As ever, if this were the system, the result would be different. Presumably, if the number of EC votes were determined after the election based on number of voters, turnout would increase in the non-swing states.
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
@BBCNormans: Senior Tory tells me Bercow no longer commands confidence of Commons. But will any dare put down motion of no confidence ??
Senior Tory whistles in the wind.
Bercow told it like it is. Good for him, he'll gain immense respect from this in the country. Who cares what "Senior Tory" supposedly thinks?
Bercow is damaging his office. He is not there to represent himself. He is there to represent the members - and this view that he is allowed to be party politically partisan when it comes to international affairs is, frankly, bonkers.
As ever, if this were the system, the result would be different. Presumably, if the number of EC votes were determined after the election based on number of voters, turnout would increase in the non-swing states.
It'd create some perverse incentives such as GOP members in California, and democrats in West Virginia staying at home - but as an exercise I think it disproves the notion of electoral bias toward the Democrats due to small states (& DC) having a baseline of three ECVs.
I'll do it based on state population if anyone has those figures to hand too (I can't easily find them).
@BBCNormans: Senior Tory tells me Bercow no longer commands confidence of Commons. But will any dare put down motion of no confidence ??
Senior Tory whistles in the wind.
Bercow told it like it is. Good for him, he'll gain immense respect from this in the country. Who cares what "Senior Tory" supposedly thinks?
Bercow is damaging his office. He is not there to represent himself. He is there to represent the members - and this view that he is allowed to be party politically partisan when it comes to international affairs is, frankly, bonkers.
He should be representing the electorate of his constituency.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
Brexit would have won in the UK under every person's vote being equal. Unthinkable, I know.
No, we are in the sore loser world of people being quite happy with the rules when they elected Obama and looked like electing Hillary Clinton, but when they unexpectedly elect Donald Trump they are suddenly bad rules after all. It's pathetic.
TBF Dem-voting states were passing the popular vote compact right through Obama's term in office.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
The Left are right to be worried about Trump, but for the wrong reasons.... He is one Wile E. Coyote - but this time, he's learnt how to catch and eat roadrunner....
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
I think you would get into some very interesting, not to say Socratic debate on the subject.
Why don't you start us off with a first stab at it.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
The NHS isn't like immigration - we can't stop people getting old or sick or needing care, The polling is typical - no one wants to pay for anything, everyone expects someone else to pick up the tab and then they are the first to complain when the service is closed or under-resourced.
Just because the public is "moving" doesn't make the public right. The elephant trap of assuming a majority is right is opening up in front of you. It's possible for majorities to be wrong.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral College votes proportionally - the other 48 states use winner takes all. If every state copied Nebraska then the electoral vote and the popular vote would become incredibly close. It would put states like California back in play for the Republicans and Texas for the Democrats. Right now the popular vote is meaningless because voters from the losing side frequently don't bother in 'can't win' states such as CA.
@BBCNormans: Senior Tory tells me Bercow no longer commands confidence of Commons. But will any dare put down motion of no confidence ??
Senior Tory whistles in the wind.
Bercow told it like it is. Good for him, he'll gain immense respect from this in the country. Who cares what "Senior Tory" supposedly thinks?
You may be surprised how little support he has when the polls come out
You'll be the one surprised. Within a day or so, I expect.
You are more likely to be correct "within a day or so" as people may react instinctively. Mature and adult reflection, though, will doubtless show Bercow wrong.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
Foreign national prisoners should go from the prison to the airport. If they want to come back then they should apply from abroad. At their own expense.
@BBCNormans: Senior Tory tells me Bercow no longer commands confidence of Commons. But will any dare put down motion of no confidence ??
Senior Tory whistles in the wind.
Bercow told it like it is. Good for him, he'll gain immense respect from this in the country. Who cares what "Senior Tory" supposedly thinks?
You may be surprised how little support he has when the polls come out
You'll be the one surprised. Within a day or so, I expect.
You are more likely to be correct "within a day or so" as people may react instinctively. Mature and adult reflection, though, will doubtless show Bercow wrong.
Maybe not:
The Guardian/ICM poll included a question about Britain’s relationship with Donald Trump’s administration. The poll was carried out before John Bercow let rip at Trump in the Commons yesterday, but its findings suggest most people want Britain to adopt a “balanced” approach to Trump, neither particularly supportive or particularly critical.
People were asked which of these three statements they most agreed with.
