Makes sense for Labour to hold back and wait for the Tories to overdo it - as they almost certainly will. For the same reason Ukip should copy the LDs and try and seem in-between Labour and Tory on this overall but pick out one thing that's safe e.g. limiting child benefit to two kids.
As loads of people would have liked to have more than two kids themselves but couldn't afford to largely because of the ever-increasing cost of finding a house near a school with a minimal amount of stabbing then limiting the benefit to two will be seem as on the "fair" side of the line.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the welfare system in itself, attacking it while at the same time importing millions of unskilled and semi-skilled labour is economic warfare on the poor so even people who agree with workfare in principle will see it that way - or at least they will see it that way when the Tories overstep - which they will.
Come on George. Time to put on your best fake accent & explain to us plebs how it was actually all your drivers fault.
From the look of the mirror photo no less (And the treasury story tallies) it WAS his driver's fault though ! This reminds me of the train incident with his apolitically aware SPAD !
Makes a change from questioning Osborne's train travel habits.
Meanwhile in the real world, most people are pissed and confounded by the ridiculous leniency of the Philpott sentences. Nothing Osborne said in that regard was offensive, and was a rare case of him actually being right.
"the London elite have no connection to their own"
I think they do but they don't consider the provincial proles 'their own' or for that matter the provincial elite either **.
They are far more likely to associate with the 'elite' in New York, Paris and other 'world cities'.
I am not refering to antifrank in particular with the above.
** I have to be careful when using the word 'elite' now after discovering yesturday that I was a member of that group.
LOL wouldn't worry about that . antifrank likes to run a wind up every so often on how good London just to annoy the provincials. I blame the Luftwaffe, they couldn't do the job right, crap German quality..... ;-)
"the London elite have no connection to their own"
I think they do but they don't consider the provincial proles 'their own' or for that matter the provincial elite either **.
They are far more likely to associate with the 'elite' in New York, Paris and other 'world cities'.
I am not refering to antifrank in particular with the above.
** I have to be careful when using the word 'elite' now after discovering yesturday that I was a member of that group.
LOL wouldn't worry about that . antifrank likes to run a wind up every so often on how good London just to annoy the provincials. I blame the Luftwaffe, they couldn't do the job right, crap German quality..... ;-)
Doesn't antifrank come from Norfolk originally?
So maybe there's a subconcious attempt to show he's more metropolitan than the proper metropolitans ;-)
"the London elite have no connection to their own"
I think they do but they don't consider the provincial proles 'their own' or for that matter the provincial elite either **.
They are far more likely to associate with the 'elite' in New York, Paris and other 'world cities'.
I am not refering to antifrank in particular with the above.
** I have to be careful when using the word 'elite' now after discovering yesturday that I was a member of that group.
LOL wouldn't worry about that . antifrank likes to run a wind up every so often on how good London just to annoy the provincials. I blame the Luftwaffe, they couldn't do the job right, crap German quality..... ;-)
Doesn't antifrank come from Norfolk originally?
So maybe there's a subconcious attempt to show he's more metropolitan than the proper metropolitans ;-)
A lot of the metropolitans are provincials bigging themselves up. Usually worst in the banks and the professions. :-)
Come on George. Time to put on your best fake accent & explain to us plebs how it was actually all your drivers fault.
Perhaps like Gordon Brown in a TV interview where he can accepted full responsibility and then sacked someonè else for it. On a Brownism level of lunacy that reached heights of shear hilarity
Man of the people. Most of us have done it at some point. My doctors has 3 disabled bays that only seem to be used by people who nip in quickly to drop off a prescription.
This makes me BLOODY furious. People who do this are assholes.
I have strong personal interest. My severely disabled elder brother is a Tatton resident and the problems off transportation are massive. To have Osbo doing this is despicable and if you think it is acceptable then you are despicable too
Yes in this instance the driver appears to have done wrong, although we don't know how long he was there. But nothing to do with Osborne.
