Next year might actually see a contest for the Constructors'.
Assuming Vandoorne gets Button's seat, a McLaren vacancy would depend on Alonso. I agree Vettel must be frustrated. Ferrari had a couple of near misses in 2008, 2010 and 2012, and the narrowest of wins in 2007, but they've not had the best car for a decade.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
Yes, and that too will inevitably level off. Given that there are no more large countries set to join the EU in the near future, net EU immigration to the UK will almost certainly fall naturally over the coming years, regardless of Brexit. Whenever I've tried to make this point, though, I've just been accused of wishful thinking
Economics works. Things naturally rebalance. It can take some time for this to be apparent, however.
I think you mean "economies work". The dismal science certainly doesn't
Economics is the method by which we explain why the economies of today aren't those that the economists of yesterday said that they would be tomorrow.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
If people are so desperate to come to the UK there must be something very wrong with most other countries by comparison. Or maybe it's just the fact they don't need identity papers here.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
It's 16% in Eastbourne - this area has changed hugely from 20yrs ago.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
We're told students and economic migrants (which account for most of our net migration) eventually return home, yet net migration continues year after year and the population continues to grow.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that quite a number are not returning home.
That's one factor. The other is that while I suspect the growth in the number of Poles in the UK is increasing only very slowly now, the number of Romanians, Bulgarians and other 2014 accession countries is still growing very quickly.
Yes, and that too will inevitably level off. Given that there are no more large countries set to join the EU in the near future, net EU immigration to the UK will almost certainly fall naturally over the coming years, regardless of Brexit. Whenever I've tried to make this point, though, I've just been accused of wishful thinking
Economics works. Things naturally rebalance. It can take some time for this to be apparent, however.
I think you mean "economies work". The dismal science certainly doesn't
But it's alright in Burnham's eyes: Liverpudlians deserve endless public inquiries, whilst Staffordonians shouldn't know the truth.
You know, because the truth might cause the NHS reputational harm ...
Andy Burnham is scum (tm).
Burnham ordered an enquiry, just not a public one. If you want to play politics, how is the current problem in Children's A&E (details unspecified) conceivably Burnham's fault? Jeremy Hunt as been Health Secretary for the past four years, and he followed Lansley. Burnham is just, in pb jargon, a squirrel.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
It's 16% in Eastbourne - this area has changed hugely from 20yrs ago.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
I'd guess that other capital cities show a similar trend. Capital cities have always been cosmopolitan and, as people move more freely about the world, they are bound to become more so.
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
Most interesting is this, how is this when poverty is supposed to be the biggest factor in determining how well a student does?
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
The Guardian has a piece on the GCSE results. Armageddon, educationally, apparently. First para reads: "National GCSE results have fallen dramatically across the board, with the proportion who gained a C grade or above dropping by an unprecedented 2.1 percentage points compared with last year – including a sharp decline in the numbers gaining a C or above in English.”
I’m not sure that 2.1% can reasonably be described as a “dramatic fall"
Most interesting is this, how is this when poverty is supposed to be the biggest factor in determining how well a student does?
"In England alone the A*-C pass rate dropped from 68.8% in 2015 to 66.6%.
Northern Ireland – where education is dominated by grammar schools, the subject of debate in England – bucked the national trend with a rise in A*s and As as well as a rise in the headline pass rate to 79.1%."
Isn't Northern Ireland poorer than England in the round ?
thats my point.....it shows that poverty is not the only cause of underachievement rather strong instituitions like family church and community (and prehaps trade unions) are impotant.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Actually, Thatcher succeeded. She more or less squeezed the national front out of existence in the 80s and migration more or less went away as an issue until the late 90s.
Sooner or later politicians are going to have to do something about this, particularly given the Brexit vote, or faith in our democracy will be seriously undermined.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
It's 16% in Eastbourne - this area has changed hugely from 20yrs ago.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Actually, Thatcher succeeded. She more or less squeezed the national front out of existence in the 80s and migration more or less went away as an issue until the late 90s.
Sooner or later politicians are going to have to do something about this, particularly given the Brexit vote, or faith in our democracy will be seriously undermined.
but did she acually reduce net migration? from what figure to what?
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
At the same time, we're expected to accept London spinning out of orbit as our nation's capital and turning into some amorphous global city state. Because.. 'it's different'.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
My wife had our children at the Portland, and it was as civilized an experience as childbirth is ever likely to be. The wine list was superb.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
At the same time, we're expected to accept London spinning out of orbit as our nation's capital and turning into some amorphous global city state. Because.. 'it's different'.
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
That's because if you have a Corbyn-like Prime Minister, then people leave the country in droves.
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
BUT BUT the Guardian have found experts that say its all terrible.
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
why the f@k is James O'Brien on Newsnight? Lightweight. Thats all...
Given Guardian TV current line up, I believe this is what they consider "going for somebody outside the cliche"...after all he did once work for the Daily Express.
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
That's because if you have a Corbyn-like Prime Minister, then people leave the country in droves.
