The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She probably would vote for Boris or David Davis though.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
@Richard_Tyndall - Your objection only works if there is no economic cost at all to the EEA route. That seems to me to be very unlikely, not because the EEA route is necessarily a bad option economically in itself, but because of the uncertainty and disruption in the transition.
In any case, even if we assume that there is no economic disadvantage at all to the EEA route, and that the transition is entirely painless, our putative voter who has voted Leave because of migration is still not going to be a happy bunny when he discovers that nothing has changed in that regard.
OK, there's still the theoretical option of changing our mind and leaving the EEA at some time in the future, but that's equally true if we stay in the EU.
I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that the problems of leaving the EEA would be anywhere near the magnitude of leaving the EU. And leaving the EU becomes several magnitudes harder if we vote REMAIN now.
Surely Ed Miliband was a terrible leader BECAUSE he didn't have a civil war.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
But what if PCP puts up two Remainers is for leadership election, for party that is furious at them?
The Tory party has a sceptic majority. That won't happen.
ON topic, check this incredible vid of that leopard in Bangalore. Eeek!
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
We should ban sugary drinks. They are just horrible. And nasty processed food which is disgusting. Meat eating should be consigned to the annuls of human being's dark history where it will sit alongside cannibalism for future generations, while we are at it.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She probably would vote for Boris or David Davis though.
Repeatedly in Davis's case as he kept spontaneously resigning?
JJ Any Ferry company that attempted to land several thousand immigrants at one of the UK ports without permission to land would simply be cutting its own throat and the Skippers career would be severely curtailed..
Legally that ferry could not sail in the first place. Neither can the French force the vessel out of their port either. It would remain a French problem.
We're talking about illegal immigration here. Legality is of little interest to those who want to come over here, for whatever reason.
I agree with you point about their illegality but please don't be so quick off the mark.
The ferry still could not sail from that port with 4000, 6000 etc etc. Neither can the captain sail that vessel from the port and the French cannot allow the vessel to sail from the port and everyone knows it. There is possibly only one way it might occur but that would eventually involve a visit from the French SAS , marines and God knows what else .........(while the vessel was in the French port.)
Then they have to sail across the channel with a ferry full of illegals a shipping lane which is one of the busiest and one of the most restricted waterways in the world . It's not as clear cut as you think even with illegals on board.
As I said below, another possibility is a charter, or any other number of mechanisms.
These people want to get in. No amount of us saying: "we don't want you" will dissuade them, just as it has not to date. There are things we can (and perhaps) should do to make the UK a less popular destination, but that does not mean that it'll be easier without French help to stop those who do want to come. And the French are already pi**ed off with the situation.
The fallacy on here is that somehow, if we leave the EU, our borders will be automagically protected. They may be in some ways, but if we lose French cooperation they'll be much weaker in others.
This is not a reason to vote 'remain'. It is a reason to be careful what 'leave' means, and how we deal with out European partners after a leave vote..
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
If the choice is Corbyn or Paterson, there will be a third choice. The centre ground would yawn too widely between them not to be occupied.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that the problems of leaving the EEA would be anywhere near the magnitude of leaving the EU. And leaving the EU becomes several magnitudes harder if we vote REMAIN now.
I think that, whatever outcome we end up with is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
Or she won't bother voting.
The Tories are becoming terribly complacent, arrogantly assuming that they'll get the support regardless of what Cameron and Osborne do.
It didn't work out too well for Labour in Scotland did it?
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
If the choice is Corbyn or Paterson, there will be a third choice. The centre ground would yawn too widely between them not to be occupied.
Are you sure ? It'd take a remarkable comeback by the yellow peril...
Do you think the same could happen in a Cruz-Sanders contest in the US ? POTUS Bloomberg ?
Resting on one's laurels is a good way to ensure a crushing defeat a few years down the line. Even if 2020 is safe, that won't be the last election ever held.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Resting on one's laurels is a good way to ensure a crushing defeat a few years down the line. Even if 2020 is safe, that won't be the last election ever held.
The Conservatives will be out of power at some point in the future, that's a betting certainty.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Sugar tax in Mexico caused sugary drink consumption to fall 12%. Do we really want to be known as a country of obese people like America? Let alone the cost of people taking sick days and having mobility scooters??
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
Or she won't bother voting.
The Tories are becoming terribly complacent, arrogantly assuming that they'll get the support regardless of what Cameron and Osborne do.
It didn't work out too well for Labour in Scotland did it?
You are growing terribly hysterical. I see David Davis is now saying Cameron is wrong to obtain a curb on benefits as it will encourage migrants because umm... they will know we have benefits. David Davis typifies the motives of those surly losers eager to attack Cameron over something, anything, why not the EU.
The fallacy on here is that somehow, if we leave the EU, our borders will be automagically protected. They may be in some ways, but if we lose French cooperation they'll be much weaker in others.
If we leave the EU we can adopt the neo-Swiss solution. Swingeing penalties for employing people without the relevant citizenship or work permits. Large incentive (ie a residency permit) for shopping employers that break the rules. No benefits for non-citizens. Tough vagrancy laws. Government funded shelters for rough sleeping citizens. Come if you want, but without the right paperwork there is no money, no jobs and nowhere to live.
Liz Kendell got 4.5% because she was lightweight not because she was a Blairite. She came across as a children's TV presenter.
It would have been interesting to see what David Miliband would have achieved, or Chuka for that matter.
Corbyn won with a landslide because the alternatives were insipid and uninspiring. Labour moderates need to hang onto that, and not the defeatist mindset that the membership has changed irreversibly.
You are right though, if they do find a candidate that they can agree on- he or she needs to be utterly ruthless.
Surely Ed Miliband was a terrible leader BECAUSE he didn't have a civil war.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
Or she won't bother voting.
The Tories are becoming terribly complacent, arrogantly assuming that they'll get the support regardless of what Cameron and Osborne do.
It didn't work out too well for Labour in Scotland did it?
It worked out for them just fine for decades.
At the moment, there really isn't much option for Worcester woman. UKIP is Engand's third party; the Lib Dems are still there but are struggling desperately and in any case, Farron seems intent on being a budget Corbyn; the Greens are as far from the centre as Corbyn is - and there's no-one else.
What that means in practice is that if Cameron is replaced by someone much less attractive to the electorate, and nothing else changes, there'll be a big drop in turnout come 2020. More likely, something will get dragged into the vacuum. Question is, will it be the Lib Dems finding some purpose, will it be the Tories choosing a more popular leader than, say, Osborne, or will it be Labour dumping Corbyn and getting their act together? But while 'something' remains more likely than 'nothing', 'nothing' is far from out of the question.
