I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
A handful of U.S. states allow child marriage, leaving doors open for child abuse and human trafficking. In some states, children can only marry people who’ve gotten them pregnant, and child rapists have avoided legal charges by convincing their victims’ parents to consent to their marriage.
That seems quite unbelievable. Does anyone have any further information one way or t'other?
I thought Ms Hopkins corrected but refused to apologise?
Either way she's a difficult person to have much sympathy for...
Understatement of the year there.
People make mistakes. That is fair enough. But anyone worth their salt apologises when they are shown to be wrong and Hopkins was given every opportunity to do this well in advance of court proceedings but chose not to.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
When I hear of a "victory" in a libel case, my first thought is to examine the motives, behaviour etc of the "winner". Then read about their failings in the next edition of Private Eye.
Nearly always, UK libel cases are the repellent chasing the innocent. Sometimes they are the repellent chasing the repellent. The innocent chasing the repellent is somewhat rare.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The poll of Labour members shows clear and continuous movement away from Corbyn. But unless Len loses - which he won't - we are stuck with him for another year.
Once this is all over the Labour party owes a deep and sincere apology to the British people.
The poll of Labour members also showed Corbyn still Labour members preferred leader and McDonnell his preferred successor
It showed clear, large-scale and continuous movement away from Corbyn. The voting process also makes it next to impossible for McDonnell to succeed him. Yesterday's poll in the Times actually showed Keir Starmer as the preferred successor, with McDonnell tied with Chukka Umanna.
Was that of Labour members or voters? Corbyn of course has now said he is staying leader until the next general election regardless so you are stuck with him until then, the likes of Umunna will have to wait until a Corbyn defeat
Members.
We're stuck with him until the autumn of next year.
Nope you are stuck with him until the next general election, not one members' poll has showed Corbyn losing the members' vote and Corbyn has made clear he will lead Labour into the next election
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
For the record, the Economist's House Price Index measures prices against rents and incomes.
Is it Chinese money that has pushed up prices in Sydney? It is in some parts of the market in Cambridge.
A factor that is not described in that report is the ability to escape the high priced zones. Every capital city I have been to around the world has a zone of super high prices.
The problem in London, is that to escape that zone, while still working there, is virtually impossible.
In New Zealand, for example, you can't afford (unless rich) certain areas of Christchurch. But commuting by car is possible, and can been done in 30 minutes or so.
The situation is not quite as good in Sydney, for example, but it is nowhere near the London state. Yet.
Perhaps because Corbyn cares enough to stick up for an essential democratic principle which is that if you win an election (which the SNP has) on a manifesto saying that there should be a referendum if Scotland is dragged out of Europe against the will of the people (which it is going to be) then that should be respected if the Scottish Parliament votes for it (which it is likely to do). Not to do so is a route to perdition.
Since my last post I see that Rebecca Long-Bailley on Marr has made the point and flung Dugdale's comments from last year back at her. It is not Corbyn who is flip-flopping on this issue but Dugdale and that complete nonentity Ian Murray.
You ask why anyone should vote Scots Labour. No-one will unless they stick to some degree of principle. There are quite a lot of people who look at Dugdale's current kamakazi course and see the hand of her press officer Alan Roden who seems to control her every action. Roden is ex Daily Mail and cheerleader for ---- Ruth Davidson!
When was the last time somebody was burned at the stake in Britain as a heretic?
Edward Wightman 1612.
We have clearly lost our moral fibre as a nation since the early 17th century.
Favourite personal story - one of my ancestors was burned at the stake in the 1420s for having some mad idea about people being able to read the bible in English. This was outside St. Giles Church near the present day Tottenham Court Road station. As he was being burned, he cursed the area around there. Ever since then, it has been seedy and poorer than the surrounding areas.
Whenever I walk around there, I remember that my family has been buggering up that area for six centuries, which I suppose is a kind of claim to fame, or infamy.
One of my ancestors was strangled then burnt at the stake for translating the bible. But that was in Holland.
William Tyndale?
I've always been struck by the sheer courage with which so many people met dreadful deaths like burning at the stake. If it were me, i'd be saying anything the inquisitors wanted, to avoid such a fate.
Yep. That's the feller. Not actually a direct ancestor. Don't think he had time to get around to that sort of thing but I am descended from one of his brothers.
Not being of the religious sort I have never really understood the whole dying for your religion thing.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
The scandal is not the size of awards, it is the weight of legal fees. I cannot see a government of lawyers changing that!
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
The scandal is not the size of awards, it is the weight of legal fees. I cannot see a government of lawyers changing that!
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
I thought Spiked was more anarchist/libertarian left than right wing (hateful or not)?
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
The scandal is not the size of awards, it is the weight of legal fees. I cannot see a government of lawyers changing that!
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
When was the last time somebody was burned at the stake in Britain as a heretic?
Edward Wightman 1612.
We have clearly lost our moral fibre as a nation since the early 17th century.
Favourite personal story - one of my ancestors was burned at the stake in the 1420s for having some mad idea about people being able to read the bible in English. This was outside St. Giles Church near the present day Tottenham Court Road station. As he was being burned, he cursed the area around there. Ever since then, it has been seedy and poorer than the surrounding areas.