Not an immigration strategy to be advocated, then? *innocent face*
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
That's because if you have a Corbyn-like Prime Minister, then people leave the country in droves.
But it's alright in Burnham's eyes: Liverpudlians deserve endless public inquiries, whilst Staffordonians shouldn't know the truth.
You know, because the truth might cause the NHS reputational harm ...
Andy Burnham is scum (tm).
Burnham ordered an enquiry, just not a public one. If you want to play politics, how is the current problem in Children's A&E (details unspecified) conceivably Burnham's fault? Jeremy Hunt as been Health Secretary for the past four years, and he followed Lansley. Burnham is just, in pb jargon, a squirrel.
I'll explain it in a way you can understand.
The head of the inquiry he set up, Francis, said that its remit was too narrow, and there should be another, public, one. Burnham refused.
The coalition granted one, and it made many more recommendations. So I ask you which of the many additional recommendations from the public inquiry should not have been made?
But Burnham's real hypocrisy is in saying that he regretted the public inquiry that got to the truth. Whilst calling for public inquiries (rightly) to Hilsborough, Orgreave etc. For this, I reserve full right to call him scum.
In his mind, people in Stafford and the surrounding area (such as members of my family who were mistreated there) can go on being mistreated because the reputation of the NHS trust is much more important than patient wellbeing.
As for your last diversionary tactic: 1) Stafford is suffering from reputational damage from the inquiry that is making it hard for it to recruit staff. Burnham was right about that. But that does not mean that holding a public inquiry was wrong, and at least it looks as though those hideous practices have stopped. It can offer less services, but at least those services should treat patients like they are human beings.
2) Burnham was a health minister for part of the time it was going on. But that's not where he deserves blame: it's for his obvious desire to ignore the fact the NHS was hiding it using tactics such as paying-off whistleblowers.
3) Problems are being caught earlier, rather than being allowed to fester. Closing the department to certain admissions is drastic, but better than allowing them to continue to an understaffed department.
Thanks to the public inquiry Burnham did not want, and regrets, we all should be safer as patients.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
But it's alright in Burnham's eyes: Liverpudlians deserve endless public inquiries, whilst Staffordonians shouldn't know the truth.
You know, because the truth might cause the NHS reputational harm ...
Andy Burnham is scum (tm).
Burnham ordered an enquiry, just not a public one. If you want to play politics, how is the current problem in Children's A&E (details unspecified) conceivably Burnham's fault? Jeremy Hunt as been Health Secretary for the past four years, and he followed Lansley. Burnham is just, in pb jargon, a squirrel.
I'll explain it in a way you can understand.
The head of the inquiry he set up, Francis, said that its remit was too narrow, and there should be another, public, one. Burnham refused.
The coalition granted one, and it made many more recommendations. So I ask you which of the many additional recommendations from the public inquiry should not have been made?
But Burnham's real hypocrisy is in saying that he regretted the public inquiry that got to the truth. Whilst calling for public inquiries (rightly) to Hilsborough, Orgreave etc. For this, I reserve full right to call him scum.
In his mind, people in Stafford and the surrounding area (such as members of my family who were mistreated there) can go on being mistreated because the reputation of the NHS trust is much more important than patient wellbeing.
As for your last diversionary tactic: 1) Stafford is suffering from reputational damage from the inquiry that is making it hard for it to recruit staff. Burnham was right about that. But that does not mean that holding a public inquiry was wrong, and at least it looks as though those hideous practices have stopped. It can offer less services, but at least those services should treat patients like they are human beings.
2) Burnham was a health minister for part of the time it was going on. But that's not where he deserves blame: it's for his obvious desire to ignore the fact the NHS was hiding it using tactics such as paying-off whistleblowers.
3) Problems are being caught earlier, rather than being allowed to fester. Closing the department to certain admissions is drastic, but better than allowing them to continue to an understaffed department.
Thanks to the public inquiry Burnham did not want, and regrets, we all should be safer as patients.
Burnham may well be a hypocrite or worse, but has damn all to do with today's problems. The "look, squirrel" is to avoid criticism of the current regime.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
We're in a golden age of TV! Movies OTOH, all awful.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
We're in a golden age of TV! Movies OTOH, all awful.
Perhaps on demand consumption provides a less compelling distraction.
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
Samuel Toombs will be in tears over this news.
No, he has an excuse.
Samuel Tombs @samueltombs 2h2 hours ago The CBI's DTS includes just 58 retailers, reporting results over 2w period. It's a lousy predictor of official data:
Burnham may well be a hypocrite or worse, but has damn all to do with today's problems. The "look, squirrel" is to avoid criticism of the current regime.
No "look squirrel" there. I suggest you re-read my post and also various articles about the problems they have recruiting, such as the ones linked to below. Here's a particularly interesting snippet:
Mr Hacket said: "It is clear to me that the historic problems at Mid Staffs prevented Stafford Hospital from recruiting and retaining staff, which ultimately had an effect on patient care. Despite all of this, I believe the legacy of Mid Staffs on the NHS will be safer staffing and a change in the culture of the NHS where staff and patients are better listened to.