@Labourpaul: A GCS driver reverses in a disabled drivers' bay, while Osb wasn't in the car. Can't help but feel we've more important stuff to worry about
Man of the people. Most of us have done it at some point. My doctors has 3 disabled bays that only seem to be used by people who nip in quickly to drop off a prescription.
This makes me BLOODY furious. People who do this are assholes.
I have strong personal interest. My severely disabled elder brother is a Tatton resident and the problems off transportation are massive. To have Osbo doing this is despicable and if you think it is acceptable then you are despicable too
Yes in this instance the driver appears to have done wrong, although we don't know how long he was there. But nothing to do with Osborne.
Unless Osborne said ' Park outside the shop, you pleb, I don't care if it is disabled only, do it!'
The Osborne story on the Mirror front page small beer compared to what the Japanese might be doing with their monetary policy. ..All But Scattering Cash From A Truck. Look at The FT front page.
@Labourpaul: A GCS driver reverses in a disabled drivers' bay, while Osb wasn't in the car. Can't help but feel we've more important stuff to worry about
Sadly wrong ...BBC already have it up. Prepare for days of debate over parking bays.....
Poor old GO. His driver parks in a disabled spot! Was any disabled person inconvenienced? At least GO gets out and about. Has rED ventured out of his home this week?
Perdix - Actually Brown's popularity has improved a little since 2010 (he was applauded at the Olympics) not that it could have gone anywhere else. Actually the most despised politician in Britain Award is shared between George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, whether George can at least join the 'Prince of Darkness' in being seen as at least an efficient operator remains to be seen!
However, the underlying position is stable - CDU (Merkel) in fine shape, SPD and Greens up, Left down but not out, FDP (Liberals) down and possibly out, Pirates on the rocks, the new anti-Euro party not troubling the scorers, no plausible majority except a grand coalition.
As David Allen Green tweets: "There really are people on my timeline more angry at Osborne for parking in disabled space than at Philpott for killing 6 children. Bizarre."
As David Allen Green tweets: "There really are people on my timeline more angry at Osborne for parking in disabled space than at Philpott for killing 6 children. Bizarre."
Your twitterer is a crass idiot for making the stupid comparison.
The Osborne story on the Mirror front page small beer compared to what the Japanese might be doing with their monetary policy. ..All But Scattering Cash From A Truck. Look at The FT front page.
Yes, very surprising and probably very significant but i don't get it at all yet.
Once again Osborne screws up and shows the side of him we have (nearly) all come to loathe. The one that is so up his own rich posterior that he drives his carriage into a disabled space. At a time of benefits cuts it's really remarkable how any one politician can be so inept.
This will stick with voters rather like the pasty tax did. And to those pb Tories who claim that it doesn't matter, you really don't get it yet, do you?
It's not shallow TGOHF. The Philpotts have dominated for some days, and it's unusual for sentencing to carry the lead on a separate day to convictions. What you don't seem to get, quite apart from the disgrace of doing this, is that it's another prime example of this toff elite. It takes me back to that killer comment that Cameron and Osborne have never known what it's like to have to put something back at the checkout. They are out of touch with the majority of people.
After "man on a boat takes no money" and "man buys a train ticket" finally Osborne will be brought low by "man gets into a car he wasn't driving and didn't park"
Pretty big UKIP swing from the Tories there in Lincs, Labour share not much changed. We're currently trying to assess which divisions to target inh the final stages in May and UKIP's intervention make it really hard to guess. We'll know more tomorrow when we see the full candidate lists, but UKIP's effect may produce a lot of odd results.
'Once again Osborne screws up and shows the side of him we have (nearly) all come to loathe. The one that is so up his own rich posterior that he drives his carriage into a disabled space.'
That might be true if he was the driver,he wasn't it was a policeman,but don't let facts get in the way or maybe give Specsavers a go.
David Cameron is confusing me today. If even SOUTH KOREA doesn't need an independent nuclear deterrent to protect itself against North Korea, why on earth would we?
David Cameron is confusing me today. If even SOUTH KOREA doesn't need an independent nuclear deterrent to protect itself against North Korea, why on earth would we?