Britain should be a trusted partner, offering guidance when necessary and being as or more supportive of President Trump than any other nation, in the hope of getting a favourable trade deal and a continued special relationship: 15%
Britain should be balanced and diplomatic, offering support and criticism when it feels necessary to do so: 57%
Britain should stand back, and adopt a tough approach, condemning the introduction of measures that Britain believes would be harmful: 19%
Foreign national prisoners should go from the prison to the airport. If they want to come back then they should apply from abroad. At their own expense.
Why bother with the prison? It costs a lot of money. Straight from the court to a plane dumped on their country of origin and banned from reapplying to come to the UK
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
My work here re Trump would be done if posters got it. He's extremely good at this stuff.
I haven't quite fully understood his attacks on NYT yet - there's something going on here re Carlos Slim/Mexican government strong-arming. CNN bashing is just obvious - and well deserved.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Shadow Cabinet agree a 3-line whip for Labour MPs to vote for Article 50 tomorrow night. Over to you Clive and Diane ...
Talking of which, have we flagged up this article by Anthony Wells?
Whatever your opinion of him, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is not one that has been associated with triangulation or picking policy positions based on hard-nosed evaluations of what will appeal to target voters. For once, however, it appears to be the Labour leader who has picked the position that is most likely to keep the party together and alienate the fewest voters.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
What's highly controversial about it? He was voted in presumably to pursue just that.
The Left are right to be worried about Trump, but for the wrong reasons.... He is one Wile E. Coyote - but this time, he's learnt how to catch and eat roadrunner....
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
@Innocentabroad original argument was that rural votes were more powerful than urban ones and that states having 3 ECVs by default biased the system to the GOP.
I have PROVED that is simply not the case, and if every voter in every state had equal worth, then Trump would still have won 304 ECVs.
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
The Left are right to be worried about Trump, but for the wrong reasons.... He is one Wile E. Coyote - but this time, he's learnt how to catch and eat roadrunner....
Meep meep eek....
There's a great cartoon re wolf poster board advertising
Yes, an assumed rate of £50-70ph seems extraordinarily low. Is that what you were looking for?
Are you London based ?
Criminal law in the provinces isn't the gilded golden ticket that commercial law is in London. Especially with regards to legal aid cases. The figures are probably correct.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
The Telegraph reporting the IFS: "The level of tax in Britain has reached the highest level as proportion of national income for 30 years, a respected think tank has found. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that taxes are on course to rise by £17billion over the course of this Parliament, taking that the proportion of national income raised in taxes to 37 per cent for the first time since 1986."
Yet.... "Spending on public services has fallen by 10 per cent since 2009/10, after taking inflation into account - already "by far" the longest and biggest fall on record. Further cuts of 4 per cent over the next three years are due to bring the total real-terms reduction to 13 per cent between 2010/11 and 2019/20. To meet his target of eliminating the deficit during the next parliament - which ends in 2025 - Mr Hammond will probably have to find a further £34 billion in tax rises and spending cuts, extending austerity "well into the 2020s", found the IFS."
Pay much more, get much. In normal times you would expect any government to be 15% behind in such circumstances, not 15% ahead. Testament to an utter failure of the opposition parties, all of them.
Yes, even with record tax receipts we are still having to borrow money to fund government spending. George Osborne should have taken the bull by the horns as happened in Ireland, the UK's finances are woefully unprepared for the next recession.
Osborne had no chance of getting real terms cuts though with the coalition.
The model should be 1994 Canada under Jean Chretien.
But to win its budget wars, Canada first had to realize how dire its situation was and then dramatically shrink the size of government rather than just limit the pace of spending growth.
The government shouldn't be talking about spending less on things, it should be talking about doing less things altogether.
The irony is that Chretien was sorting out the mess he inherited from PM Trudeau, father of the current PM Trudeau, and now under the watch of the later the Canadian economy is going down the pan once more.
Alternative fact alert!!!! Trudeau left office in 1984. Between 84 and 93 there was a CONSERVATIVE govt to clean up after. Mulroney (widely regarded as the worst PM ever in Canada) followed the playbook of Reagan by cutting taxes and not cutting spending. So successful was he that the Tories won a magnificent TWO seats at the 93 election. Some people will post any old tosh to paint Trudeau as a dangerous Socialist with scant regard for any facts. He is the leader of the Centrist party.
On thread, this is why Labour should be worried in Stoke.