If the trust and the NHS had reacted differently in the mid-2000s, people would not have died and others would not have suffered unnecessarily. The HSE prosecution into those deaths succeeded. It's hard to get crew for a ship that's sunk, even if it's been partially raised.
I also suggest you talk to people in the local area about their thoughts about Stafford hospital. You might realise that Labour's (and your) fetishisation of the NHS as an organisation is distinctly unhelpful.
(I think there's at least one poster from Blythe Bridge way - it'd be interesting to get his/hew input).
Another day, another positive piece of post-brexit data. CBI retail survey came in at +9 vs expectations of -12. I can feel Samuel Tombs lamenting this positive data already and I await his comment in The Times with great anticipation.
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
BUT BUT the Guardian have found experts that say its all terrible.
Those 'experts' are seeing why so many disregard their self-proclaimed soothsaying.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
The logical thing (in my view) is to pick someone who we feel represents our view of what ought to be done for Britain, and then get on with trying to win people over. The view that we should first pick a plausible person regardless of views and then try to decide on some policies was tested to destruction in 2010 and 2015. The problem is that plausible people without coherent views are not winners after all, so you end up with the worst of all worlds - a leader who doesn't particularly represent us, has no particular ideas and leads us to defeat. Picking someone because he's not someone else is a good example of a bad strategy.
To answer your query: I'm no expert on marginals around the country, but if Corbyn had a fair run without as much sniping from his own side, I'd see Labour having a fair chance in Broxtowe, which is a pretty typical mid-England marginal. Most of the local Greens and many LibDems have switched over to us (indeed I think an informal deal with the remaining Greens is on the cards) and there isn't a Tory majority there. If the election was tomorrow in mid-chaos, nah. In 2020? We'll see.
why the f@k is James O'Brien on Newsnight? Lightweight. Thats all...
Given Guardian TV current line up, I believe this is what they consider "going for somebody outside the cliche"...after all he did once work for the Daily Express.
He hosts the most stupid leftoid opinion show on LBC - it's so OTT that I can't bear to take any of the content seriously. That he's on Newsnight too is beyond laughable. They may as well ask Kevin McGuire to do it.
Immigration really is far too high and has been for some time.
It really needs to be brought under control and the existing population consolidated.
politicians have been saying his for ages tho- even Thatcher said we need to control the numbers- that was when net migration was about 60,000.....I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the Tories are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. I'll bet my house on it-they won't.
Also London is already less than 45% British White anyways, by the time of the next census I expect that to have fallen below 40%, the census after that to a third.
It fell from 60% to 45% between 2001 and 2011 so would be down to 30% by 2021 on the same trends.
At the same time, we're expected to accept London spinning out of orbit as our nation's capital and turning into some amorphous global city state. Because.. 'it's different'.
It's really not on, is it?
It isn't. I quite agree.
It will be at least 25% nationwide in the median term as that was the % of births to non UK born mothers last year. That's on top of going annual migration.
I think we're on course for White British going to 65-70% in England. Probably most major cities, other than in the north-east and north-west, being minority majority, and about 20-25% in most parts of south east England.
Hopefully it means Alonso and Button will be up near the top fighting with the Ferraris and Red Bulls rather than trying to hold off Force India and Williams.
Alonso and Button are both 100/1 for a podium finish.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
Only if at least one of the parents is a British citizen. Otherwise the baby doesn't qualify and they will be shipped off home. I believe the reason for those letters is because the NHS is free at thr point of use and on Africa medical bills can be pretty high. They come here have the baby and then go back to Africa. We don't even stop them from leaving because the calculation is made that the court fees and accommodation costs will be higher and the chance of recovery is poor. With HIV positive women the chance of the baby contracting it during childbirth is also much lower in the UK than in Africa.
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
We're in a golden age of TV! Movies OTOH, all awful.
Perhaps on demand consumption provides a less compelling distraction.
I take it you've never heard of "Netflix and chill".
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
We're in a golden age of TV! Movies OTOH, all awful.
Perhaps on demand consumption provides a less compelling distraction.
I take it you've never heard of "Netflix and chill".
Or as it is known in north korea.... manbang & chill.
One of my favourite statistics is that the population of the UK increased by only 650,000 during the 1970s. That's about two years' worth of growth these days.
It's closer to 500k a year right now. We need to build a new Birmingham worth of everything every two years just to stand still, never mind build enough to make up for the decades we have not met targets.
1970s TV was better, hence the lower birthrate. The govt need to increase the licence fee.
We're in a golden age of TV! Movies OTOH, all awful.
Perhaps on demand consumption provides a less compelling distraction.
I take it you've never heard of "Netflix and chill".
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
The logical thing (in my view) is to pick someone who we feel represents our view of what ought to be done for Britain, and then get on with trying to win people over. The view that we should first pick a plausible person regardless of views and then try to decide on some policies was tested to destruction in 2010 and 2015. The problem is that plausible people without coherent views are not winners after all, so you end up with the worst of all worlds - a leader who doesn't particularly represent us, has no particular ideas and leads us to defeat. Picking someone because he's not someone else is a good example of a bad strategy.