Surely Ed Miliband was a terrible leader BECAUSE he didn't have a civil war.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
You know very little about civil wars. Sad really.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Afaik there is plenty of evidence that tobacco and alcohol prices are inversely related to consumption.
In this case, though, the tax could be avoided by food manufacturers adding less sugar to their products, which is presumably what they will do.
If the choice is Corbyn or Paterson, there will be a third choice. The centre ground would yawn too widely between them not to be occupied.
Are you sure ? It'd take a remarkable comeback by the yellow peril...
Do you think the same could happen in a Cruz-Sanders contest in the US ? POTUS Bloomberg ?
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
You are growing terribly hysterical. I see David Davis is now saying Cameron is wrong to obtain a curb on benefits as it will encourage migrants because umm... they will know we have benefits. David Davis typifies the motives of those surly losers eager to attack Cameron over something, anything, why not the EU.
What fecking curb on benefits ? You mean if the commission agrees, and all the other countries agree, we can reduce benefits of a minority of immigrants, (and none that are already in the UK) by a bit, and then increasingly little over four years, and we can only do that three times, ever. Woopie doo.
(And even this paultry piece of nonsense assumed the proposal gets past the Council of Europe next week, and isn't eviserated by the European parliament after the referendum)
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
A small follow up on my recent NHS dental experiences. In October I shared what my NHS dentist had told me about getting treatment.
They are operating a pilot system for NHS treatment. This is how it works. You visit dentist for a checkup. You get a checkup. Dentist tells you you need a filling. But before you can get a filling you need to visit the hygienist and explains that in order to get a filling you need to show an improvement in your oral health scores (though mine werent bad to begin with).
On visiting the hygienist he explains to me that i *must* purchase an electric toothbrush (though there was no sales pressure to buy from them, i dont even think they sell them), that i must brush my teeth three times a day and not rinse afterwards.
While many on here queried whether that advice is sound.
On friday I had my follow up to see if, since October I had been sufficiently good enough to be able to access further NHS treatment. It seemed I had. So now I have to wait until May to actually get the treatment. The dentist rationalised it by saying the NHS didnt want to waste money on people's teeth if them themselves have no desire to improve.
I bring it to people's attention because, though frustrating, it is an interesting way of rationing healthcare. It could have interesting (and moral) implications if widened outside of dentistry to general practice.
For the medical professionals here, how many of the patients you see are coming to you because of their own failure to follow advice or look after themselves?
If we are looking for a camp to house migrants then South Georgia is available. To borrow the French it would also be useful "pour encourager les autres"
Ascension Island is a more practical option. A great big runway, could cope with as many transport planes as were needed - and not much to spoil by building a massive tent city.....
Edit - any other pb-ers been to both South Georgia and Ascension? Military types maybe...
Why not the Sargasso Sea - given the general level of idiocy around here at the moment it would be suitable suggestion.
The fallacy on here is that somehow, if we leave the EU, our borders will be automagically protected. They may be in some ways, but if we lose French cooperation they'll be much weaker in others.
If we leave the EU we can adopt the neo-Swiss solution. Swingeing penalties for employing people without the relevant citizenship or work permits. Large incentive (ie a residency permit) for shopping employers that break the rules. No benefits for non-citizens. Tough vagrancy laws. Government funded shelters for rough sleeping citizens. Come if you want, but without the right paperwork there is no money, no jobs and nowhere to live.
Those would probably help. But the question is how many illegals are already working in the UK with the rules we have, and whether such tightening would put them off.
It might help to answer the question: "Why the UK?" Why do they travel through the EU and live in camps at Calais and elsewhere just for the chance to get into the UK? Language might be one issue: another might be contacts/friends/relatives already in the UK. If we can answer the question, we might be better able to create laws to dissuade them.
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
I don't see Owen Paterson as being so extreme as to create a political vacuum in the centre ground. He'd potentially get support from a wide spectrum of the right-of-centre.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
No, there are a small number of people on here who claim to be undecided but then spend all their time attacking anything that is pro LEAVE whilst desperately defending anything REMAIN say no matter how idiotic or untrue it might be.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
The fallacy on here is that somehow, if we leave the EU, our borders will be automagically protected. They may be in some ways, but if we lose French cooperation they'll be much weaker in others.
If we leave the EU we can adopt the neo-Swiss solution. Swingeing penalties for employing people without the relevant citizenship or work permits. Large incentive (ie a residency permit) for shopping employers that break the rules. No benefits for non-citizens. Tough vagrancy laws. Government funded shelters for rough sleeping citizens. Come if you want, but without the right paperwork there is no money, no jobs and nowhere to live.
Those would probably help. But the question is how many illegals are already working in the UK with the rules we have, and whether such tightening would put them off.
It might help to answer the question: "Why the UK?" Why do they travel through the EU and live in camps at Calais and elsewhere just for the chance to get into the UK? Language might be one issue: another might be contacts/friends/relatives already in the UK. If we can answer the question, we might be better able to create laws to dissuade them.
If the issue is language I vote that we solve it by making it illegal to speak anything but impenetrable Geordie.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Afaik there is plenty of evidence that tobacco and alcohol prices are inversely related to consumption.
In this case, though, the tax could be avoided by food manufacturers adding less sugar to their products, which is presumably what they will do.
Only after it reaches a shockingly high rate. If a 2ltr bottle of coke becomes £2.10 instead of £2.00 it might not make a massive difference(if the sugar free one stays at £2.00). You make it £4.10 though and it certainly will.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Sugar tax in Mexico caused sugary drink consumption to fall 12%. Do we really want to be known as a country of obese people like America? Let alone the cost of people taking sick days and having mobility scooters??
What happened to the level of candies, icecream, chocolate at the same time ?
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
I don't see Owen Paterson as being so extreme as to create a political vacuum in the centre ground. He'd potentially get support from a wide spectrum of the right-of-centre.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Afaik there is plenty of evidence that tobacco and alcohol prices are inversely related to consumption.
In this case, though, the tax could be avoided by food manufacturers adding less sugar to their products, which is presumably what they will do.
I must be an atypical sample, there is no tax on alcohol here at all. I bought a litre of Smirnoff Black for the equivalent of about 8 quid last week. I could buy a litre of very acceptable local dark rum of under a quid. My alcohol intake (very moderate) is pretty much the same as it was in the UK
We should ban sugary drinks. They are just horrible. And nasty processed food which is disgusting. Meat eating should be consigned to the annuls of human being's dark history where it will sit alongside cannibalism for future generations, while we are at it.