David Cameron is confusing me today. If even SOUTH KOREA doesn't need an independent nuclear deterrent to protect itself against North Korea, why on earth would we?
Although I cannot stand Cammo and his stupid posturing, I still believe that britain needs a nuclear deterrent. Wars have a nasty habit of, once started, spreading to the most unlikely of places.
'Once again Osborne screws up and shows the side of him we have (nearly) all come to loathe. The one that is so up his own rich posterior that he drives his carriage into a disabled space.'
That might be true if he was the driver,he wasn't it was a policeman,but don't let facts get in the way or maybe give Specsavers a go.
The last time a politician claimed not to be the driver ...
Mind you, in some ways it's even worse if he claims not to have known. The picture seems to show him getting in. That's the Tory toffs all over. No fecking idea what the rest of us have to do, just some privileged dispensation that the carriage should be awaiting him close to the entrance. He's probably never had to park a car in a normal space in his life. Does he even know what a disabled space is? Not that I really believe him. We all know what those yellow lines are, and unless you have your head right up your ass you can see them whether you're the driver or not.
Precisely. Rather like the UK, in fact, which as part of NATO is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. But unlike South Korea, of course, we are under absolutely no threat from North Korea. So the relevance of NK to Trident is...?
Precisely. Rather like the UK, in fact, which as part of NATO is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. But unlike South Korea, of course, we are under absolutely no threat from North Korea. So the relevance of NK to Trident is...?
Well they have chosen to trust that the USA will always do what is best for them, we get into far more conflicts than South Korea, and can't always trust that the US will be on our side.
There is no threat presently to the UK. Camerons remarks today were based on statements from Pyongyang that they could strike at the US mainland:
"The fact is, as I wrote in a newspaper article this morning, North Korea does now have missile technology that is able to reach, as they put it, the whole of the United States and if they’re able to reach the whole of the United States they can reach Europe too. They can reach us too, so that is a real concern.”
And it is absurd to think North Korea won't continue to develop their long range missile technology, so while it is not relevant now, it may be relevant in the medium to far-term (which is where these decisions should be focused).
"And it is absurd to think North Korea won't continue to develop their long range missile technology, so while it is not relevant now, it may be relevant in the medium to far-term"
Yes, well, South Korea are under mortal danger from North Korea this week, let alone in twenty years' time, and they still don't seem to want nuclear weapons of their own. And in all honesty, if you seriously think that the USA would shrug its shoulders at a North Korean attack on the British mainland (WHY would NK do that, by the way?), then I'm slightly baffled as to why we've expended so much blood on keeping up this "special relationship".
David Cameron is confusing me today. If even SOUTH KOREA doesn't need an independent nuclear deterrent to protect itself against North Korea, why on earth would we?
Although I cannot stand Cammo and his stupid posturing, I still believe that britain needs a nuclear deterrent. Wars have a nasty habit of, once started, spreading to the most unlikely of places.
You are confusing the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of civilians in a nuclear inferno with a conventional war. We are still in Afghanistan and troops are still dying there. Nukes cannot stop conventional wars. Nor is there any conceivable scenario where Nuclear Weapons are used and the U.S. does not get involved.
"And it is absurd to think North Korea won't continue to develop their long range missile technology, so while it is not relevant now, it may be relevant in the medium to far-term"
Yes, well, South Korea are under mortal danger from North Korea this week, let alone in twenty years' time, and they still don't seem to want nuclear weapons of their own. And in all honesty, if you seriously think that the USA would shrug its shoulders at a North Korean attack on the British mainland (WHY would NK do that, by the way?), then I'm slightly baffled as to why we've expended so much blood on keeping up this "special relationship".
Because the South probably has an absolute guarantee from the US that they will defend them if such an attack occurred. Given the military presence in South Korea that the US has, an attack on them by the North would probably be considered an attack on the US.
While we do have an agreement through NATO, assistance is not always guaranteed simply by virtue of membership of the alliance (see the Falklands for example). As the US is heavily involved in the Korean peninsular, of course they would react to an attack by the North on any country in the world, but the same probably couldn't be said for every situation.