2015 General Election, Stoke Central. Right wing votes: 45.2% (UKIP + Con) Left wing votes: 42.9% (Lab + Green) LD 4.2% Others 7.7%
That and the fact that the Conservatives are mouning a non-campaign to leave the field clear for UKIP. Not such a high bar in those circumstances.
Still to be convinced that the Tory vote is just lumped in with a "right wing vote" that will slide across to UKIP, regardless of a lacklustre Tory effort...
What does UKIP offer that May isn't delivering for that "right wing vote"??
Yes, an assumed rate of £50-70ph seems extraordinarily low. Is that what you were looking for?
Are you London based ?
Criminal law in the provinces isn't the gilded golden ticket that commercial law is in London. Especially with regards to legal aid cases. The figures are probably correct.
Can someone find me an accountant for £70ph...
I'd have thought tax (And when people say they need an accountant, I automatically assume they mean a tax accountant) accountants would be looking for work right now - seeing as the self assesment deadline has just passed.
Foreign national prisoners should go from the prison to the airport. If they want to come back then they should apply from abroad. At their own expense.
Why bother with the prison? It costs a lot of money. Straight from the court to a plane dumped on their country of origin and banned from reapplying to come to the UK
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
The problem for some is that they don't separate what he's doing from how he is doing it.
He tells a whopping lie. If he gets called out, he changes the subjects, tries to discredit the source, or tells an even bigger lie instead.
Plato seems to be in thrall to him because it works. It's (so far) devastatingly effective.
It's also corrosive to good governance, public trust, domestic and International security and the rule of law.
Foreign national prisoners should go from the prison to the airport. If they want to come back then they should apply from abroad. At their own expense.
Why bother with the prison? It costs a lot of money. Straight from the court to a plane dumped on their country of origin and banned from reapplying to come to the UK
Prison acts as a deterrent to prevent people from committing crimes, so it's not a good idea to just let people off if they come from a foreign country.
You could make a deal with that country whereby they would imprison their citizens for you instead, but they'd presumably expect you to make it worth their while and probably also make it reciprocal, so it's not obvious that you'd save any money.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
Gosh that sounds terrible. Why didn't the person that took you in explain what had happened?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.
The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:
However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....
In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
We all know which dictator the Daily Mail favoured.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
Bit like bleating about FPTP only giving 1 mp for 3.8m votes I guess, or 1.4m votes giving 56 mps.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, allGod knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
On thread, this is why Labour should be worried in Stoke.
2015 General Election, Stoke Central. Right wing votes: 45.2% (UKIP + Con) Left wing votes: 42.9% (Lab + Green) LD 4.2% Others 7.7%
That and the fact that the Conservatives are mouning a non-campaign to leave the field clear for UKIP. Not such a high bar in those circumstances.
Still to be convinced that the Tory vote is just lumped in with a "right wing vote" that will slide across to UKIP, regardless of a lacklustre Tory effort...
What does UKIP offer that May isn't delivering for that "right wing vote"??
Yes. If the polls were Lab 28, Con 31, UKIP 23 then it ought to be an easy UKIP win. But it's not: the Conservative share is still very high - well above GE levels - which indicates fairly strong positive support. I've not been and I've heard only partial (in both senses) reports but I'd be very surprised if mark Senior's predictions of the Conservatives trailing in a distant fourth are at all close to the mark.
He tells a whopping lie. If he gets called out, he changes the subjects, tries to discredit the source, or tells an even bigger lie instead. So Trump's a lefty!
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
Bit like bleating about FPTP only giving 1 mp for 3.8m votes I guess.
"Will President Donald Trump start killing journalists because he pointed out Sunday the US is not "so innocent" and may have done some nasty things in the past?
Maybe, at least according to MSNBC's Katy Tur.
From Newsbusters: MSNBC took its fear mongering smears of the Donald Trump administration to a dark new low Monday afternoon when reporter Katy Tur suggested the president’s war with the media would start racking up actual casualties. During an interview with Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican, Tur suggested Trump would take a page from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s playbook and start targeting journalists for death.
“As we know, there's, since 2000, been a couple dozen suspicious deaths of journalists in Russia who came out against the government there,” Tur reminded the Senator before unscrupulously suggesting Trumps distaste for the media would escalate, “Donald Trump has made no secret about going after journalists and his distaste for any news that doesn't agree with him here. Do you find that this is a dangerous path he is heading down?”