See this is already making me question my intention to vote Leave.
Nigel_Farage: Glad to see @georgegalloway putting forward superb left-wing case for leaving the EU. We must all work together to Leave EU. #bbcsp
You will never vote leave, you are too much of a party loyalist, when you are in the voting booth your pencil will adopt a mind of its own and cross in the REMAIN box When the EUParl votes to overturn half of what Dave agreed after the referendum you will kick yourself, but it will be too late by then.
My first loyalty is towards The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I've been lucky in the past the interests of the country and party used to align, almost perfectly.
It'll be interesting to see whether the old bonds of loyalty between Conservative voters and the party leadership still hold, because Conservative voters are the key to this referendum.
Thirty years ago, there'd be no doubt. The Tories had 1.5m members, and were deeply-rooted in suburban and rural Britain. In place like Hendon, or South Bucks., it would be virtually impossible not to have a family member, friend, or neighbour, who was not a member of the Party.
But, the Conservatives have a fraction of that number of people now.
I sometimes do wonder why I bother staying a member. The leadership only seem to be interested in my money.
It is absolutely right that the health authorities (Ie govt) should pursue a more interventionist agenda to make us healthier. It is the National Health Service- not the Ill Health Service. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, alcoholism, and the higher risk cancers etc..... are avoidable.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Sugar tax in Mexico caused sugary drink consumption to fall 12%. Do we really want to be known as a country of obese people like America? Let alone the cost of people taking sick days and having mobility scooters??
Surely Ed Miliband was a terrible leader BECAUSE he didn't have a civil war.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
Not sure that's accurate. I was going to write that it's more like the Napoleon's analogy of the whale and the elephant. Any Labour leader is caught in the gap between the centrist PLP and the left-wing membership and supporters. Any tyrant has an utterly loyal militia, combined with a capacity and willingness to use it.
However, having thought about it, I don't think that is the fundamental problem. A new Blair *could* win a leadership contest. Certainly some of Labour's membership, plus supporters and unions, are looking for an overtly socialist leader, promoting hard-left policies. But what really captured Labour's imagination last summer was that Corbyn had a story to tell at all. Burnham, Cooper and Kendall were careerists devoid of inspiration; Corbyn made Labour members feel good about themselves and their beliefs again. An inspirational leader from the centre could do the same. Sure, he'd still have an internal opposition to face down but with a mandate and the backing of his MPs (and the unions, in the face of a third Tory-led term), that's doable.
Leicester Liz's biggest problem wasn't actually her views; it was her.
As for Miliband, he too failed not because of his party management but because of his publicly visible leadership skills. He would never have been a good PM had those skills been better - a third-rate Wilson - but Wilson was successful in his own terms and kept a lid on Labour's troubles. Perhaps as PM he could have done more but he never got the chance because he sounded like, looked like, and indeed was, a wonkish academic.
I believe polls always show that doctors are trusted?
Now, on topic (and in my role as the village idiot) I'll ask again: is there a rule or law that says that a party must be led by one person? If not then why not the Eagle sisters?
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
I don't see Owen Paterson as being so extreme as to create a political vacuum in the centre ground. He'd potentially get support from a wide spectrum of the right-of-centre.
Can you name any Tory MP more extreme than Paterson?
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
No, there are a small number of people on here who claim to be undecided but then spend all their time attacking anything that is pro LEAVE whilst desperately defending anything REMAIN say no matter how idiotic or untrue it might be.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
Apparently it is a good PR tactic; a message from a non partisan carries more weight than from a biased source... the problem is that when people rumble it isn't genuine, the message gets lost, along with respect
I am sure I read a good article on this a while back, I will try to find it
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
Go away
No.
Please!
You (and others) need to learn that people can genuinely be undecided on this issue, and that just because they argue some of Leave's points, it doesn't mean they're lying about being undecided and are closet remainers.
Winston McKenzie might have a new challenger in the London Mayoral election
An elderly hippy aims to campaign for the legalisation of cannabis by joining the mayoral contest — backed by the multi-millionaire founder of social networking site Bebo.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
Go away
No.
Please!
You (and others) need to learn that people can genuinely be undecided on this issue, and that just because they argue some of Leave's points, it doesn't mean they're lying about being undecided and are closet remainers.
It's pathetic.
Turkey is great, Russia is terrible, Muslim women are fantastic, engineering is interesting
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
I take it you didn't notice the boats crossing from Africa to Italy last spring?
And sadly many died. And that's in a warm (or warm ish at the very least) Mediterranean in Spring and Summer.
Really though it's all about political will. If Italy/Greece or the UK for that matter wanted to stop people arriving by sea (like Australia) it can be done to the extent that the flow (and attendant drownings) are reduced to a tiny trickle. By land is a different matter of course. It can be done but the cost is huge.
None of this answers what on earth is going on with No 10 at present as they just seemed determined to try and prove you can really fool all the people all the time after all? Maybe it's a dose of contagious Corbynitis which expresses itself in an uncontrolled flow of self evidently potty statements.
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
I don't see Owen Paterson as being so extreme as to create a political vacuum in the centre ground. He'd potentially get support from a wide spectrum of the right-of-centre.
Can you name any Tory MP more extreme than Paterson?
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
Go away
No.
Please!
You (and others) need to learn that people can genuinely be undecided on this issue, and that just because they argue some of Leave's points, it doesn't mean they're lying about being undecided and are closet remainers.
It's pathetic.
If they argued any (at all) of REMAINs points they might have slightly more credibility.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
Boris is just showing that to be a circus star you've got to be able to ride two horses at the same time.
Boris's problem is that it's far too bloody obvious when he's doing it.
Sort of on topic, Labour List (which is quite a good bellwether for Labour - not noticeably attached to any strand of opinion) has surveyed its readers on what they think of shadow cabinet members. This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply, but the almost as high-profile and left-wing Abbott is bottom - and as I suggested downthread, Hilary Benn isn't unpopular either.
Nature abhors a vacuum. That said, I doubt the Lib Dems would be consequential enough to fill it. More likely, we'd see a realignment of the more centrist parts of one or both of the two main parties.
I don't see Owen Paterson as being so extreme as to create a political vacuum in the centre ground. He'd potentially get support from a wide spectrum of the right-of-centre.
Can you name any Tory MP more extreme than Paterson?