And why would they attack the UK? While I agree the chance is very remote, if they did it would be a good example of the ability for their nuclear weapons to reach across the globe. Of course they would be wiped off the face of the Earth the moment they did that, but that is besides the point. You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall. But then the deterrent would have failed in its task. Like I said, the situation is probably extremely remote.
"Because the South probably has an absolute guarantee from the US that they will defend them if such an attack occurred"
Unless you're claiming that the North Atlantic Treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on, the UK has an identical guarantee. An attack on the UK, or on Spain, or on Belgium, is an attack on the United States.
"You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall"
Well, for the sake of all concerned we'll just have to hope they randomly pick as their victims one of the five countries who just happen to be permitted by international law to possess nuclear weapons. Poor old Belgium, eh?
"Because the South probably has an absolute guarantee from the US that they will defend them if such an attack occurred"
Unless you're claiming that the North Atlantic Treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on, the UK has an identical guarantee. An attack on the UK, or on Spain, or on Belgium, is an attack on the United States.
"You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall"
Well, for the sake of all concerned we'll just have to hope they randomly pick as their victims one of the five countries who just happen to be permitted by international law to possess nuclear weapons. Poor old Belgium, eh?
Treaties can easily be broken or annulled. See the Act of Union 1707 for example.
And why would they attack the UK? While I agree the chance is very remote, if they did it would be a good example of the ability for their nuclear weapons to reach across the globe.
Sort of like 45 minutes from using WMD? Not a great idea to try using that argument any more after Blair and Iraq. Nobody will ever believe it again.
Yes, that was the Mail and the Sun, unsurprisingly enough. Might explain why the public trust them so little.
Of course they would be wiped off the face of the Earth the moment they did that, but that is besides the point. You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall
You just admitted that the threat of nuclear annihilation would not deter them. So again, what possible benefit is there for Trident?
"Treaties can easily be broken or annulled. See the Act of Union 1707 for example."
Let's hope so. The surest way to ensure that Scotland is safe from even the slightest threat of being targeted by a North Korean nuclear missile in 2043 is to walk away from both the Treaty of Union and the North Atlantic Treaty.
And why would they attack the UK? While I agree the chance is very remote, if they did it would be a good example of the ability for their nuclear weapons to reach across the globe.
Sort of like 45 minutes from using WMD? Not a great idea to try using that argument any more after Blair and Iraq. Nobody will ever believe it again.
[Newspaper images removed]
Yes, that was the Mail and the Sun, unsurprisingly enough. Might explain why the public trust them so little.
Of course they would be wiped off the face of the Earth the moment they did that, but that is besides the point. You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall
You just admitted that the threat of nuclear annihilation would not deter them. So again, what possible benefit is there for Trident?
The 45 minute claim really won't help next time there actually IS an imminent threat! Oh well, thanks Blair and co.
The benefit of Trident would be to defend ourselves against adherents of M.A.D., clearly.
The benefit of Trident would be to defend ourselves against adherents of M.A.D., clearly.
Clearly it can't. Trident is an offensive weapon of mass destruction. It is not a missile defence system. If the imperative is defence against a theoretical nuclear strike then there is at least some logic in switching from the billions Trident costs to a missile defence based system. But even that cannot possibly guarantee safety from a rogue state who would ignore the M.A.D. doctrine. M.A.D. is theoretically adhered to by those military superpowers who could wipe out every country on the planet with their colossal arsenal so it is academic (to say the least) if it is ever tested.
"In 1978, Philpott’s fiancée dumped him. In response, he broke into her house at night and stabbed her 27 times, slitting open her stomach and telling her: “If I can’t have you, no one will”. He then turned the knife on her mother and left the two of them for dead.
He was caught and convicted – and sentenced to seven years in jail."
Comments
Come on George. Time to put on your best fake accent & explain to us plebs how it was actually all your drivers fault.