Whenever I walk around there, I remember that my family has been buggering up that area for six centuries, which I suppose is a kind of claim to fame, or infamy.
One of my ancestors was strangled then burnt at the stake for translating the bible. But that was in Holland.
William Tyndale?
I've always been struck by the sheer courage with which so many people met dreadful deaths like burning at the stake. If it were me, i'd be saying anything the inquisitors wanted, to avoid such a fate.
Yep. That's the feller. Not actually a direct ancestor. Don't think he had time to get around to that sort of thing but I am descended from one of his brothers.
Not being of the religious sort I have never really understood the whole dying for your religion thing.
I'm also struck by the courage with which many people faced hideous deaths for secular crimes, like treason.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
When I hear of a "victory" in a libel case, my first thought is to examine the motives, behaviour etc of the "winner". Then read about their failings in the next edition of Private Eye.
Nearly always, UK libel cases are the repellent chasing the innocent. Sometimes they are the repellent chasing the repellent. The innocent chasing the repellent is somewhat rare.
"The innocent chasing the repellent" sums up the McAlpine situation well. He was innocent, and those who spread the rumours were repellent.
Perhaps because Corbyn cares enough to stick up for an essential democratic principle which is that if you win an election (which the SNP has) on a manifesto saying that there should be a referendum if Scotland is dragged out of Europe against the will of the people (which it is going to be) then that should be respected if the Scottish Parliament votes for it (which it is likely to do). Not to do so is a route to perdition.
Since my last post I see that Rebecca Long-Bailley on Marr has made the point and flung Dugdale's comments from last year back at her. It is not Corbyn who is flip-flopping on this issue but Dugdale and that complete nonentity Ian Murray.
You ask why anyone should vote Scots Labour. No-one will unless they stick to some degree of principle. There are quite a lot of people who look at Dugdale's current kamakazi course and see the hand of her press officer Alan Roden who seems to control her every action. Roden is ex Daily Mail and cheerleader for ---- Ruth Davidson!
Corbyn is right. While it is perfectly valid for SLab to campaign against Indyref 2, Westminster Labour should rightly regard this as a devolved issue.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
The scandal is not the size of awards, it is the weight of legal fees. I cannot see a government of lawyers changing that!
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
Quite how such a trivial row ends up with over a quarter of a million in legal costs is astonishing to a lay man. Although it does give a bit of an understanding as to how the likes of Jimmy Savile managed to keep a lid on his behaviour during his lifetime.
The poll of Labour members shows clear and continuous movement away from Corbyn. But unless Len loses - which he won't - we are stuck with him for another year.
Once this is all over the Labour party owes a deep and sincere apology to the British people.
The poll of Labour members also showed Corbyn still Labour members preferred leader and McDonnell his preferred successor
It showed clear, large-scale and continuous movement away from Corbyn. The voting process also makes it next to impossible for McDonnell to succeed him. Yesterday's poll in the Times actually showed Keir Starmer as the preferred successor, with McDonnell tied with Chukka Umanna.
Was that of Labour members or voters? Corbyn of course has now said he is staying leader until the next general election regardless so you are stuck with him until then, the likes of Umunna will have to wait until a Corbyn defeat
He is likely to be challenged again next year and the chances of that being successful are probably high if present trends continue.
The poll of Labour members shows clear and continuous movement away from Corbyn. But unless Len loses - which he won't - we are stuck with him for another year.
Once this is all over the Labour party owes a deep and sincere apology to the British people.
The poll of Labour members also showed Corbyn still Labour members preferred leader and McDonnell his preferred successor
It showed clear, large-scale and continuous movement away from Corbyn. The voting process also makes it next to impossible for McDonnell to succeed him. Yesterday's poll in the Times actually showed Keir Starmer as the preferred successor, with McDonnell tied with Chukka Umanna.
Was that of Labour members or voters? Corbyn of course has now said he is staying leader until the next general election regardless so you are stuck with him until then, the likes of Umunna will have to wait until a Corbyn defeat
Members.
We're stuck with him until the autumn of next year.
Nope you are stuck with him until the next general election, not one members' poll has showed Corbyn losing the members' vote and Corbyn has made clear he will lead Labour into the next election
The latest Yougov survey of the members showed 50% want Corbyn to step down before the election compared with 44% wanting him to remain leader.
The poll of Labour members shows clear and continuous movement away from Corbyn. But unless Len loses - which he won't - we are stuck with him for another year.
Once this is all over the Labour party owes a deep and sincere apology to the British people.
The poll of Labour members also showed Corbyn still Labour members preferred leader and McDonnell his preferred successor
It showed clear, large-scale and continuous movement away from Corbyn. The voting process also makes it next to impossible for McDonnell to succeed him. Yesterday's poll in the Times actually showed Keir Starmer as the preferred successor, with McDonnell tied with Chukka Umanna.
Was that of Labour members or voters? Corbyn of course has now said he is staying leader until the next general election regardless so you are stuck with him until then, the likes of Umunna will have to wait until a Corbyn defeat
Members.
