should come. Start with those that have a British connection and a British passport - that's an obvious one.
'And the Home Office can let up a bit and be reasonable in those cases.'
Mr Corbyn said he had been 'surprised' by how many people at the camp he had met who held British passports.
Why are they in the camp if they hold a British passport. Are they fake? Am I missing something here?
But then Corbyn might have been confused because he met some of the volunteers who have gone over there to help - and they have UK Passports (and bleeding hearts)
#tinfoilhat
Perhaps they like the vibrant, diverse community there.
75% more homes built in 2015 than during economic downturn, new @NHBC data reveals | https://t.co/Ibydd8dHzu https://t.co/WjtoI5w0Q1
But, curiously enough, we're still here, in one of the most prosperous, safe large country in the world....
What 'bunchgate' tells me is that we have an opposition flailing to articulate an alternative on the issue that wouldn't see them haemorrhage votes while still ferociously virtue signalling.
There you have it, the BBC is now politicising Songs of Praise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35428279
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/nigel-farage-shows-ed-miliband-how-to-eat-a-bacon-sandwich
Errm...
As many others have asked, why are they not settling down in France, getting jobs and learning the lingo? That's always the line that people use to placate those who worry about immigration. Why is Calais a UK issue?
SkyNews
A sixth city broker has been cleared of helping to rig the #Libor rate used by banks - five other brokers were cleared yesterday