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
No, there are a small number of people on here who claim to be undecided but then spend all their time attacking anything that is pro LEAVE whilst desperately defending anything REMAIN say no matter how idiotic or untrue it might be.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
I am actually undecided (but lean towards Remain). On here I say I am definitely Remain just to avoid that reaction.
(This post will self-destruct. I am now definitely vote Remain again. No doubt about it.)
A member of UKIP who was hopeful to become a candidate for the party in the London Assembly elections has quit.
Richard Hendron, who had hoped to stand for the party in the South West constitutency for the London Assembly elections, quit the party over a “vile, nasty, homophobic” candidate.
Yesterday PinkNews reported that, following a hustings on Friday, UKIP had selected Alan Craig as its candidate for the seat.
Mr Craig, who was selected at a hustings on Friday evening, previously compared gay equality advocates to the invading forces of Nazi Germany.
He was nominated for Stonewall’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award in 2012.
His competition, Richard Hendron, has now resigned from the party over Mr Craig’s candidacy.
In a letter addressed to the UKIP party chair, he wrote: “It has become clear to me that UKIP is anything but a libertarian party. It is a party dominated and controlled by white middle-aged heterosexual men who do not believe in libertarian values, equality or valuing difference. It’s a party that’s becoming even more small minded, a party that goes out of its way to maintain the status quo, a party that at best tolerates Gays rather than accepts them, a party that attacks difference and undermines equality.”
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
Boris is just showing that to be a circus star you've got to be able to ride two horses at the same time.
Boris's problem is that it's far too bloody obvious when he's doing it.
True, though to be fair it's hard to ride two horses at the same time and not have it be noticed.
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
I take it you didn't notice the boats crossing from Africa to Italy last spring?
To be fair, the Channel is much more choppy and rough with strong currents, plus you have a good chance of being capsized or chopped up by a passing container ship. It will never see you, let alone be able or want to stop.
In addition, the continental side of the Channel is policed.
The Med is basically a giant warmish lake with a string of barely functioning states on one side. And still plenty die trying to cross it, and even more would do if they weren't rescued (although far fewer would try it accordingly too)
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
No, there are a small number of people on here who claim to be undecided but then spend all their time attacking anything that is pro LEAVE whilst desperately defending anything REMAIN say no matter how idiotic or untrue it might be.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
I am currently undecided on whether I can be arsed to vote in this referendum or not. It's not been very inspiring up to now.
@BBCLouise: Folkestone MP @DamianCollins says David Cameron is right to stress the danger that quitting the EU could lead to Jungle camps in Kent
How? I mean geographically how? As long as you have the political will (hard to think that wouldn't be there in a world where we'd just left the EU) to build Berlin Wall like impediments at the tunnel entrance, how do people get over the Channel?
This is not 5 miles in a rubber boat to Lesbos across a tideless and for months on end calm warm Aegean Sea.
This is 21 miles of a branch of the Atlantic. Cold, stormy, huge tides (if you float with the current I think it's about 40 miles not 21 as you can't really do a straight line because of the tides), very dark for months on end (not going to row across at night are you), and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
And all that's before making any kind of effort to stop people by using the patrol boats.
In short it's bloody dangerous and we should stop people even trying for their own safety, as much as anything else.
If they did get here they would walk straight up the M20 and head for London anyway not sit around in camps.
WTF is Cameron smoking for the past week?
I take it you didn't notice the boats crossing from Africa to Italy last spring?
And sadly many died. And that's in a warm (or warm ish at the very least) Mediterranean in Spring and Summer.
Really though it's all about political will. If Italy/Greece or the UK for that matter wanted to stop people arriving by sea (like Australia) it can be done to the extent that the flow (and attendant drownings) are reduced to a tiny trickle. By land is a different matter of course. It can be done but the cost is huge.
None of this answers what on earth is going on with No 10 at present as they just seemed determined to try and prove you can really fool all the people all the time after all? Maybe it's a dose of contagious Corbynitis which expresses itself in an uncontrolled flow of self evidently potty statements.
I think its alot harder for the Greeks to do it than it is for Australia, especially as their (distant/barely inhabited) overseas territories are limited and the journey is short. Although the Channel isn't massive it's easier to police logistically than the Aegean. We also benefit from the fact the migrant flow has been well filtered by the time they reach Calais as opposed to Kos or Lampedusa.
''Why the hell would they want to hand around Folkestone in a squalid camp?''
Why the hell do they want to hang around Calais in a squalid camp?
What's wrong with France?
Come come, it's obvious. The migrants in Calais love their jungle so much they'll build a new one near Dover, so they can continue to live in squalor, rather than, say, moving to London.
David Cameron is turning into a fucking idiot. It's quite a spectacle.
Imagine we had loads of boat people chancing their arm on the Channel. Imagine they were picked up in British territorial waters by the Navy, where they claimed asylum. Even a gaylord ponceyboots Prime Minister is going to hold them in a camp rather than let them trot off to London. Presumably that camp would be near to where they were picked up.
Jesus. Another feeble lie. Is there something wrong with the europhile hive-mind today? There's nothing to stop migrants getting in dinghies right now. They very rarely do it. Because it's far too dangerous.
Yeah, anyone not showing full, 100% agreement with the Leave agenda is obviously not really undecided, but a Europhile. FFS.
No, there are a small number of people on here who claim to be undecided but then spend all their time attacking anything that is pro LEAVE whilst desperately defending anything REMAIN say no matter how idiotic or untrue it might be.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
I disagree. On the other hand, there are far too many leavers on here who take any criticism of leave - however valid - as evidence a poster is really a secret Europhile. If there are some people as you describe, then that is their problem, and should have no reflection on genuine undecideds.
But it's easier for some posters just to lump everyone together as for us or agin us, as if they were supporting a football team.
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
It is true that demand for items you get addicted to tends to be more inelastic than for other items and hence more impervious to price hikes. However, I think you are grossly wrong to suggest that high prices have had no effect on demand for the items you listed.