We're stuck with him until the autumn of next year.
Nope you are stuck with him until the next general election, not one members' poll has showed Corbyn losing the members' vote and Corbyn has made clear he will lead Labour into the next election
The trend is my friend, not yours. We'll find out soon enough.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
It's also not just about numbers of immigrants - it's about wishing to attract those with useful skills, while at the same time refusing and deporting those who would be a drain on the host society.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
...because immigration law and policy in Australia was specifically designed to deal with the issues that cause popular unrest with regard to immigration.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
I don’t that native Australians have been ‘keen’ on immigration since about 1790
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
It's all about population density in my view. Places with huge empty spaces like Canada and Australia are never going to witness a populist backlash against immigration, whereas densely populated places like Netherlands and England might do.
The media are having a field day over Netherlands versus Turkey, a spat that without the deliberate use that is being made of it would be largely without consequences. In Cologne and in Stockholm, "unidentified men" appeared as if from nowhere to cause violence at key flashpoints. Not large numbers. Only about 10 or 20, but serious about it and organised. How long will it be until the same happens in Rotterdam or elsewhere in the Netherlands?
Refused entry by the Netherlands, the Turkish foreign minister has been allowed into France. Developments are ideal for Le Pen.
France is home to 6 million Arabs and about 500,000 Turks. For generations it has been the Arabs who have received most of the attention from the xenophobic right, but perceived small movements in a big picture catch the attention. The whole business of Turkish emigrants voting this way or that in the Turkish referendum plays to the theme of their foreignness and lack of integration. They're waving the Turkish flag with the Muslim crescent moon on, and supported by President Erdogan they are criticising not just the Dutch government but "the Netherlands". Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu says "I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want".
Is any aspect of this not beneficial for Wilders and Le Pen?
“tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Woman with a penis, mind. ie Transgender pre-surgery.
In the UK, a normally genitalled woman cannot commit rape - by law.
And rape with a stick or dildo is defined as Assault by Penetration iirc.
Being political, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is yet another New Labour Dog's Breakfast of a Law. As a circumspect Judge put it:
Lord Justice Rose said: "If a history of criminal legislation ever comes to be written it is unlikely that 2003 will be identified as a year of exemplary skill in the annals of Parliamentary drafting." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia K.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
It's all about population density in my view. Places with huge empty spaces like Canada and Australia are never going to witness a populist backlash against immigration, whereas densely populated places like Netherlands and England might do.
Except the opposite is true. The most anti-immigration places in England or Australia are the places that have fewest.
Copeland is depopulating and 99% white, yet immigration was an issue for example. Pauline Hanson gets support in rural Queensland, not urban Sydney for example.
The feeling of cultural change is the motivator, more than physical resources, as can be seen in Hanson's manifesto:
It's all about population density in my view. Places with huge empty spaces like Canada and Australia are never going to witness a populist backlash against immigration, whereas densely populated places like Netherlands and England might do.
Russia is 223rd least densely populated out of 241 countries, USA 179th. Both seem pretty anti immigration currently.
Australia had a real backlash with Pauline Hanson in late 90s - UKIP pretty much lifted their language and populism from her style - white working class anti estbalishment rhetoric, unlike UKIP they had no real issue such as the EU to coalesce around - they are still around but plateau'd
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Oh dear - that is the sort of thing the 'left' would never do. [ps it's mendacious]
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
Per Capita is very significant for social and cultural change, which is what many anti-immigration campaigners object to across the world.
Median house prices in Sydney are now over a million AUS$.
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
...because immigration law and policy in Australia was specifically designed to deal with the issues that cause popular unrest with regard to immigration.
Hose prices have risen more in Australia than here, and many migrants are in lowskilled jobs or on welfare. Often these have come by marriage or family visas, or come in on skilled visas, then work in unskilled jobs. The issues are much the same.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Those concerned over Ms Hopkins finances can donate here (though please read the small print!)
I believe that the British system of libel law is wrong. It has been used often enough to silence the truth (Aitken, Archer, Maxwell), to show that it is a system of injustice.
The scandal is not the size of awards, it is the weight of legal fees. I cannot see a government of lawyers changing that!
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
Quite how such a trivial row ends up with over a quarter of a million in legal costs is astonishing to a lay man. Although it does give a bit of an understanding as to how the likes of Jimmy Savile managed to keep a lid on his behaviour during his lifetime.
The most surprising bit of this for me was how it erupted over a period of barely an hour from "apologise" to "5k, please". I am not sure that the Judge gave sufficient weight to the brevity, or indeed that a Twitter reputation is worth anything like that much.
And it is rather stylish that PennyRed managed to ride straight through the middle with her ancestor's fictional George Cross and got off Scot-free.
But Hopkins chose to stand and fight, and put far too much reliance on the legal system's One Armed Bandit. Her choice. Her loss.
I'm sure these people's views on free speech are entirely consistent with the ones they expressed at the time of Sally Bercow's conviction for libel.