As loads of people would have liked to have more than two kids themselves but couldn't afford to largely because of the ever-increasing cost of finding a house near a school with a minimal amount of stabbing then limiting the benefit to two will be seem as on the "fair" side of the line.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the welfare system in itself, attacking it while at the same time importing millions of unskilled and semi-skilled labour is economic warfare on the poor so even people who agree with workfare in principle will see it that way - or at least they will see it that way when the Tories overstep - which they will.
I never ever do it. Disabled bays are there for a damn good reason.
I think they do but they don't consider the provincial proles 'their own' or for that matter the provincial elite either **.
They are far more likely to associate with the 'elite' in New York, Paris and other 'world cities'.
I am not refering to antifrank in particular with the above.
** I have to be careful when using the word 'elite' now after discovering yesturday that I was a member of that group.
Will Quince, the 2010 Conservative candidate, has been re-selected for 2015 in Colchester, I'm told. So he's your man.
Nice try. Osborne has already admitted he was in the car but didn't realise.
Makes a change from questioning Osborne's train travel habits.
Meanwhile in the real world, most people are pissed and confounded by the ridiculous leniency of the Philpott sentences. Nothing Osborne said in that regard was offensive, and was a rare case of him actually being right.
Was Osborne driving or was it a government chauffer?
Coming so soon after the train ticket embarrassment it does suggest an excessive sense of entitlement from Osborne.
And what are welfare scroungers but people with an excessive sense of entitlement?
Newcastle LOOL!!
Cardiff next!!!
As a passenger, or a pedestrian getting into the vehicle it is possible for you to be unaware of any transgression.
So maybe there's a subconcious attempt to show he's more metropolitan than the proper metropolitans ;-)
Perhaps like Gordon Brown in a TV interview where he can accepted full responsibility and then sacked someonè else for it.
On a Brownism level of lunacy that reached heights of shear hilarity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1039256.stm
Labour know what they are doingGeorge Osborne 'unaware' his car was parked in disabled bay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22035985
"Has rED ventured out of his home this week? "
On a train. PM Nailed on.
Lab 676 LD 69 Con 44
"It's not as if they were in a rush to move. The car park wasn't exactly full and there were plenty of other, ordinary spaces."
A yes. But Osborne is no ordinary person, as we know.
Real pigs don't eat clichés.
That you have moved on to the incompetent Osbrowne hardly bodes well for you or him.
Lansley still isn't PM BTW.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
However, the underlying position is stable - CDU (Merkel) in fine shape, SPD and Greens up, Left down but not out, FDP (Liberals) down and possibly out, Pirates on the rocks, the new anti-Euro party not troubling the scorers, no plausible majority except a grand coalition.
Lab 441 LD 403 TUSC 86 Con 62 Green 14
So Knowsley is staying 100% Labour.
If you are angry about anything else, it just reflects badly on you.
Just a guess though.
Wigan 11,682.00
Nottingham 10,616.54
Knowsley 8,825
NE Lincolnshire 7,500
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/319941928860909568/photo/1
Lab 515 LD 328 Con 47
Harness (UKIP) 1098, Hall (Cons) 738 votes, Smith (Labour) 470, Stead (Lib Dem) 311
This will stick with voters rather like the pasty tax did. And to those pb Tories who claim that it doesn't matter, you really don't get it yet, do you?
Thanks for the link.
Front page on a driver not a child killer ? Propah journos innit.
Labour won the other Nottingham ward too, as expected. No figures yet
What you don't seem to get, quite apart from the disgrace of doing this, is that it's another prime example of this toff elite. It takes me back to that killer comment that Cameron and Osborne have never known what it's like to have to put something back at the checkout. They are out of touch with the majority of people.
After "man on a boat takes no money" and "man buys a train ticket" finally Osborne will be brought low by "man gets into a car he wasn't driving and didn't park"
That's it, it's all over.
Labour 1084 UKIP 451 Community Action 203 Conservative 89 BNP 63
You just don't get it, do you? The Nasty Party.
Labour 1084,
UKIP 451,
Community Action 203,
Conservative 89,
BNP 63
Lab 1542 UKIP 347 Con 176 Green 103 LibDem 96 Elvis 31
'Once again Osborne screws up and shows the side of him we have (nearly) all come to loathe. The one that is so up his own rich posterior that he drives his carriage into a disabled space.'