FIrst, alcohol, depending on what you purchase, is hardly expensive relative to wage in the UK. According to the attached, the price relative to income of alcoholic drinks measured in terms of pure alcohol has been more than halved in the UK since 1960 leading to a more than doubling of consumption per capita - seems that the link between affordability and demand is pretty strong for alcohol. See the table on Price and Consumption in this attachment: http://www.kiap.re.kr/gapc/GAPCPPT/Plenary/08/day2-2 Gillan.pdf
Second, tobacco usage. This link shows that as price has gone up in the UK, sales of full tax cigarettes have fallen from 99 billion in 1990 to just 35 billion in 2014 while sales of untaxed cigarettes have risen from 3.5bn in 1990 to 25.2bn in 2000 before falling back to 5.7bn in 2014 (presumably on the basis of efforts by HMG to cut down on smuggled cigarettes). Again, a very clear fall in consumption and - a tell-tale sign of price sensitivity - a switch to untaxed smuggled cigarettes once tax goes up. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/
So taxation, through raising price, does change demand even for price inelastic commodities. There is every reason to believe a sugar tax would change habits - the question is, if the ostensible purpose it to improve health outcomes, would it be the most effective way of doing so. The answer to that is, in isolation, almost certainly no. But it probably is a very useful component of any overall programme to change our dreadful eating habits and, more importantly, to force the prepared meals food industry's habits into not adding sugar to everything they make.
Entirely agreed. Corbyn caught a moment- 90% of those who voted for him hadn't even heard of him. And a proportion of those who voted for him then will now be distinctly unimpressed now that they have had a chance to see him.
Corbyn won because the alternatives were uninspiring, particularly after Ed Miliband.
Surely Ed Miliband was a terrible leader BECAUSE he didn't have a civil war.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
Not sure that's accurate. I was going to write that it's more like the Napoleon's analogy of the whale and the elephant. Any Labour leader is caught in the gap between the centrist PLP and the left-wing membership and supporters. Any tyrant has an utterly loyal militia, combined with a capacity and willingness to use it.
However, having thought about it, I don't think that is the fundamental problem. A new Blair *could* win a leadership contest. Certainly some of Labour's membership, plus supporters and unions, are looking for an overtly socialist leader, promoting hard-left policies. But what really captured Labour's imagination last summer was that Corbyn had a story to tell at all. Burnham, Cooper and Kendall were careerists devoid of inspiration; Corbyn made Labour members feel good about themselves and their beliefs again. An inspirational leader from the centre could do the same. Sure, he'd still have an internal opposition to face down but with a mandate and the backing of his MPs (and the unions, in the face of a third Tory-led term), that's doable.
Leicester Liz's biggest problem wasn't actually her views; it was her.
As for Miliband, he too failed not because of his party management but because of his publicly visible leadership skills. He would never have been a good PM had those skills been better - a third-rate Wilson - but Wilson was successful in his own terms and kept a lid on Labour's troubles. Perhaps as PM he could have done more but he never got the chance because he sounded like, looked like, and indeed was, a wonkish academic.
The question during the coalition was: is Cameron iron fist or marshmallow inside the LibDems' restraining velvet glove?
He has made some truly excellent speeches, and managed therein to capture the mood (for centrists, conservatives, and perhaps also left-of-centrists) perfectly.
He has been an organiser rather than a leader and nothing wrong with that.
But it now seems that his marshmallow tendencies are emerging. First he blithely said he would be in favour of remaining in a reformed EU. But either he was not aware of what he would have to deliver with these negotiations, or he was not aware of the rebuff or mechanism of the EU which would prevent him delivering them.
Whichever, both were errors and it is insane to say he hasn't been weakened by it all. It shows he didn't have the application either to make good on his demands, or the knowledge of what response those demands would draw.
He made it known that he expected to succeed because, well, because he would. That was another error.
This is a crisis for the Cons, not because of the EU split, but because of how it is being handled.
Luckily enough, if the Cons are in crisis, what on earth state does that make Lab in?
If the Conservatives did split over the issue (which I don't actually expect) we'd probably see a 1920's type electoral situation, where Labour, remaining Conservatives, rebel Conservatives plus UKIP, would all be scrapping on 25-30% of the vote.
There's not going to be a split. The safety valve is in place, and it's Cameron himself. If he loses the referendum he will quit, draining the poison, but if he wins and the party is angry, well, he's quitting anyway, as he's told us - thus achieving the same result.
He'll not be a well-liked man, though.
He'll be liked and respected in hindsight after the right wing of the tories take over the party.
Worcester woman can vote for dave, she won't vote for Paterson.
She will if the alternative is Corbyn or McDonnell.
If the choice is Corbyn or Paterson, there will be a third choice. The centre ground would yawn too widely between them not to be occupied.
I strongly disagree with this. There is no credible centre ground option. Besides which, Paterson would be careful not to frighten the horses too much.
In the marginals he would win. He probably wouldn't win seats like Brighton Kemptown or Richmond Park but could strengthen the Conservatives in places like Newcastle Under Lyme.
This isn't noticeably ideological - McDonnell is top, which I think reflects his fluency in a period where fluent speakers are in rather short supply.
Isn't it simply because he is Corbyn's man? His fluency and general performance has been poor IMO, typified by the little red book incident.
McDonnell's open support for IRA terrorism is always going to be a major negative for Labour while he occupies a position of responsibility in the party. The fact that people like Nick are prepared to overlook it is genuinely shocking IMO.
Seems to be a coordinate assault by Remain today on several fronts on migration.
Interesting thing, as Guardian feed points out, is that the PM is no longer bothering to try and sell his proposals.
Cameron's a busted flush. That much was painfully obvious, when he returned from Brussels with nothing.
I think that's over-pitching it. It's just odd that a man with such good political instincts is now flailing about and using (I think we're all agreed) bogus arguments.
As others have said, I assume both sides are just going to be throwing out any old emotionally heightened bollocks, absent any actual analysis of the arguments.
Mind you, Boris was displaying titanic fence-sitting qualities in his Telegraph article, and did attempt to summarize the superficial pros and cons. I suppose that's as good as its going to get.
PS Wind speed here: amazeballs.
I thought Boris's article came as close as possible to saying - without actually saying - that he's opting for LEAVE unless the deal improves, markedly.
I've no doubt he's playing games, and thinking of his future, and could be spinning all this. On the other hand, perhaps he means it.
I was led to that article by a tweet of John Rentoul's, who thought it very slightly leaned to Remain. I thought it leaned to Leave and clearly you do too.
I think, essentially, it's message was "I'm waiting for more polling before I jump."
Boris is just showing that to be a circus star you've got to be able to ride two horses at the same time.
Boris's problem is that it's far too bloody obvious when he's doing it.
It's lucky his hero, Winston Churchill, didn't wait for polling before plugging rearmament in face of German militarism.