It is interesting how the 'right' have formed themselves into a coven which involves total solidarity with not only right wing causes but anyone who is seen to be right wing however distateful or mendatious
Oh dear - that is the sort of thing the 'left' would never do. [ps it's mendacious]
How's the left dealing with Muslim attitude to women/gay rights?
"Who gives a fuck as long as they vote Labour" seems to be the line from the outside looking in
If we replaced British Muslims with Trump voting type immigrants from the US, and they behaved exactly the same, the left would want them locked up
Colleague of mine (Romanian national, educated in UK & US) was appointed to a Professorship at a University in Southern Australia.
He obtained the necessary work permits.
Australia however refused to admit his wife (who had suffered cancer at an early age & survived). She would be a drain on state resources, and private insurance was prohibitively expensive.
He had to turn down the job.
Sure, Australia is willing to welcome immigrants. The right kind, only, though. Its immigration policy is way harsher than anything we've seen in the UK (yet).
In fairness when you have a leader who cannot even remember (or care) what the party line is from one day to the next it can't be easy producing concrete alternatives.
In fairness when you have a leader who cannot even remember (or care) what the party line is from one day to the next it can't be easy producing concrete alternatives.
She has slipped a fair way in the betting.. have we seen peak Long-Bailey?
And it is rather stylish that PennyRed managed to ride straight through the middle with her ancestor's fictional George Cross and got off Scot-free.
I like the way PennyRed's twitter profile tells you how to give her money. Apparently she needs it:
I am not even particularly sure that the original Tweet *was* particularly defamatory ... it was just a "have you stopped beating your wife?" Twitter thing. But again Hopkins chose not to offer oral evidence, so the claim was not challenged verbally.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
That is what is so absurd about this, Labour would be entirely happy with the policy if it came from anyone else. The lowest paid are taken out of NI, the burden falls on the top earners, and it goes to fund (hypothetically) social care. That's exactly the sort of thing a half-sensible Labour Party would want.
Dr. Foxinsox, Australia has a very strong line on migration, doesn't it? If so, that makes it thousands of miles away (ahem) from most European nations.
Per capita, Australia gets more than twice the number of immigrants that we do, with Asia now being an increasing proportion.
Per capita is pretty meaningless. Australia is 31 times larger than the UK and its habitable area is between 3 and 4 times the size of the UK.
:
Of course Howard and Abbott both put through tough new immigration policies when we had Blair and Cameron
For the most recent year with figures there was net inward migration of 168 000 to Australia, with a base population of about 24 million. The equivalent for the UK would be over 400 000 net migrants.
The point you so willingly ignore is that the Australians obviously want that level of migration. This doesn't mean they are any less stringent in their controls than us - indeed they are far more stringent. But they let in the numbers they want and need. That does not mean the UK would let in any more people if they had the Aussie system.
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
Australia is being changed by mass immigration from Asia and multiculturalism, but the populists there cannot capitalise on it is my point.
...because immigration law and policy in Australia was specifically designed to deal with the issues that cause popular unrest with regard to immigration.
Hose prices have risen more in Australia than here, and many migrants are in lowskilled jobs or on welfare. Often these have come by marriage or family visas, or come in on skilled visas, then work in unskilled jobs. The issues are much the same.
You cannot eliminate as social problem - to the first approximation. You can reduce such problems, though.
Australia has combined a high immigration policy with policies (and structural advantages) that reduce the side effects. So, high house prices are tempered by the fact that you can actually commute in less than 3 hours from places that have affordable houses. Low end/semi-skilled jobs in Australia aren't immigrant only etc etc.
This works better than denying there are side effects.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
That is what is so absurd about this, Labour would be entirely happy with the policy if it came from anyone else. The lowest paid are taken out of NI, the burden falls on the top earners, and it goes to fund (hypothetically) social care. That's exactly the sort of thing a half-sensible Labour Party would want.
Exactly. A sensible Labour Party would offer overwhelming support for the measure and whip to vote for it, so encouraging a Tory split on the issue. But we don't have a sensible Labour Party.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
That is what is so absurd about this, Labour would be entirely happy with the policy if it came from anyone else. The lowest paid are taken out of NI, the burden falls on the top earners, and it goes to fund (hypothetically) social care. That's exactly the sort of thing a half-sensible Labour Party would want.
As, I think, Duncan Weldon said - why are Labour objecting to a progressive tax policy that is redistributionist?
Scottish Greens have just secured my second preference vote in the local elections on BBC Poltitics Scotland. Patrick Harvie talks profound sense on indy ref 2 in contrast to the grinning buffoon Willie Rennie who argues that 1) we should have a second European referendum to overturn the first without any General Election sanction and little support in the Hosue of Coomons2) Lib MPs should try and block a second referendum despite a clear Scottish election mandate for one under current circumstances and with a majority vote for one in the Scottish Parliament.
And the Liberals think that Corbyn has problems!!!!
A handful of U.S. states allow child marriage, leaving doors open for child abuse and human trafficking. In some states, children can only marry people who’ve gotten them pregnant, and child rapists have avoided legal charges by convincing their victims’ parents to consent to their marriage.
That seems quite unbelievable. Does anyone have any further information one way or t'other?