To answer your query: I'm no expert on marginals around the country, but if Corbyn had a fair run without as much sniping from his own side, I'd see Labour having a fair chance in Broxtowe, which is a pretty typical mid-England marginal. Most of the local Greens and many LibDems have switched over to us (indeed I think an informal deal with the remaining Greens is on the cards) and there isn't a Tory majority there. If the election was tomorrow in mid-chaos, nah. In 2020? We'll see.
The problem with Corbyn is that he is neither plausible nor representative. His rhetoric is riddled with lazy cliche. I have not heard one fresh good idea pass his lips. Whilst that might appeal to some, it's not a route to power.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
Only if at least one of the parents is a British citizen. Otherwise the baby doesn't qualify and they will be shipped off home. I believe the reason for those letters is because the NHS is free at thr point of use and on Africa medical bills can be pretty high. They come here have the baby and then go back to Africa. We don't even stop them from leaving because the calculation is made that the court fees and accommodation costs will be higher and the chance of recovery is poor. With HIV positive women the chance of the baby contracting it during childbirth is also much lower in the UK than in Africa.
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
Didn't know that one had changed,miss something that gets mentioned occasionally over here so I'll do some more digging.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby. Putting her on a blacklist of travellers until the bill is paid would be a good start.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
Brighton Kemptown is a possibility.
It's a dead man walking for the Tories.
Hove has already gone.
It won't be coming back.
The over-85 vote probably delivered it for the Tories last time.
Didn't know that one had changed,miss something that gets mentioned occasionally over here so I'll do some more digging.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby.
Turn them around at the border in Heathrow or any pregnant woman is required to hand over a refundable £20k deposit before entering the country to cover the costs of medical bills. If they leave before the kid is born the money is refunded in full.
The numbers for Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea are skewed by the big private maternity hospitals (The Portland, etc.). People actually fly into the UK to have their baby at the Portland or at St John & St Elizabeth.
Is flying whilst almost due advisable ?
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
Only if at least one of the parents is a British citizen. Otherwise the baby doesn't qualify and they will be shipped off home. I believe the reason for those letters is because the NHS is free at thr point of use and on Africa medical bills can be pretty high. They come here have the baby and then go back to Africa. We don't even stop them from leaving because the calculation is made that the court fees and accommodation costs will be higher and the chance of recovery is poor. With HIV positive women the chance of the baby contracting it during childbirth is also much lower in the UK than in Africa.
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
Didn't know that one had changed,miss something that gets mentioned occasionally over here so I'll do some more digging.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby. Putting her on a blacklist of travellers until the bill is paid would be a good start.
There are a couple of dicsussions have have got mixed up here I think. Birth at "The Portland" certainly isn't free I'm guessing
SkyNews Sussex Police believes that five people who died in the sea at #CamberSands were in their late teens and early 20s and from Greater London
The tragedy is that all you have to do to survive is lie on your back, keep you mouth out of the water, ignore the fact that you're drifting, and wait for someone to rescue you, (provided there aren't any rocks nearby).
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
The logical thing (in my view) is to pick someone who we feel represents our view of what ought to be done for Britain, and then get on with trying to win people over. The view that we should first pick a plausible person regardless of views and then try to decide on some policies was tested to destruction in 2010 and 2015. The problem is that plausible people without coherent views are not winners after all, so you end up with the worst of all worlds - a leader who doesn't particularly represent us, has no particular ideas and leads us to defeat. Picking someone because he's not someone else is a good example of a bad strategy.
To answer your query: I'm no expert on marginals around the country, but if Corbyn had a fair run without as much sniping from his own side, I'd see Labour having a fair chance in Broxtowe, which is a pretty typical mid-England marginal. Most of the local Greens and many LibDems have switched over to us (indeed I think an informal deal with the remaining Greens is on the cards) and there isn't a Tory majority there. If the election was tomorrow in mid-chaos, nah. In 2020? We'll see.
Piffle. Much of the analysis of 2015 (including your own, iirc) was around how many swing voters said what a poor candidate for PM that Ed M was. So you didn't pick a plausible person in 2015.
Not really. But I think those coming from the Middle East book their C section date, and then a hotel for the month beforehand.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
Only if at least one of the parents is a British citizen. Otherwise the baby doesn't qualify and they will be shipped off home. I believe the reason for those letters is because the NHS is free at thr point of use and on Africa medical bills can be pretty high. They come here have the baby and then go back to Africa. We don't even stop them from leaving because the calculation is made that the court fees and accommodation costs will be higher and the chance of recovery is poor. With HIV positive women the chance of the baby contracting it during childbirth is also much lower in the UK than in Africa.
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
Didn't know that one had changed,miss something that gets mentioned occasionally over here so I'll do some more digging.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby.
Turn them around at the border in Heathrow.