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
It's an interesting thought. I've often heard the argument the costs of policing town centres and running A&E Units on Friday and Saturday nights should be met by the businesses running bars and other alcohol outlets.
So if you drink yourself into a stupor on a Friday night, fall over, crack your head open and end up in A&E, All Bar One foots the bill instead of the taxpayer.
It rather sidesteps notions of self responsibility but might be easier to enforce and manage than trying to get individuals to pay for their own treatment.
The obvious problem is that if faced with the possibility of paying a bill, people will forego proper treatment and possibly worse medical problems are missed with more serious consequences.
OTOH, putting the responsibility on to business could be instrumental in leading a cultural rebalancing toward a more sensible approach to drink and drinking. At racecourses I have often seen people who are inebriated yet continue to be served alcohol. I understand the capitalist argument but there's a counter argument around respecting the freedom of others and a duty of care to all.
Perhaps it's more about paying the bill than making the money in the first place.
than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.
The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:
However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....
In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
We all know which dictator the Daily Mail favoured.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, allGod knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
Bit like bleating about FPTP only giving 1 mp for 3.8m votes I guess, or 1.4m votes giving 56 mps.
'If only we were playing wiff waff..'
Same principle. I'd prefer a more proportional system, but I don't deny the legitimacy of the Conservatives' win under the current rules.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral College votes proportionally - the other 48 states use winner takes all. If every state copied Nebraska then the electoral vote and the popular vote would become incredibly close. It would put states like California back in play for the Republicans and Texas for the Democrats. Right now the popular vote is meaningless because voters from the losing side frequently don't bother in 'can't win' states such as CA.
Given that most US-wide opinion polls called the vote percentages pretty closely last November, that would imply supporters of non-competitive candidates in certain states also do not bother to respond when contacted by pollsters. Is there any evidence that is the case?
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
I think you would get into some very interesting, not to say Socratic debate on the subject.
Why don't you start us off with a first stab at it.
We already have lifestyle charging for so called sin taxes. I can imagine that expanding.
I wouldn't be surprised to see hazardous leisure pursuits added to the list.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, allGod knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Reminds me of a thought experiment I had with a Government spokesperson a few years ago. The discussion was about drug rehab in prisons and the (then) reluctance to agree to continuing methadone replacement therapy for heroin addicts, preferring cold turkey instead. My question was what is the the position if a person adequately maintained on methadone was convicted of a non drug related custodial crime, would they force that person to go cold turkey? If so, how was that different from a diabetic committing a crime with a custodial sentence? Insulin wouldn't be withdrawn.
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
Yes but what about my taxi example where you're over the limit but have done the responsible thing, and end up in A&E through no fault of your own..
A rare and awkward counterexample but I'd like to know your view on it :>
I guess you could waive it in that case, although I'd probably charge then refund
I think what we are about to see here are a load of unlikely scenarios being painted that means the problem we are trying to solve will never be solved!
I feel now would be a good time to repeat that if criminals are launched via space cannon into the heart of the sun, their re-offending rate is 0%.
So what happens to the likes of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and Stefan Kiszko, though with what happened to Stefan Kiszko in prison, being fired into the heart of the sun might have been better for him than being locked up for so many years.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
On thread, this is why Labour should be worried in Stoke.
2015 General Election, Stoke Central. Right wing votes: 45.2% (UKIP + Con) Left wing votes: 42.9% (Lab + Green) LD 4.2% Others 7.7%
That and the fact that the Conservatives are mouning a non-campaign to leave the field clear for UKIP. Not such a high bar in those circumstances.
Still to be convinced that the Tory vote is just lumped in with a "right wing vote" that will slide across to UKIP, regardless of a lacklustre Tory effort...
What does UKIP offer that May isn't delivering for that "right wing vote"??
Yes. If the polls were Lab 28, Con 31, UKIP 23 then it ought to be an easy UKIP win. But it's not: the Conservative share is still very high - well above GE levels - which indicates fairly strong positive support. I've not been and I've heard only partial (in both senses) reports but I'd be very surprised if mark Senior's predictions of the Conservatives trailing in a distant fourth are at all close to the mark.
FWIW I'm expecting a straight-forward Labour win - and for UKIP to be back to navel-gazing about how the hell they get a leader into the House of Commons.
I've been watching the reaction to Trump going on and on about terrorism threats quite closely and many in the media still haven't noticed what he's done - again.