I can help. The article is an anti-Republican hatchet job of course, focusing on Republicans in New Hampshire as one piece of mud amongst several thrown.
Funny definitions. Campaigners seem to define "child bride" as under-18, which also pulls in most of Europe including the UK as permitting. The framing is also sexist. Under 18 boys are made to marry, too, but they don't seem to be worthy of attention.
Pew researched this, and came up with a map of "child brides" vs "population". Approx 0.5% of 15-17 year olds in the USA are married, and it seems to be permitted under 18 nearly everywhere.
The rates in California and New York are higher than NH, and the higher tendency is in the South. The laws are usually "no marriages under 18 except for defined exceptions (eg with Judicial Permission)".
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
Is there any evidence that the "furore" actually existed outside of a load of freelance newspaper people and the Tory backbenchers?
Papers like The Sun know that they have a substantial white van driving readership. That is their demographic, and why they covered the budget in the way that they did.
In fairness when you have a leader who cannot even remember (or care) what the party line is from one day to the next it can't be easy producing concrete alternatives.
But Corinne Bailey Rae or whatever her name is doesn't suggest confidence that, if there was a party line, she could sell it.
She showed the basic Labour problem - their inability to grasp how to fund the Big Numbers they love talking.
In what tiny part of the multiverse does she represent Labour's best hope of preventing electoral meltdown? It is funny, tragic and disturbing in equal measure.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
I'd like to think that the initial polled support for the measure holds, and that the outrage was manufactured by a bunch of self employed journalists who find themselves affected by the measure. It's a good illustration of the problems that will come when the really difficult decisions need to be taken though - engineering an early election must still be in the back of Mrs May's mind if the Parliamentary difficulties mount up over the smallest changes to taxation and spending.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
I am predicting that the French presidential TV debate on 20 Mar will coincide with a poll swing of at least 3% from the biggest loser to the biggest gainer, using
before: mean of Fiducial 16-18 and Opinionway 17-19; after: mean of Fiducial 21-24 and Opinionway 21-23
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
Insurance, surely - available to individuals only in that sector, right?
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
There is no VAT on private medicine, apart from cosmetic work, but quite a few of my private colleagues work via companies. Often these have Fillon style employment...
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
Insurance, surely - available to individuals only in that sector, right?
No, malpractice indemnity Insurance is available for either. Indeed it is possible to be sued twice, once as an individual and once as a company, in cases of negligence.
The media are having a field day over Netherlands versus Turkey, a spat that without the deliberate use that is being made of it would be largely without consequences. In Cologne and in Stockholm, "unidentified men" appeared as if from nowhere to cause violence at key flashpoints. Not large numbers. Only about 10 or 20, but serious about it and organised. How long will it be until the same happens in Rotterdam or elsewhere in the Netherlands?
Refused entry by the Netherlands, the Turkish foreign minister has been allowed into France. Developments are ideal for Le Pen.
France is home to 6 million Arabs and about 500,000 Turks. For generations it has been the Arabs who have received most of the attention from the xenophobic right, but perceived small movements in a big picture catch the attention. The whole business of Turkish emigrants voting this way or that in the Turkish referendum plays to the theme of their foreignness and lack of integration. They're waving the Turkish flag with the Muslim crescent moon on, and supported by President Erdogan they are criticising not just the Dutch government but "the Netherlands". Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu says "I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want".
Is any aspect of this not beneficial for Wilders and Le Pen?
I think we - on pb - have a tendency to overestimate the effect of 'events' on near term voting patterns. In November 2015, France suffered what was probably its worst ever terror attack at the Bataclan Theatre and outside the Stade de France with 130 people killed and close to 400 injured. An attack by Islamic terrorists, where the attackers may have ben able to take advantage of Schengen to get away. What could have been better for Marine Le Pen and the Front National?
Here are the Ifop Polls for Le Pen's share (highest against any LR candidate):
Sept - 29% Oct - 29% Dec - 29%
There was no Bataclan spike for Le Pen.
What about the July 2016 Nice attacks which killed 87 and injured 434?
April - 29% Jun - 30.5% Sept - 30%
Here, the gap of six weeks until the early September poll might hide a bump. But there was certainly no long lasting impact on voting patterns.
I am predicting that the French presidential TV debate on 20 Mar will coincide with a poll swing of at least 3% from the biggest loser to the biggest gainer, using
before: mean of Fiducial 16-18 and Opinionway 17-19; after: mean of Fiducial 21-24 and Opinionway 21-23
You are estimating that one candidate will lose 1.5%, and another will gain 1.5%. Random variation should ensure that's true of almost all sets of polls.
Mr. 1000, an overreaction to short term events might be partly due to what happened in Spain about a decade ago (although that was more to do with the Government's response than the massive terrorist attack).
“tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Woman with a penis, mind. ie Transgender pre-surgery.
In the UK, a normally genitalled woman cannot commit rape - by law.
And rape with a stick or dildo is defined as Assault by Penetration iirc.