At which point she will 'faint' and be told by the paramedic she's unfit to travel. Perhaps the way is to levy heavy fines on airlines who allow heavily pregnant women to travel - from places like Lagos and Nairobi they could probably afford to employ doctors, such is the frequency of this occurrence.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
Brighton Kemptown is a possibility.
It's a dead man walking for the Tories.
Hove has already gone.
It won't be coming back.
You are forgetting the boundary changes though. Brighton Kemptown is undersized and will likely gain Newhaven making it a little bit safer for the Cons (although still marginal)
SkyNews Sussex Police believes that five people who died in the sea at #CamberSands were in their late teens and early 20s and from Greater London
The tragedy is that all you have to do to survive is lie on your back, keep you mouth out of the water, ignore the fact that you're drifting, and wait for someone to rescue you, (provided there aren't any rocks nearby).
Its the panic that gets you. I once got the washing machine treatment while white water rafting a big river in Canada & I very nearly did everything they said not to in the panic (I hate to think what would have happened if I had).
At which point she will 'faint' and be told by the paramedic she's unfit to travel. Perhaps the way is to levy heavy fines on airlines who allow heavily pregnant women to travel - from places like Lagos and Nairobi they could probably afford to employ doctors, such is the frequency of this occurrence.
As I edited in, large refundable deposits for medical fees are probably the best way forwards.
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
Brighton Kemptown is a possibility.
It's a dead man walking for the Tories.
Hove has already gone.
It won't be coming back.
The over-85 vote probably delivered it for the Tories last time.
In the long-term, the politics of Brighton and Hove will be inseparable from those of Camden, Hackney and Shoreditch.
Whats so good about popping a sprog in England specifically ?
Does the baby acquire "London rights" ?
British citizenship is a pretty big draw if you're from the Mid East or Africa. At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
We don't have anchor babies in the UK.
AIUI a baby born in the UK still gets a British passport for himself, even if not for his parents.
Only if at least one of the parents is a British citizen. Otherwise the baby doesn't qualify and they will be shipped off home. I believe the reason for those letters is because the NHS is free at thr point of use and on Africa medical bills can be pretty high. They come here have the baby and then go back to Africa. We don't even stop them from leaving because the calculation is made that the court fees and accommodation costs will be higher and the chance of recovery is poor. With HIV positive women the chance of the baby contracting it during childbirth is also much lower in the UK than in Africa.
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
Didn't know that one had changed,miss something that gets mentioned occasionally over here so I'll do some more digging.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby. Putting her on a blacklist of travellers until the bill is paid would be a good start.
There are a couple of dicsussions have have got mixed up here I think. Birth at "The Portland" certainly isn't free I'm guessing
The Portland definitely isn't free, but @rcs1000 is correct that people travel from the Mid East and Africa to London to give birth there.
The discussion morphed into the bottom end of the same market, with women turning up here almost due and burdening the NHS with the birth.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
The logical thing (in my view) is to pick someone who we feel represents our view of what ought to be done for Britain, and then get on with trying to win people over. The view that we should first pick a plausible person regardless of views and then try to decide on some policies was tested to destruction in 2010 and 2015. The problem is that plausible people without coherent views are not winners after all, so you end up with the worst of all worlds - a leader who doesn't particularly represent us, has no particular ideas and leads us to defeat. Picking someone because he's not someone else is a good example of a bad strategy.
To answer your query: I'm no expert on marginals around the country, but if Corbyn had a fair run without as much sniping from his own side, I'd see Labour having a fair chance in Broxtowe, which is a pretty typical mid-England marginal. Most of the local Greens and many LibDems have switched over to us (indeed I think an informal deal with the remaining Greens is on the cards) and there isn't a Tory majority there. If the election was tomorrow in mid-chaos, nah. In 2020? We'll see.
Piffle. Much of the analysis of 2015 (including your own, iirc) was around how many swing voters said what a poor candidate for PM that Ed M was. So you didn't pick a plausible person in 2015.
Burnham may well be a hypocrite or worse, but has damn all to do with today's problems. The "look, squirrel" is to avoid criticism of the current regime.
No "look squirrel" there. I suggest you re-read my post and also various articles about the problems they have recruiting, such as the ones linked to below. Here's a particularly interesting snippet:
Mr Hacket said: "It is clear to me that the historic problems at Mid Staffs prevented Stafford Hospital from recruiting and retaining staff, which ultimately had an effect on patient care. Despite all of this, I believe the legacy of Mid Staffs on the NHS will be safer staffing and a change in the culture of the NHS where staff and patients are better listened to.
If the trust and the NHS had reacted differently in the mid-2000s, people would not have died and others would not have suffered unnecessarily. The HSE prosecution into those deaths succeeded. It's hard to get crew for a ship that's sunk, even if it's been partially raised.
I also suggest you talk to people in the local area about their thoughts about Stafford hospital. You might realise that Labour's (and your) fetishisation of the NHS as an organisation is distinctly unhelpful.