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
It's clever, that I'll grant you. Basically the strategy is to create a story on a contrived external threat that then dominates US political debate, allowing him to get on with pursuing his highly controversial domestic agenda almost unnoticed. So far he's succeeding in that.
He is showing that lying and obfuscation can be great political strategies and is paving the way for others to follow in his footsteps. Republicans will find that it is not always beneficial to their side that this happens.
It's also worth remembering, though, that Trump currently has first-user advantage. It's a fact that this does not last. Others catch-up and then improve on the initial offering. I suspect we will see that happening over the coming years.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
Gosh that sounds terrible. Why didn't the person that took you in explain what had happened?
They probably did. It was A&E on a Saturday night, I doubt anybody was listening.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, allGod knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral College votes proportionally - the other 48 states use winner takes all. If every state copied Nebraska then the electoral vote and the popular vote would become incredibly close. It would put states like California back in play for the Republicans and Texas for the Democrats. Right now the popular vote is meaningless because voters from the losing side frequently don't bother in 'can't win' states such as CA.
Given that most US-wide opinion polls called the vote percentages pretty closely last November, that would imply supporters of non-competitive candidates in certain states also do not bother to respond when contacted by pollsters. Is there any evidence that is the case?
Not sure. The polling is clearly a problem. Righties in rural CA for example probably just disconnect. They are disenfranchised. (Like me in Bootle or you in Surrey). If CA was a proportional EC system it seems reasonable to assume a significant re-emergence of voters would happen. Who gives a shit what the polling in CA is anyway? All the EC votes are going to be for the Dem candidate for the foreseeable. The nation-wide popular vote has no significance whatever.
I feel now would be a good time to repeat that if criminals are launched via space cannon into the heart of the sun, their re-offending rate is 0%.
So what happens to the likes of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and Stefan Kiszko, though with what happened to Stefan Kiszko in prison, being fired into the heart of the sun might have been better for him than being locked up for so many years.
The real Birmingham bombers have never been found or convicted. This is an issue which may well come to haunt Labour in 2020, particularly McDonnell's relationship.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
a) People do not want to pay more tax for it; b) People think foreign patients should be charged; c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged; d) People think those who waste the NHS' time by missing appointments etc should be charged;
I wonder which politician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
That's going to work really well with someone who is unconscious, isn't it?
I feel now would be a good time to repeat that if criminals are launched via space cannon into the heart of the sun, their re-offending rate is 0%.
So what happens to the likes of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and Stefan Kiszko, though with what happened to Stefan Kiszko in prison, being fired into the heart of the sun might have been better for him than being locked up for so many years.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
In amongst all the reporting of the BBC, their Ipsos polling on the NHS tells us:
aitician is actually listening rather than engaging in NHS ideology.
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
So if you are walking along the road and fall down a pot hole or walk into a tree you should get a freebie from the NHS. Otherwise you should be charged?
Does it say that?
I think once you head down the "self induced" road there are many potholes waiting for you.
It might be wise to consult the public on what they mean. They obviously have some things in mind.
If someone fell over while drunk or high on drugs and required A&E, it would take a hard hearted and selfish person to think they were as deserving of free treatment as an elderly person or toddler that had incurred the same injury while sober
But you can't ask clinicians to make a moral judgment like that. It's not their job, they haven't got time to do it and it's not what they are trained for.
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, allGod knows how I'd have ended up.
Breath test and if you're over the DD limit you have to pay
Would you expect them to pay for the entire cost of the treatment?
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
Another way of looking at it would be encouraging people not to get so drunk
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
You think a ten pound fine will discourage people from getting drunk?
It's not a fine it's a charge for being seen in A&E
Whatever your religion or none - this isn't good. Attacks on Christian churches up 245%
"While racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic attacks have seen a huge fall since 2008, those on Christian places of worship more than doubled in this period of time, France’s interior ministry reported last week.
Having documented a record number of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks in 2015, the French government spent €100 million on a huge anti-populist campaign to reduce Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.
Subsequently, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim attacks fell sharply in 2016 with the former seeing a decline of 58.5 per cent and the latter a drop of 57.6 per cent. These attacks are defined as being fires, violence, degradation, and threats — comments, inscriptions, insulting letters.
In this year, attacks on Christian places of worship have increased by 17.4 per cent in 2016 compared to 2015. Racist attacks, meanwhile, dropped by 23.7 per cent (608 versus 797).