Being political, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is yet another New Labour Dog's Breakfast of a Law. As a circumspect Judge put it:
Lord Justice Rose said: "If a history of criminal legislation ever comes to be written it is unlikely that 2003 will be identified as a year of exemplary skill in the annals of Parliamentary drafting." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
I'd add that they'd be pre-op and highly unlikely to be on HT either. Gosrelin takes away both the desire and the ability to sustain any kind of erection.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
There is no VAT on private medicine, apart from cosmetic work, but quite a few of my private colleagues work via companies. Often these have Fillon style employment...
Interesting, the lack of VAT would make things easier. Lots of "Fillon - style" employment in my industry too, many wives do secretarial and bookkeeping work for a salary just under the 40% income tax bracket. Lots of company meetings take place in nice restaurants too, and on the golf course.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
That is what is so absurd about this, Labour would be entirely happy with the policy if it came from anyone else. The lowest paid are taken out of NI, the burden falls on the top earners, and it goes to fund (hypothetically) social care. That's exactly the sort of thing a half-sensible Labour Party would want.
You missed the bit about stealing 20% of the wealth of 1 in 10 people, 50p tax rate, etc etc etc....
All these journos moaning about 60p a week more in tax should consider the alternative! I have and 1% extra seems small beer compared to McMao and Co destroying the country.
The point that all this really misses is that "self-employed" doesn't refer to a specific category of worker now, it is ropes in a whole range of different types of employment. This NI move is just a sticking plaster.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Is there any reason - other than history - why medical professionals work as self employed, whereas for example in IT everyone incorporates? Something to do with VAT, or PI insurance?
There is no VAT on private medicine, apart from cosmetic work, but quite a few of my private colleagues work via companies. Often these have Fillon style employment...
Such arrangements are often recommended to self-employed locum pharmacists.
“tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Woman with a penis, mind. ie Transgender pre-surgery.
In the UK, a normally genitalled woman cannot commit rape - by law.
And rape with a stick or dildo is defined as Assault by Penetration iirc.
Being political, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is yet another New Labour Dog's Breakfast of a Law. As a circumspect Judge put it:
Lord Justice Rose said: "If a history of criminal legislation ever comes to be written it is unlikely that 2003 will be identified as a year of exemplary skill in the annals of Parliamentary drafting." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
I'd add that they'd be pre-op and highly unlikely to be on HT either. Gosrelin takes away both the desire and the ability to sustain any kind of erection.
Yeah, those evil, evil Tories - how dare they raise taxes to fund social care!
The furore over NIC's does show how popular tax rises really are, at least on taxes that ordinary people pay.
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
The tax rises disproportionately affected journalists. ‘Nuff said.
Knocked my private practice income too, and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. Fees going up next year as a result, to pass the cost on.
Sorry, we are talking about the increases in National Insurance for the self employed here aren't we? The maximum increase will be, according to figures published on here and elsewhere, a bit more than ten quid a week and you will have to be, earning after legitimate expenses, more than three times the median wage to get clobbered by that much.
Now, you want to tell me that as a senior doctor you would even notice the price of a small round of drinks per week out of your income? Give over. Have to put up fees indeed! And while we are on the subject how much do you pay your secretary and credit controller? Will they even be affected?
I expect that there are those primarily on the right hand edge of the Conservative Party who will regard any increase in taxation as bad. However, for a wealthy man who, from his posts on here, primarily supports left of centre parties and policies to try and say his income will be knocked by a tenner week tax increase looks, shall we say, a bit odd.
The media are having a field day over Netherlands versus Turkey, a spat that without the deliberate use that is being made of it would be largely without consequences. In Cologne and in Stockholm, "unidentified men" appeared as if from nowhere to cause violence at key flashpoints. Not large numbers. Only about 10 or 20, but serious about it and organised. How long will it be until the same happens in Rotterdam or elsewhere in the Netherlands?
Refused entry by the Netherlands, the Turkish foreign minister has been allowed into France. Developments are ideal for Le Pen.
France is home to 6 million Arabs and about 500,000 Turks. For generations it has been the Arabs who have received most of the attention from the xenophobic right, but perceived small movements in a big picture catch the attention. The whole business of Turkish emigrants voting this way or that in the Turkish referendum plays to the theme of their foreignness and lack of integration. They're waving the Turkish flag with the Muslim crescent moon on, and supported by President Erdogan they are criticising not just the Dutch government but "the Netherlands". Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu says "I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want".
Is any aspect of this not beneficial for Wilders and Le Pen?
I think we - on pb - have a tendency to overestimate the effect of 'events' on near term voting patterns. In November 2015, France suffered what was probably its worst ever terror attack at the Bataclan Theatre and outside the Stade de France with 130 people killed and close to 400 injured. An attack by Islamic terrorists, where the attackers may have ben able to take advantage of Schengen to get away. What could have been better for Marine Le Pen and the Front National?
Here are the Ifop Polls for Le Pen's share (highest against any LR candidate):
Sept - 29% Oct - 29% Dec - 29%
There was no Bataclan spike for Le Pen.
What about the July 2016 Nice attacks which killed 87 and injured 434?
April - 29% Jun - 30.5% Sept - 30%
Here, the gap of six weeks until the early September poll might hide a bump. But there was certainly no long lasting impact on voting patterns.