(I think there's at least one poster from Blythe Bridge way - it'd be interesting to get his/hew input).
Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.
Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:
- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.
- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.
A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.
Sorry if you've already answered this as I asked it on a previous thread, but seeing as you are Corbyn supporter and presumably think he will do better than last time for Labour (or else the logical thing would be to get rid of him), which Tory marginals do you believe he will win back?
Brighton Kemptown is a possibility.
It's a dead man walking for the Tories.
Hove has already gone.
It won't be coming back.
You are forgetting the boundary changes though. Brighton Kemptown is undersized and will likely gain Newhaven making it a little bit safer for the Cons (although still marginal)
Nick is right in that some of us on PB do not get why Jezza is popular with people who like him. I don't. I really don't. Nor does anyone else in my wider family (almost all left-centre, quite a few LibDems).
I have absolutely no idea why people can be so stupid, shortsighted and deluded.
Piffle. Much of the analysis of 2015 (including your own, iirc) was around how many swing voters said what a poor candidate for PM that Ed M was. So you didn't pick a plausible person in 2015.
Yes, but why wasn't he plausible? Partly he ran the usual gauntlet that all Labour leaders run (e.g. Tony Blair was supposedly both demoniacal and wimpish - remember Bambi?), but I'd argue that Ed's underlying problem was that he didn't have a coherent agenda to push, so he could say "Never mind about those trivia, what matters is..." You can't credibly fill that gap with "a temporary price freeze on electricity", and if you try, you cease to be credible.
Blair had a reasonable reform agenda in 1997 which people thought sounded quite good and was in fact exceeded in practice. Brown looked highly credible at first but turned out to have no particular ideas about what to do with power, admittedly under the pressure of the global banking crisis, so by 2010 the question "Why vote Labour?" was rearing its head.
SkyNews Sussex Police believes that five people who died in the sea at #CamberSands were in their late teens and early 20s and from Greater London
The tragedy is that all you have to do to survive is lie on your back, keep you mouth out of the water, ignore the fact that you're drifting, and wait for someone to rescue you, (provided there aren't any rocks nearby).
A blonde, Germanic-looking friend of mine got into trouble scuba diving in a harbour at Malta. Her buddy managed to make it back to harbour, but she was swept out to sea. Unfortunately her buoyancy compensator (think inflatable jacket) was of an old sort that inflated at the back, forcing her head downwards.
A helicopter was called out to her, and she was winched up. The first thing the winchman asked when she was on board was: "Are you German?".
She said she was English. The man smiled and said something like :" We rescue you for free. We charge the Germans."
She's always wondered if they'd have chucked her out if she'd said she was German ...
SkyNews Sussex Police believes that five people who died in the sea at #CamberSands were in their late teens and early 20s and from Greater London
The tragedy is that all you have to do to survive is lie on your back, keep you mouth out of the water, ignore the fact that you're drifting, and wait for someone to rescue you, (provided there aren't any rocks nearby).
At which point she will 'faint' and be told by the paramedic she's unfit to travel. Perhaps the way is to levy heavy fines on airlines who allow heavily pregnant women to travel - from places like Lagos and Nairobi they could probably afford to employ doctors, such is the frequency of this occurrence.
As I edited in, large refundable deposits for medical fees are probably the best way forwards.
Piffle. Much of the analysis of 2015 (including your own, iirc) was around how many swing voters said what a poor candidate for PM that Ed M was. So you didn't pick a plausible person in 2015.
Yes, but why wasn't he plausible? Partly he ran the usual gauntlet that all Labour leaders run (e.g. Tony Blair was supposedly both demoniacal and wimpish - remember Bambi?), but I'd argue that Ed's underlying problem was that he didn't have a coherent agenda to push, so he could say "Never mind about those trivia, what matters is..." You can't credibly fill that gap with "a temporary price freeze on electricity", and if you try, you cease to be credible.
Blair had a reasonable reform agenda in 1997 which people thought sounded quite good and was in fact exceeded in practice. Brown looked highly credible at first but turned out to have no particular ideas about what to do with power, admittedly under the pressure of the global banking crisis, so by 2010 the question "Why vote Labour?" was rearing its head.
But Corbyn has no new ideas. Zero. ZIp. Sweet Fa.
He just trotts out (no pun intended) lazy cliche that consistently lost votes in the 80s and 90s.
There are a couple of dicsussions have have got mixed up here I think. Birth at "The Portland" certainly isn't free I'm guessing
No, but an "emergency" birth at the Whittington is free at the point if use and then free once the mother scarpers back to Africa/India/Pakistan.
How common is that? Flights from those places to the UK are hardly free
Common enough to do something about it. Refundable medical deposits for Indians and Africans should already be in place, if they are travelling with insurance then the insurance company can put the money up. Flights to London are cheaper than paying medical bills in a lot of these countries. A great aunt of mine came here for eye surgery a few years ago which was being quoted at $7000 in Kenya, she paid for a flight stayed with family got the operation at Moorfields and then flew back. She's a British citizen so different rules apply, but there are plenty of non-citizens who do the same.