The sharp drop in incidents of an Islamophobic or anti-Semitic nature was welcomed by the French government, who credited the figures as the “fruit of the government’s action plan...
Le Figaro reported that acts which target Christians now account for 90 per cent assaults on places of worship.
The newspaper points out that, while it is to be expected that attacks on churches are the most plentiful because they exist in the largest number, cases in which Christian places of worship were defiled saw a huge rise between 2008 and 2016.
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
Andrew Mitchell spoke up for the Speaker this morning. I expect John Bercow is safe enough.
He may well be - but still to not consult the other 'keyholders' is poor form I think.
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
A counter argument is that they already pay in advance via their tax contribution every time they smoke a pack. Likewise drinkers. Now the state is moving on to sugar consumers. No doubt these are on the list though.
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
c) People think those whose problems are self induced should be charged;
The public are moving the same way with healthcare that they did with immigration and welfare. They are in 'enough is enough' mode.
OK - start with smokers. Smoking is a well-known form of self-induced harm and simple to spot in hospital.
Don't some people have lung cancer even though they have never smoked.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Indeed. I am not supporting the argument, just pointing out its absurdities and wondering how many people agree with the proposition that "...those whose problems are self induced should be charged..." whilst believing that it does not apply to them
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk or smelling of smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
Mr. Meeks, I agree, and yet, he shouldn't be. He's politicised his office and it seems his people are now claiming the Speaker has no duty of neutrality on foreign matters, which is high grade horseshit.
Mr. Patrick, no, to stop drinking and start smoking. The taxes smokers pay cover their treatment and more. Drinkers are the reverse. If everyone stopped smoking there'd be billions of pounds gone from the budget. If everyone stopped drinking, the budget would grow (effectively) enormously.
I feel now would be a good time to repeat that if criminals are launched via space cannon into the heart of the sun, their re-offending rate is 0%.
So what happens to the likes of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and Stefan Kiszko, though with what happened to Stefan Kiszko in prison, being fired into the heart of the sun might have been better for him than being locked up for so many years.
The real Birmingham bombers have never been found or convicted. This is an issue which may well come to haunt Labour in 2020, particularly McDonnell's relationship.
Non story, I'm sure the Tories won't be mentioning that John McDonnell wanted to the IRA and their bombers.
Anyway, the whole debate about foreign patients, self-inflicted injuries and missed appointments is a complete sideshow. What's driving up the costs of the NHS is a steadily ageing population.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
Ageing population is a factor... Another one is rising cost of expensive new treatments.
Rubbish. If actual votes had equal theoretical power then you wouldn't need an electoral college, you would just put the lot in one sack and count them. And Trump losing by 3 million in the popular vote would matter then.
If you lose at Rugby Union, there's no point lamenting you'd have won if you were playing Rugby League. If you win 30 out of 50 States in the US, you win.
@Innocentabroad original argument was that rural votes were more powerful than urban ones and that states having 3 ECVs by default biased the system to the GOP.
I have PROVED that is simply not the case, and if every voter in every state had equal worth, then Trump would still have won 304 ECVs.
If every voter in the US had equal worth Hillary would have won by 2 million votes plus.
Comments
They're busy saying that they covered all these stories perfectly - when many think they didn't. Regardless of who think they're right - it's immaterial.
It's got people talking about the dozens of attacks, unearthing ones long forgotten and brought the issue front and centre as a collection of horrors.
Anyone who still thinks this is all accidental, isn't paying attention to his strategy. A nitwit looking tweet isn't a random thought.
I'll do it based on state population if anyone has those figures to hand too (I can't easily find them).
Impact on the British economy
Positive: 38%
Negative: 43%
No difference: 19%
Impact on personal finances
Positive: 12%
Negative: 34%
No difference: 54%
Impact on life in Britain today in general
Positive: 41%
Negative: 36%
No difference: 23%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/feb/07/only-a-third-of-voters-think-labour-will-win-an-election-by-2025-poll-suggests-politics-live
He should be representing the electorate of his constituency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Adoption
Meep meep eek....
Why don't you start us off with a first stab at it.
Just because the public is "moving" doesn't make the public right. The elephant trap of assuming a majority is right is opening up in front of you. It's possible for majorities to be wrong.
Right now the popular vote is meaningless because voters from the losing side frequently don't bother in 'can't win' states such as CA.