I agree on the impact of such events, though they may help GOTV on some quarters.
I detect the wave of populism receeding, not just in Australia, but in the EU too. In part this is fatigue due to overexposure to Trump and the alt.right, in part to the dampening of the migrant crisis, and in part general improvement in economic indicies.
Is the L shaped recovery from the GFC finally reaching an uptick?
a proper opposition would have focussed on 1 figure in the budget: £16m. Less than 0.001% of our economy is going to be invested in faster broadband. It goes beyond pathetic. It is the best joke that Hammond told but it is not funny. A budget that should have been focussed on getting this country ready for a much more challenging environment was steady as you go and nothing. Only someone as incompetent as Corbyn could fail to make something of this. Which is where the argument starts to get a little circular of course.
0.001% is not an accurate figure.
A lot more than £16mn in private money which makes up part of our economy is going to be invested in faster broadband. The £16mn is private money only and unless you think Openreach should pocket their profits and get through taxpayer to invest it is only part of the story.
Of course there is private investment going on in broadband. But that was the figure in the budget and it might allow a service to a single village somewhere.
And there is a role for the State here. Providing high speed broadband to rural areas is not economic in that it will see a return for the provider but it is essential if those rural areas are to have any hope of thriving in the modern economy. So the government should enforce a trade off (like the Post Office Universal service obligation, you get the good bits in exchange for the bad) or they have a regional policy worth a damn and subsidise its provision. If the former is the path to be followed the providers need to have their feet held to the fire to deliver what was promised.
It is a telling example of what I think was a budget showing an almost scary lack of imagination. But Labour have nothing useful to say about it.
Providing broadband to rural areas is economic. Community projects are connecting homes with future-proof fibre-to-the-property at a payback of about three years. What is not economic is for Openreach to extend its fibre to the cabinet technology into rural areas. But BT doesn't care, it pocketed over £1bn of taxpayers money to put so called superfast into towns and larger villages so that they could have customers for the co-incidental £1bn or so they spend on football rights every couple of years.
“tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”
Woman with a penis, mind. ie Transgender pre-surgery.
In the UK, a normally genitalled woman cannot commit rape - by law.
And rape with a stick or dildo is defined as Assault by Penetration iirc.
Being political, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is yet another New Labour Dog's Breakfast of a Law. As a circumspect Judge put it:
Lord Justice Rose said: "If a history of criminal legislation ever comes to be written it is unlikely that 2003 will be identified as a year of exemplary skill in the annals of Parliamentary drafting." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
I'd add that they'd be pre-op and highly unlikely to be on HT either. Gosrelin takes away both the desire and the ability to sustain any kind of erection.
Sadly.
As it's often used to treat testosterone-sensitive prostate cancer, it is indeed a sad side-effect. For those of us currently detransitioning it's also a huge worry.
More hopefully, the standard PDE5 inhibitors (Viagra, Levitra or Cialis) are often very effective in restoring function.
I'm not aware of decent research on very long term use of Zoladex and the like (the branded versions of Gosrelin). Happy to be corrected.
I agree on the impact of such events, though they may help GOTV on some quarters.
I detect the wave of populism receeding, not just in Australia, but in the EU too. In part this is fatigue due to overexposure to Trump and the alt.right, in part to the dampening of the migrant crisis, and in part general improvement in economic indicies.
Is the L shaped recovery from the GFC finally reaching an uptick?
Personally, I'll only acknowledge the recovery is real once interest rates start going up.
and my private secretary and credit controller, who are also self employed. .
Sorry, we are talking about the increases in National Insurance for the self employed here aren't we? The maximum increase will be, according to figures published on here and elsewhere, a bit more than ten quid a week and you will have to be, earning after legitimate expenses, more than three times the median wage to get clobbered by that much.
Now, you want to tell me that as a senior doctor you would even notice the price of a small round of drinks per week out of your income? Give over. Have to put up fees indeed! And while we are on the subject how much do you pay your secretary and credit controller? Will they even be affected?
I expect that there are those primarily on the right hand edge of the Conservative Party who will regard any increase in taxation as bad. However, for a wealthy man who, from his posts on here, primarily supports left of centre parties and policies to try and say his income will be knocked by a tenner week tax increase looks, shall we say, a bit odd.
I'd love to know how that particular post counts as self employed.
The media are having a field day over Netherlands versus Turkey, a spat that without the deliberate use that is being made of it would be largely without consequences. In Cologne and in Stockholm, "unidentified men" appeared as if from nowhere to cause violence at key flashpoints. Not large numbers. Only about 10 or 20, but serious about it and organised. How long will it be until the same happens in Rotterdam or elsewhere in the Netherlands?
Refused entry by the Netherlands, the Turkish foreign minister has been allowed into France. Developments are ideal for Le Pen.
France is home to 6 million Arabs and about 500,000 Turks. For generations it has been the Arabs who have received most of the attention from the xenophobic right, but perceived small movements in a big they are criticising not just the Dutch government but "the Netherlands". Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu says "I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want".
Is any aspect of this not beneficial for Wilders and Le Pen?