Nick is right in that some of us on PB do not get why Jezza is popular with people who like him. I don't. I really don't. Nor does anyone else in my wider family (almost all left-centre, quite a few LibDems).
Others may have their reasons but mine are as thus: He's paid well up to now, and I hope he bloody well continues to do so in the future.
At which point she will 'faint' and be told by the paramedic she's unfit to travel. Perhaps the way is to levy heavy fines on airlines who allow heavily pregnant women to travel - from places like Lagos and Nairobi they could probably afford to employ doctors, such is the frequency of this occurrence.
As I edited in, large refundable deposits for medical fees are probably the best way forwards.
Yes, at the point of visa application.
Indeed and it wouldn't effect those who come with insurance as their insurance company could put the deposit up and reclaim it once they have left.
Piffle. Much of the analysis of 2015 (including your own, iirc) was around how many swing voters said what a poor candidate for PM that Ed M was. So you didn't pick a plausible person in 2015.
Yes, but why wasn't he plausible? Partly he ran the usual gauntlet that all Labour leaders run (e.g. Tony Blair was supposedly both demoniacal and wimpish - remember Bambi?), but I'd argue that Ed's underlying problem was that he didn't have a coherent agenda to push, so he could say "Never mind about those trivia, what matters is..." You can't credibly fill that gap with "a temporary price freeze on electricity", and if you try, you cease to be credible.
Blair had a reasonable reform agenda in 1997 which people thought sounded quite good and was in fact exceeded in practice. Brown looked highly credible at first but turned out to have no particular ideas about what to do with power, admittedly under the pressure of the global banking crisis, so by 2010 the question "Why vote Labour?" was rearing its head.
Well good luck with the idea that by 2020 (or even 2017) Corbyn will have a coherent agenda to put before the people. I suspect at next GE you will be testing a new theory: what happens when you put up someone who is clearly utterly implausible for PM and also has a mish-mash of incoherent, out-of-date, 1970s rehashed slogans as a manifesto.
Honestly, and I ask as someone sympathetic to the left-of-centre in general - is there any sign of some serious policy development actually taking place in Labour?
''How common is that? Flights from those places to the UK are hardly free.''
I believe there are gangs in places such as Nigeria that organise it all. Its a business. The staff don;t give a f8ck of course. Imagine you are a local person whose family paid into the NHS for generations, however.
Of course, this matters not to the 'Portland class'. That is why they lost.
Nick is right in that some of us on PB do not get why Jezza is popular with people who like him. I don't. I really don't. Nor does anyone else in my wider family (almost all left-centre, quite a few LibDems).
Others may have their reasons but mine are as thus: He's paid well up to now, and I hope he bloody well continues to do so in the future.
LOL. I assume you are laying him mightly for next PM.
Nick is right in that some of us on PB do not get why Jezza is popular with people who like him. I don't. I really don't. Nor does anyone else in my wider family (almost all left-centre, quite a few LibDems).
Others may have their reasons but mine are as thus: He's paid well up to now, and I hope he bloody well continues to do so in the future.
LOL. I assume you are laying him mightly for next PM.
Hmm Not really got into that at the moment, more for him to continue his winning ways against the current Labour bunch. I'm hoping for an annual leadership contest personally.
Comments
Next year might actually see a contest for the Constructors'.
Assuming Vandoorne gets Button's seat, a McLaren vacancy would depend on Alonso. I agree Vettel must be frustrated. Ferrari had a couple of near misses in 2008, 2010 and 2012, and the narrowest of wins in 2007, but they've not had the best car for a decade.
The question now is: can Trump stoop that low?
Does the baby acquire "London rights"
Sooner or later politicians are going to have to do something about this, particularly given the Brexit vote, or faith in our democracy will be seriously undermined.
It's really not on, is it?
Lightweight. Thats all...
It must also hurt at the CBI to see British industry and consumers shrugging off what they told us would lead to armageddon.
Reason to vote Tory in 2020 No. 1206.
The head of the inquiry he set up, Francis, said that its remit was too narrow, and there should be another, public, one. Burnham refused.
The coalition granted one, and it made many more recommendations. So I ask you which of the many additional recommendations from the public inquiry should not have been made?
But Burnham's real hypocrisy is in saying that he regretted the public inquiry that got to the truth. Whilst calling for public inquiries (rightly) to Hilsborough, Orgreave etc. For this, I reserve full right to call him scum.
In his mind, people in Stafford and the surrounding area (such as members of my family who were mistreated there) can go on being mistreated because the reputation of the NHS trust is much more important than patient wellbeing.
As for your last diversionary tactic:
1) Stafford is suffering from reputational damage from the inquiry that is making it hard for it to recruit staff. Burnham was right about that. But that does not mean that holding a public inquiry was wrong, and at least it looks as though those hideous practices have stopped. It can offer less services, but at least those services should treat patients like they are human beings.