That might be true if he was the driver,he wasn't it was a policeman,but don't let facts get in the way or maybe give Specsavers a go.
.
http://order-order.com/2013/04/05/london-mp-chuka-umunna-london-is-full-of-trash/
Mind you, in some ways it's even worse if he claims not to have known. The picture seems to show him getting in. That's the Tory toffs all over. No fecking idea what the rest of us have to do, just some privileged dispensation that the carriage should be awaiting him close to the entrance. He's probably never had to park a car in a normal space in his life. Does he even know what a disabled space is?
Not that I really believe him. We all know what those yellow lines are, and unless you have your head right up your ass you can see them whether you're the driver or not.
Precisely. Rather like the UK, in fact, which as part of NATO is covered by the American nuclear umbrella. But unlike South Korea, of course, we are under absolutely no threat from North Korea. So the relevance of NK to Trident is...?
Great quote from Mr Harrison
'In a rant on the site, under his fake name, lamenting how bad London is, the London MP described London as being “full of trash”.
Don't you just love these Savile Row socialists.
Presumably you agree therefore that Germany, Poland, Bhutan and Algeria also require nuclear deterrents. Where does it end?
There is no threat presently to the UK. Camerons remarks today were based on statements from Pyongyang that they could strike at the US mainland: And it is absurd to think North Korea won't continue to develop their long range missile technology, so while it is not relevant now, it may be relevant in the medium to far-term (which is where these decisions should be focused).
Yes, well, South Korea are under mortal danger from North Korea this week, let alone in twenty years' time, and they still don't seem to want nuclear weapons of their own. And in all honesty, if you seriously think that the USA would shrug its shoulders at a North Korean attack on the British mainland (WHY would NK do that, by the way?), then I'm slightly baffled as to why we've expended so much blood on keeping up this "special relationship".
Will Quince won Colchester Con selection. He stood there in 2010 and he's a local borough Cllr
While we do have an agreement through NATO, assistance is not always guaranteed simply by virtue of membership of the alliance (see the Falklands for example). As the US is heavily involved in the Korean peninsular, of course they would react to an attack by the North on any country in the world, but the same probably couldn't be said for every situation.
And why would they attack the UK? While I agree the chance is very remote, if they did it would be a good example of the ability for their nuclear weapons to reach across the globe. Of course they would be wiped off the face of the Earth the moment they did that, but that is besides the point. You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall. But then the deterrent would have failed in its task. Like I said, the situation is probably extremely remote.
Unless you're claiming that the North Atlantic Treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on, the UK has an identical guarantee. An attack on the UK, or on Spain, or on Belgium, is an attack on the United States.
"You could imagine a scenario where they are being invaded conventionally, and launch with their backs to the wall"
Well, for the sake of all concerned we'll just have to hope they randomly pick as their victims one of the five countries who just happen to be permitted by international law to possess nuclear weapons. Poor old Belgium, eh?
Yes, that was the Mail and the Sun, unsurprisingly enough. Might explain why the public trust them so little.
You just admitted that the threat of nuclear annihilation would not deter them. So again, what possible benefit is there for Trident?
Let's hope so. The surest way to ensure that Scotland is safe from even the slightest threat of being targeted by a North Korean nuclear missile in 2043 is to walk away from both the Treaty of Union and the North Atlantic Treaty.
The benefit of Trident would be to defend ourselves against adherents of M.A.D., clearly.
How long before jetrosexual is in the OED ?
To believe in Trident is to believe in M.A.D. There is no such thing as nuclear "defence".
(there is no point in having British Nuclear weapons)
plus that's one less excuse for the corrupt monster-state. Job done.
"In 1978, Philpott’s fiancée dumped him. In response, he broke into her house at night and stabbed her 27 times, slitting open her stomach and telling her: “If I can’t have you, no one will”. He then turned the knife on her mother and left the two of them for dead.
He was caught and convicted – and sentenced to seven years in jail."