The Guardian/ICM poll included a question about Britain’s relationship with Donald Trump’s administration. The poll was carried out before John Bercow let rip at Trump in the Commons yesterday, but its findings suggest most people want Britain to adopt a “balanced” approach to Trump, neither particularly supportive or particularly critical.
People were asked which of these three statements they most agreed with.
Britain should be a trusted partner, offering guidance when necessary and being as or more supportive of President Trump than any other nation, in the hope of getting a favourable trade deal and a continued special relationship: 15%
Britain should be balanced and diplomatic, offering support and criticism when it feels necessary to do so: 57%
Britain should stand back, and adopt a tough approach, condemning the introduction of measures that Britain believes would be harmful: 19%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/feb/07/only-a-third-of-voters-think-labour-will-win-an-election-by-2025-poll-suggests-politics-live?page=with:block-58998684e4b09739e65f4fb9#block-58998684e4b09739e65f4fb9
I haven't quite fully understood his attacks on NYT yet - there's something going on here re Carlos Slim/Mexican government strong-arming. CNN bashing is just obvious - and well deserved.
Whatever your opinion of him, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is not one that has been associated with triangulation or picking policy positions based on hard-nosed evaluations of what will appeal to target voters. For once, however, it appears to be the Labour leader who has picked the position that is most likely to keep the party together and alienate the fewest voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/07/research-results-corbyn-labour-voters-soft-brexit
"Not tonight Jeremy"
2015 General Election, Stoke Central.
Right wing votes: 45.2% (UKIP + Con)
Left wing votes: 42.9% (Lab + Green)
LD 4.2%
Others 7.7%
That and the fact that the Conservatives are mouning a non-campaign to leave the field clear for UKIP. Not such a high bar in those circumstances.
I have PROVED that is simply not the case, and if every voter in every state had equal worth, then Trump would still have won 304 ECVs.
http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/He-tells-it-like-it-is-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i14599575_.htm
In any event they can get it wrong. I have personal experience of this. I had my first grand mal fit on a Saturday evening, and ended up in casualty. I was treated as a drunk (ie given a bowl to throw up in and left to sober up) despite being stone cold sober and in a pretty bad way. (This sort of thing happens to epileptics a lot). It took about 12 hours for a consultant to look at me and work out what was actually going on. If there were a policy of prioritising "deserving" patients, God knows how I'd have ended up.
What does UKIP offer that May isn't delivering for that "right wing vote"??
He tells a whopping lie. If he gets called out, he changes the subjects, tries to discredit the source, or tells an even bigger lie instead.
Plato seems to be in thrall to him because it works. It's (so far) devastatingly effective.
It's also corrosive to good governance, public trust, domestic and International security and the rule of law.
But it works.
https://twitter.com/kevinliptakcnn/status/828770708524244993
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/828771191670214657
You could make a deal with that country whereby they would imprison their citizens for you instead, but they'd presumably expect you to make it worth their while and probably also make it reciprocal, so it's not obvious that you'd save any money.
Jeremy Corbyn will impose a three-line whip on his MPs to back triggering the process of leaving the EU at the third reading of the EU Bill
I can feel Diane's migrane coming on as we speak.
'If only we were playing wiff waff..'
Scottish Labour: imposes whip to vote against Article 50
It is possible to be drunk and not be in the slightest bit responsible for the medical problem that you face.
And do you really want to discourage injured people from going to hospital?
So Trump's a lefty!
Do I pay ?
"Will President Donald Trump start killing journalists because he pointed out Sunday the US is not "so innocent" and may have done some nasty things in the past?
Maybe, at least according to MSNBC's Katy Tur.
From Newsbusters:
MSNBC took its fear mongering smears of the Donald Trump administration to a dark new low Monday afternoon when reporter Katy Tur suggested the president’s war with the media would start racking up actual casualties. During an interview with Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican, Tur suggested Trump would take a page from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s playbook and start targeting journalists for death.
“As we know, there's, since 2000, been a couple dozen suspicious deaths of journalists in Russia who came out against the government there,” Tur reminded the Senator before unscrupulously suggesting Trumps distaste for the media would escalate, “Donald Trump has made no secret about going after journalists and his distaste for any news that doesn't agree with him here. Do you find that this is a dangerous path he is heading down?”
https://youtu.be/mCCGOWgDWMY
So if you drink yourself into a stupor on a Friday night, fall over, crack your head open and end up in A&E, All Bar One foots the bill instead of the taxpayer.