Second, tobacco usage. This link shows that as price has gone up in the UK, sales of full tax cigarettes have fallen from 99 billion in 1990 to just 35 billion in 2014 while sales of untaxed cigarettes have risen from 3.5bn in 1990 to 25.2bn in 2000 before falling back to 5.7bn in 2014 (presumably on the basis of efforts by HMG to cut down on smuggled cigarettes). Again, a very clear fall in consumption and - a tell-tale sign of price sensitivity - a switch to untaxed smuggled cigarettes once tax goes up. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/
I take issue with this one. Firstly you cannot take price in isolation, at the same time as these price hikes there were huge efforts to make smoking socially unacceptable, most companies introduced no-smoking policies, then we had legal changes for no smoking in the workplace or other public areas, then we had attempts to make unlawful smoking in private vehicles in the presence of other people or children.
It is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version of a commodity when it became available, in the same way as people go on "booze cruises" to Calais. Hence my suggestion that a tax on sugary drinks will mostly cause people to obtain their sugar fix from candies, chocolate etc instead.
Politically I am more at the libertarian end of the spectrum, I don't particularly object to people being unhealthy if that is how they want to lead their lives, it is just unacceptable for them to impose the costs of that choice on other people.
I wonder if the Jungle camp argument has earnt Sir Lynton a consultancy fee.
Although most of us can see straight through it here, it's precisely the same FUD tactics which proved very successful in the General Election campaign.
If they argued any (at all) of REMAINs points they might have slightly more credibility.
Why? It can depend on the direction of travel. As an example, I'm probably/almost certainly going to vote Leave, for the reasons I've given passim. In fact, you could probably see the journey I've taken to get here from my posts over the last five years. Yet I have questions I would like answered, and because I'm swerving more towards Leave, that's the position I'm more likely to query. Basically: I need to be happy that I am making the right decision in voting to leave.
If I was to move over to a likely remainer, I would ask similar questions of that campaign. But it's not really worth the bother at the moment as I'm very unlikely to, and remain or leave is not a matter of faith to me.
In addition, I'm not sure hardcore leavers notice as much when posters make comments backing their side; they sure as heck notice it when posters make comments against their side.
It is absolutely right that the health authorities (Ie govt) should pursue a more interventionist agenda to make us healthier. It is the National Health Service- not the Ill Health Service. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, alcoholism, and the higher risk cancers etc..... are avoidable.
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
Treating type II diabetes costs the NHS a fair whack.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
Being honest and saying they are taxing sugar to pay for diabetes treatment on the NHS is honest, it tells people its about money, which it is, but you do run into difficulty if it starts raising more than the treatment costs (see road fund taxes).
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
Sugar tax in Mexico caused sugary drink consumption to fall 12%. Do we really want to be known as a country of obese people like America? Let alone the cost of people taking sick days and having mobility scooters??
And what about the cost of living? The fact is it won't be the health conscious middle classes who this tax burden falls on but the poor. Same was with the taxes for cigarettes, alcohol and petrol
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
I didn't have you down as a totalitarian. You have just in effect made the argument for inserting an RFID chip into everyone at birth, the modern equivalent of tattooing a bar-code on their arm.
I am a libertarian, so I am for small government and limiting the areas of government involvement in our lives to the absolute minimum required for a safe society.
But if you demand a National Health Service on the taxpayers' bill, then you have no moral or logical ground against the taxpayer, as represented by HMG, demanding things of you to reduce the cost of said national health service. Otherwise moral hazard will make the service unaffordable.
Mr. Jessop, people notice (and remember) when others do and say things they dislike more than vice versa.
It's why 'time for a change' is a powerful political slogan. Usually. [Exceptions may be made for unilateralists who want to disband the army and have totally open borders].
I believe polls always show that doctors are trusted?
Now, on topic (and in my role as the village idiot) I'll ask again: is there a rule or law that says that a party must be led by one person? If not then why not the Eagle sisters?
Yes of course. The Hunt interview on the Marr programme yesterday was a shambles and showed him evasive and shifty. You don't need to be educated to the level of a junior doctor to know the sums don't add up nor that the problem is not lack of junior doctors in hospitals at weekends.
I wonder if the Jungle camp argument has earnt Sir Lynton a consultancy fee.
Although most of us can see straight through it here, it's precisely the same FUD tactics which proved very successful in the General Election campaign.
Yes I thought that.. seems such nonsense that it must be a distraction
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
Second, tobacco usage. This link shows that as price has gone up in the UK, sales of full tax cigarettes have fallen from 99 billion in 1990 to just 35 billion in 2014 while sales of untaxed cigarettes have risen from 3.5bn in 1990 to 25.2bn in 2000 before falling back to 5.7bn in 2014 (presumably on the basis of efforts by HMG to cut down on smuggled cigarettes). Again, a very clear fall in consumption and - a tell-tale sign of price sensitivity - a switch to untaxed smuggled cigarettes once tax goes up. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/
I take issue with this one. Firstly you cannot take price in isolation, at the same time as these price hikes there were huge efforts to make smoking socially unacceptable, most companies introduced no-smoking policies, then we had legal changes for no smoking in the workplace or other public areas, then we had attempts to make unlawful smoking in private vehicles in the presence of other people or children.
It is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version of a commodity when it became available, in the same way as people go on "booze cruises" to Calais. Hence my suggestion that a tax on sugary drinks will mostly cause people to obtain their sugar fix from candies, chocolate etc instead.
Politically I am more at the libertarian end of the spectrum, I don't particularly object to people being unhealthy if that is how they want to lead their lives, it is just unacceptable for them to impose the costs of that choice on other people.
Then you should be against a national health service.
But if you demand a National Health Service on the taxpayers' bill, then you have no moral or logical ground against the taxpayer, as represented by HMG, demanding things of you to reduce the cost of said national health service. Otherwise moral hazard will make the service unaffordable.
Strangely I don't ;-) Having watched the NHS misdiagnose, mishandle, and miss-care for my father in his final months of cancer "care", including the whole Liverpool Care Pathway idiocy, we then had to go through a disgraceful charade in which they attempted to avoid the complaints we made after his death, culminating in "losing" his records so we were unable to take matters further. I have very little time for the NHS.
Various Yoons may think on reflection that they should have restrained their public glee at the prospect of the petitioners losing everything to pay AC's legal fees. I'm sure it didn't go unnoticed.
I see Carmichael's case for the Orkney 4 to pay his court costs has been flung out. Could not have happened to a nicer person, only regret is that he will leech a fortune from the public purse over the next 4 years.
More daft rulings from politicised Edinburgh judges.