2) Burnham was a health minister for part of the time it was going on. But that's not where he deserves blame: it's for his obvious desire to ignore the fact the NHS was hiding it using tactics such as paying-off whistleblowers.
3) Problems are being caught earlier, rather than being allowed to fester. Closing the department to certain admissions is drastic, but better than allowing them to continue to an understaffed department.
Thanks to the public inquiry Burnham did not want, and regrets, we all should be safer as patients.
At the bottom end of the market the Africans get a letter from their 'doctor' saying they're 25 weeks and fit to travel, when they're actually 36 weeks.
Samuel Tombs @samueltombs 2h2 hours ago
The CBI's DTS includes just 58 retailers, reporting results over 2w period. It's a lousy predictor of official data:
Mr Hacket said: "It is clear to me that the historic problems at Mid Staffs prevented Stafford Hospital from recruiting and retaining staff, which ultimately had an effect on patient care. Despite all of this, I believe the legacy of Mid Staffs on the NHS will be safer staffing and a change in the culture of the NHS where staff and patients are better listened to.
If the trust and the NHS had reacted differently in the mid-2000s, people would not have died and others would not have suffered unnecessarily. The HSE prosecution into those deaths succeeded. It's hard to get crew for a ship that's sunk, even if it's been partially raised.
I also suggest you talk to people in the local area about their thoughts about Stafford hospital. You might realise that Labour's (and your) fetishisation of the NHS as an organisation is distinctly unhelpful.
(I think there's at least one poster from Blythe Bridge way - it'd be interesting to get his/hew input).
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/patient-care-stafford-s-hospital-suffered/story-28379369-detail/story.html
https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/patient-safety/nurse-recruitment-problems-spark-urgent-mid-staffs-safety-review/5072090.article
To answer your query: I'm no expert on marginals around the country, but if Corbyn had a fair run without as much sniping from his own side, I'd see Labour having a fair chance in Broxtowe, which is a pretty typical mid-England marginal. Most of the local Greens and many LibDems have switched over to us (indeed I think an informal deal with the remaining Greens is on the cards) and there isn't a Tory majority there. If the election was tomorrow in mid-chaos, nah. In 2020? We'll see.
I think we're on course for White British going to 65-70% in England. Probably most major cities, other than in the north-east and north-west, being minority majority, and about 20-25% in most parts of south east England.
I'm on
The NHS needs to start refusing treatment to foreign nationals until they have paid in advance for all of their costs. It seems harsh, but it is the NHS, not the IHS.
Hove has already gone.
It won't be coming back.
Agree completely about NHS v IHS, perhaps the solution is to issue NHS cards that fit inside wallets. That said it's difficult to see what we can do with a woman who turns up in labour, no doctor will let her give birth on the street, so the discussion needs to be how we can enforce a bill on a penniless African woman with a baby. Putting her on a blacklist of travellers until the bill is paid would be a good start.
General secretary of the Bakers Union, @Ronniebfawu has been suspended from the #Labour party and can't vote in the leadership election.
Six suspected migrants were rescued from a boat off Kent coast earlier and are due to be interviewed by Border Force officers.
What a terrible fate.
The discussion morphed into the bottom end of the same market, with women turning up here almost due and burdening the NHS with the birth.
I have absolutely no idea why people can be so stupid, shortsighted and deluded.
Please can someone help us understand?
Blair had a reasonable reform agenda in 1997 which people thought sounded quite good and was in fact exceeded in practice. Brown looked highly credible at first but turned out to have no particular ideas about what to do with power, admittedly under the pressure of the global banking crisis, so by 2010 the question "Why vote Labour?" was rearing its head.
A helicopter was called out to her, and she was winched up. The first thing the winchman asked when she was on board was: "Are you German?".
She said she was English. The man smiled and said something like :" We rescue you for free. We charge the Germans."
She's always wondered if they'd have chucked her out if she'd said she was German ...
Never had to rely on it, but it feels like it is ingrained deeply enough to override the panic instnct.
He just trotts out (no pun intended) lazy cliche that consistently lost votes in the 80s and 90s.
At the very best, he is a dead end for Labour.
Was the referendum won in the maternity wards of England?
Families watching as staff prioritised overseas mothers who hadn;t paid into the system, and never will?
The political leaning of US academics. And how it's changed over the last 25 years. https://t.co/5g8AO48WOz https://t.co/Ks1M5j5vSv
I always assumed that it was because Corbyn is an utter gimp and lefty tosser and so are his fan club. Birds of a feather and all that.
Honestly, and I ask as someone sympathetic to the left-of-centre in general - is there any sign of some serious policy development actually taking place in Labour?
I believe there are gangs in places such as Nigeria that organise it all. Its a business. The staff don;t give a f8ck of course. Imagine you are a local person whose family paid into the NHS for generations, however.
Of course, this matters not to the 'Portland class'. That is why they lost.
Both are betting related threads...
Crybaby MP Installs ‘Panic Room’ to Protect Her from Mean Words on the Internet
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/24/british-mp-installs-panic-room-following-online-criticism/