It rather sidesteps notions of self responsibility but might be easier to enforce and manage than trying to get individuals to pay for their own treatment.
The obvious problem is that if faced with the possibility of paying a bill, people will forego proper treatment and possibly worse medical problems are missed with more serious consequences.
OTOH, putting the responsibility on to business could be instrumental in leading a cultural rebalancing toward a more sensible approach to drink and drinking. At racecourses I have often seen people who are inebriated yet continue to be served alcohol. I understand the capitalist argument but there's a counter argument around respecting the freedom of others and a duty of care to all.
Perhaps it's more about paying the bill than making the money in the first place.
No, not the entire cost. I'd say anyone in A&E over the DD limit or under the influence of illegal drugs pays a tenner
I wouldn't be surprised to see hazardous leisure pursuits added to the list.
https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/828932643093876736
A rare and awkward counterexample but I'd like to know your view on it :>
https://t.co/Zq5scSRkm4
I think what we are about to see here are a load of unlikely scenarios being painted that means the problem we are trying to solve will never be solved!
Oh, wait a minute...
Bercow said in his speech that 'ordinarily the three keyholders would agree'.
He said so himself, and yet he's not had so much as a digestive biscuit with the Lords Speaker over the issue. I wonder if he didn't expect to get called out on such a breach of convention and protocol; which is simply amazing when his entire position is due to constitutional nuance and unwritten convention.
It's also worth remembering, though, that Trump currently has first-user advantage. It's a fact that this does not last. Others catch-up and then improve on the initial offering. I suspect we will see that happening over the coming years.
Charging patients for bungee-jumping may make voters feel better but it does the square root of f all towards dealing with the underlying problem.
Not always easy to attribute cause and effect.
Only a lawyer could object to such a common sense approach. Next you'll be saying illegal immigrants shouldn't be flung into the sea by trebuchet.
Mrs C, drinkers over smokers. Smokers are net contributors. Drinkers are a net cost.
"While racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic attacks have seen a huge fall since 2008, those on Christian places of worship more than doubled in this period of time, France’s interior ministry reported last week.
Having documented a record number of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks in 2015, the French government spent €100 million on a huge anti-populist campaign to reduce Islamophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism.
Subsequently, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim attacks fell sharply in 2016 with the former seeing a decline of 58.5 per cent and the latter a drop of 57.6 per cent. These attacks are defined as being fires, violence, degradation, and threats — comments, inscriptions, insulting letters.
In this year, attacks on Christian places of worship have increased by 17.4 per cent in 2016 compared to 2015. Racist attacks, meanwhile, dropped by 23.7 per cent (608 versus 797).
The sharp drop in incidents of an Islamophobic or anti-Semitic nature was welcomed by the French government, who credited the figures as the “fruit of the government’s action plan...
Le Figaro reported that acts which target Christians now account for 90 per cent assaults on places of worship.
The newspaper points out that, while it is to be expected that attacks on churches are the most plentiful because they exist in the largest number, cases in which Christian places of worship were defiled saw a huge rise between 2008 and 2016.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/07/majority-attacks-france-anti-christian/
When they have been convicted, after an unsuccessful appeal to the highest appellate court available?
There's been a few that have had their appeals rejected at the highest appellate court, who have been subsequently been found to be innocent.
For example would you have fired Chedwyn Evans into the heart of the sun?
Bad drivers? Irresponsible cyclists? Skiers? People who engage in a Friday night punch up?
Just imagine two queues in A&E - one queue with a payment terminal for everyone who is foreign, fat, drunk or smelling of smoke and the other queue for everyone else.
What could go wrong?
Mr. Patrick, no, to stop drinking and start smoking. The taxes smokers pay cover their treatment and more. Drinkers are the reverse. If everyone stopped smoking there'd be billions of pounds gone from the budget. If everyone stopped drinking, the budget would grow (effectively) enormously.
Paul Joseph Watson
Le Pen To CNN Hack: "There Was A Coup D'etat In Ukraine, There Was No 'Invasion' of Crimea" https://t.co/pwvHYA2JEB
One really bad thing IMO David Cameron did is create the cancer drugs fund.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26785-the-uks-cancer-drugs-fund-does-more-harm-than-good/#.VLU5qCusWVM
Very inefficient use of money but politically impossible to get rid of it.