Comments
Isn;t there a school leopard in one of Palin's ripping yarns?
I think we can safely say that stage managing this autumn's conservative conference is going to be 'challenging'.
I think to be consistent you need to argue against such state provided treatment if you're against a (processed) sugar tax. Otherwise its the Brownian politics of spend and borrow.
Otherwise the revenue generated from any sugar tax can help fund it. Personally I can't get too worked up about it.
If you are going to have a civil war (whether in the Labour Party or in Syria), it must be short and bloody. Prolonged civil wars lead to failed states. A protracted civil war will just ensure that the Labour Party descends into political Somaliland or Yemen.
Labour don't need a consensual leader. They need a Saddam Hussein. They need a ruthless tyrant who will ensure that one faction decisively destroys the other.
As far as I can see, it is now over for the Blairites and 4.5 per cent Leicester Liz.
They are the Marsh Arabs hiding in the river delta, waiting for the bombs.
These people want to get in. No amount of us saying: "we don't want you" will dissuade them, just as it has not to date. There are things we can (and perhaps) should do to make the UK a less popular destination, but that does not mean that it'll be easier without French help to stop those who do want to come. And the French are already pi**ed off with the situation.
The fallacy on here is that somehow, if we leave the EU, our borders will be automagically protected. They may be in some ways, but if we lose French cooperation they'll be much weaker in others.
This is not a reason to vote 'remain'. It is a reason to be careful what 'leave' means, and how we deal with out European partners after a leave vote..
Saying that the tax is on sugar to change peoples eating habits is dishonest, because at any credible level of tax, it wont. Even at absurd levels it made damn all difference to tobacco, alcohol and petrol usage. People like sugar-based products, having to pay a few extra pence for them is just going to make them pissed at politicians, it wont stop them from using them in the slightest.
The Tories are becoming terribly complacent, arrogantly assuming that they'll get the support regardless of what Cameron and Osborne do.
It didn't work out too well for Labour in Scotland did it?
Do you think the same could happen in a Cruz-Sanders contest in the US ? POTUS Bloomberg ?
Resting on one's laurels is a good way to ensure a crushing defeat a few years down the line. Even if 2020 is safe, that won't be the last election ever held.
@IanDunt: 20% of political analysis now includes the phrase 'dead cat'.
I see David Davis is now saying Cameron is wrong to obtain a curb on benefits as it will encourage migrants because umm... they will know we have benefits.
David Davis typifies the motives of those surly losers eager to attack Cameron over something, anything, why not the EU.
It would have been interesting to see what David Miliband would have achieved, or Chuka for that matter.
Corbyn won with a landslide because the alternatives were insipid and uninspiring. Labour moderates need to hang onto that, and not the defeatist mindset that the membership has changed irreversibly.
You are right though, if they do find a candidate that they can agree on- he or she needs to be utterly ruthless.
At the moment, there really isn't much option for Worcester woman. UKIP is Engand's third party; the Lib Dems are still there but are struggling desperately and in any case, Farron seems intent on being a budget Corbyn; the Greens are as far from the centre as Corbyn is - and there's no-one else.
What that means in practice is that if Cameron is replaced by someone much less attractive to the electorate, and nothing else changes, there'll be a big drop in turnout come 2020. More likely, something will get dragged into the vacuum. Question is, will it be the Lib Dems finding some purpose, will it be the Tories choosing a more popular leader than, say, Osborne, or will it be Labour dumping Corbyn and getting their act together? But while 'something' remains more likely than 'nothing', 'nothing' is far from out of the question.
In this case, though, the tax could be avoided by food manufacturers adding less sugar to their products, which is presumably what they will do.
(And even this paultry piece of nonsense assumed the proposal gets past the Council of Europe next week, and isn't eviserated by the European parliament after the referendum)
They are operating a pilot system for NHS treatment. This is how it works. You visit dentist for a checkup. You get a checkup. Dentist tells you you need a filling. But before you can get a filling you need to visit the hygienist and explains that in order to get a filling you need to show an improvement in your oral health scores (though mine werent bad to begin with).
On visiting the hygienist he explains to me that i *must* purchase an electric toothbrush (though there was no sales pressure to buy from them, i dont even think they sell them), that i must brush my teeth three times a day and not rinse afterwards.
While many on here queried whether that advice is sound.
On friday I had my follow up to see if, since October I had been sufficiently good enough to be able to access further NHS treatment. It seemed I had. So now I have to wait until May to actually get the treatment. The dentist rationalised it by saying the NHS didnt want to waste money on people's teeth if them themselves have no desire to improve.
I bring it to people's attention because, though frustrating, it is an interesting way of rationing healthcare. It could have interesting (and moral) implications if widened outside of dentistry to general practice.
For the medical professionals here, how many of the patients you see are coming to you because of their own failure to follow advice or look after themselves?
It might help to answer the question: "Why the UK?" Why do they travel through the EU and live in camps at Calais and elsewhere just for the chance to get into the UK? Language might be one issue: another might be contacts/friends/relatives already in the UK. If we can answer the question, we might be better able to create laws to dissuade them.
Their claims to be 'undecided' whilst they campaign even more vigorously to stay in than some of the declared REMAIN advocates makes them look stupid and dishonest. The only proper response is to laugh at them and point out their mendacity.
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/growing-support-doctors-strike
Preventative health is the way forward. A sugar tax is the start- in the future our dietary intake and movement will be entirely regulated and monitored through simple trackers- the technology is there, it is only a matter of time before it is implemented. Over the next forty years the health service will be transformed due to technology- and mostly will be shifted down into prevention.
If we cannot take responsibility for our own care and health then the government will do it for us.
However, having thought about it, I don't think that is the fundamental problem. A new Blair *could* win a leadership contest. Certainly some of Labour's membership, plus supporters and unions, are looking for an overtly socialist leader, promoting hard-left policies. But what really captured Labour's imagination last summer was that Corbyn had a story to tell at all. Burnham, Cooper and Kendall were careerists devoid of inspiration; Corbyn made Labour members feel good about themselves and their beliefs again. An inspirational leader from the centre could do the same. Sure, he'd still have an internal opposition to face down but with a mandate and the backing of his MPs (and the unions, in the face of a third Tory-led term), that's doable.
Leicester Liz's biggest problem wasn't actually her views; it was her.
As for Miliband, he too failed not because of his party management but because of his publicly visible leadership skills. He would never have been a good PM had those skills been better - a third-rate Wilson - but Wilson was successful in his own terms and kept a lid on Labour's troubles. Perhaps as PM he could have done more but he never got the chance because he sounded like, looked like, and indeed was, a wonkish academic.
Now, on topic (and in my role as the village idiot) I'll ask again: is there a rule or law that says that a party must be led by one person? If not then why not the Eagle sisters?
https://twitter.com/Sneekyboy/status/696667160668561408
I am sure I read a good article on this a while back, I will try to find it
It's pathetic.
An elderly hippy aims to campaign for the legalisation of cannabis by joining the mayoral contest — backed by the multi-millionaire founder of social networking site Bebo.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cannabis-party-candidate-joins-the-race-for-london-mayor-a3175181.html
NOW GO AWAY
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61r8fic06TL._SL1300_.jpg
Really though it's all about political will. If Italy/Greece or the UK for that matter wanted to stop people arriving by sea (like Australia) it can be done to the extent that the flow (and attendant drownings) are reduced to a tiny trickle. By land is a different matter of course. It can be done but the cost is huge.
None of this answers what on earth is going on with No 10 at present as they just seemed determined to try and prove you can really fool all the people all the time after all? Maybe it's a dose of contagious Corbynitis which expresses itself in an uncontrolled flow of self evidently potty statements.
If they argued any (at all) of REMAINs points they might have slightly more credibility.
Edit: I see TSE came up with the same two names!
(This post will self-destruct. I am now definitely vote Remain again. No doubt about it.)
Well true but is anything being done financially to reward good behaviour?
If not then this should be seen for what it is. A brownian tax grab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35520719
Now they're bitching that engine development will be open. Having previously bitched the sport had become an engine formula.
Richard Hendron, who had hoped to stand for the party in the South West constitutency for the London Assembly elections, quit the party over a “vile, nasty, homophobic” candidate.
Yesterday PinkNews reported that, following a hustings on Friday, UKIP had selected Alan Craig as its candidate for the seat.
Mr Craig, who was selected at a hustings on Friday evening, previously compared gay equality advocates to the invading forces of Nazi Germany.
He was nominated for Stonewall’s ‘Bigot of the Year’ award in 2012.
His competition, Richard Hendron, has now resigned from the party over Mr Craig’s candidacy.
In a letter addressed to the UKIP party chair, he wrote: “It has become clear to me that UKIP is anything but a libertarian party. It is a party dominated and controlled by white middle-aged heterosexual men who do not believe in libertarian values, equality or valuing difference. It’s a party that’s becoming even more small minded, a party that goes out of its way to maintain the status quo, a party that at best tolerates Gays rather than accepts them, a party that attacks difference and undermines equality.”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/07/gay-ukip-member-quits-party-over-vile-nasty-homophobic-candidate/
In addition, the continental side of the Channel is policed.
The Med is basically a giant warmish lake with a string of barely functioning states on one side. And still plenty die trying to cross it, and even more would do if they weren't rescued (although far fewer would try it accordingly too)
But it's easier for some posters just to lump everyone together as for us or agin us, as if they were supporting a football team.
FIrst, alcohol, depending on what you purchase, is hardly expensive relative to wage in the UK. According to the attached, the price relative to income of alcoholic drinks measured in terms of pure alcohol has been more than halved in the UK since 1960 leading to a more than doubling of consumption per capita - seems that the link between affordability and demand is pretty strong for alcohol. See the table on Price and Consumption in this attachment: http://www.kiap.re.kr/gapc/GAPCPPT/Plenary/08/day2-2 Gillan.pdf
Second, tobacco usage. This link shows that as price has gone up in the UK, sales of full tax cigarettes have fallen from 99 billion in 1990 to just 35 billion in 2014 while sales of untaxed cigarettes have risen from 3.5bn in 1990 to 25.2bn in 2000 before falling back to 5.7bn in 2014 (presumably on the basis of efforts by HMG to cut down on smuggled cigarettes). Again, a very clear fall in consumption and - a tell-tale sign of price sensitivity - a switch to untaxed smuggled cigarettes once tax goes up. http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/
Third, petrol. Gas consumption in the US has risen dramatically in line with this year's fall in prices at the pump.
http://fortune.com/2016/02/08/cheap-oil-gas-suv-sales/
Conversely, in the UK, as petrol prices rose, consumption fell 20%:
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fuel-Consumption-has-Fallen-more-than-20-in-the-UK-Due-to-High-Oil-Prices.html
So taxation, through raising price, does change demand even for price inelastic commodities. There is every reason to believe a sugar tax would change habits - the question is, if the ostensible purpose it to improve health outcomes, would it be the most effective way of doing so. The answer to that is, in isolation, almost certainly no. But it probably is a very useful component of any overall programme to change our dreadful eating habits and, more importantly, to force the prepared meals food industry's habits into not adding sugar to everything they make.
Corbyn won because the alternatives were uninspiring, particularly after Ed Miliband.
Consider the allies were bricking it that the weather might screw up D-Day - and that was June 06.
In the marginals he would win. He probably wouldn't win seats like Brighton Kemptown or Richmond Park but could strengthen the Conservatives in places like Newcastle Under Lyme.
It is hardly a surprise that people started to use a cheaper version of a commodity when it became available, in the same way as people go on "booze cruises" to Calais. Hence my suggestion that a tax on sugary drinks will mostly cause people to obtain their sugar fix from candies, chocolate etc instead.
Politically I am more at the libertarian end of the spectrum, I don't particularly object to people being unhealthy if that is how they want to lead their lives, it is just unacceptable for them to impose the costs of that choice on other people.
Although most of us can see straight through it here, it's precisely the same FUD tactics which proved very successful in the General Election campaign.
If I was to move over to a likely remainer, I would ask similar questions of that campaign. But it's not really worth the bother at the moment as I'm very unlikely to, and remain or leave is not a matter of faith to me.
In addition, I'm not sure hardcore leavers notice as much when posters make comments backing their side; they sure as heck notice it when posters make comments against their side.
But if you demand a National Health Service on the taxpayers' bill, then you have no moral or logical ground against the taxpayer, as represented by HMG, demanding things of you to reduce the cost of said national health service. Otherwise moral hazard will make the service unaffordable.
It's why 'time for a change' is a powerful political slogan. Usually. [Exceptions may be made for unilateralists who want to disband the army and have totally open borders].
http://tinyurl.com/hc78ucv
Various Yoons may think on reflection that they should have restrained their public glee at the prospect of the petitioners losing everything to pay AC's legal fees. I'm sure it didn't go unnoticed.