I think we - on pb - have a tendency to overestimate the effect of 'events' on near term voting patterns. In November 2015, France suffered what was probably its worst ever terror attack at e Le Pen and the Front National?
Here are the Ifop Polls for Le Pen's share (highest against any LR candidate):
Sept - 29% Oct - 29% Dec - 29%
There was no Bataclan spike for Le Pen.
What about the July 2016 Nice attacks which killed 87 and injured 434?
April - 29% Jun - 30.5% Sept - 30%
Here, the gap of six weeks until the early September poll might hide a bump. But there was certainly no long lasting impact on voting patterns.
I agree on the impact of such events, though they may help GOTV on some quarters.
I detect the wave of populism receeding, not just in Australia, but in the EU too. In part this is fatigue due to overexposure to Trump and the alt.right, in part to the dampening of the migrant crisis, and in part general improvement in economic indicies.
Is the L shaped recovery from the GFC finally reaching an uptick?
Yet both the PVV and FN are still polling well above their scores in the last Dutch and French elections. Australia was one of the western nations least affected by the GFC and both the Howard and Abbott government implemented tough anti immigration policies so it has the least need for populist parties and politics at the moment
Comments
Either way she's a difficult person to have much sympathy for...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4046558/The-Mahmood-family-apology.html
(Happily I understand it cost them over £100,000 in damages)
That seems quite unbelievable. Does anyone have any further information one way or t'other?
People make mistakes. That is fair enough. But anyone worth their salt apologises when they are shown to be wrong and Hopkins was given every opportunity to do this well in advance of court proceedings but chose not to.
She frankly deserves all she gets.
Nearly always, UK libel cases are the repellent chasing the innocent. Sometimes they are the repellent chasing the repellent. The innocent chasing the repellent is somewhat rare.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/
27% of Australians were born overseas.
Australia and Canada have benefited fromthe commodity boom keeping their economies sound, but are also the most receptive contries in the world for immigration. The Melbourne hospital I worked in had signs in a dozen languages. Australia is a very multicultural country in urban areas, but like elsewhere in the world country towns are in decline, and manufacturing fading. Automotive manufacturing has ceased for example. No more Holdens.
The problem in London, is that to escape that zone, while still working there, is virtually impossible.
In New Zealand, for example, you can't afford (unless rich) certain areas of Christchurch. But commuting by car is possible, and can been done in 30 minutes or so.
The situation is not quite as good in Sydney, for example, but it is nowhere near the London state. Yet.
Perhaps because Corbyn cares enough to stick up for an essential democratic principle which is that if you win an election (which the SNP has) on a manifesto saying that there should be a referendum if Scotland is dragged out of Europe against the will of the people (which it is going to be) then that should be respected if the Scottish Parliament votes for it (which it is likely to do). Not to do so is a route to perdition.
Since my last post I see that Rebecca Long-Bailley on Marr has made the point and flung Dugdale's comments from last year back at her. It is not Corbyn who is flip-flopping on this issue but Dugdale and that complete nonentity Ian Murray.
You ask why anyone should vote Scots Labour. No-one will unless they stick to some degree of principle. There are quite a lot of people who look at Dugdale's current kamakazi course and see the hand of her press officer Alan Roden who seems to control her every action. Roden is ex Daily Mail and cheerleader for ---- Ruth Davidson!
Not being of the religious sort I have never really understood the whole dying for your religion thing.
I think that the Spiked-online writers are a bit anti libel, after their former journal was closed down by a libel case.
On libel law - I agree with Ian Hislop.
New Real Peer Review
Excerpt from the paper https://t.co/58RA9wDE8Q
So using Australia as an example of large scale migration to counter the demands of those opposed to migration in the UK is fatuous and ill informed.
And in other news, a superb photo of perhaps my favourite place in the world is at the top of this BBC story: Kearvaig.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39205436
Alternative title - "How I assumed 36 different minority identities but still couldn't get laid"...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=X7nGTlY4GEs
France is home to 6 million Arabs and about 500,000 Turks. For generations it has been the Arabs who have received most of the attention from the xenophobic right, but perceived small movements in a big picture catch the attention. The whole business of Turkish emigrants voting this way or that in the Turkish referendum plays to the theme of their foreignness and lack of integration. They're waving the Turkish flag with the Muslim crescent moon on, and supported by President Erdogan they are criticising not just the Dutch government but "the Netherlands". Turkish foreign minister Cavusoglu says "I am a foreign minister and I can go wherever I want".
Is any aspect of this not beneficial for Wilders and Le Pen?
In the UK, a normally genitalled woman cannot commit rape - by law.
And rape with a stick or dildo is defined as Assault by Penetration iirc.
Being political, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is yet another New Labour Dog's Breakfast of a Law. As a circumspect Judge put it:
Lord Justice Rose said: "If a history of criminal legislation ever comes to be written it is unlikely that 2003 will be identified as a year of exemplary skill in the annals of Parliamentary drafting."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003
She was OK when attacking the Tories up till about 3:30, but after that when she had to explain Labour's spending it all fell apart.
Copeland is depopulating and 99% white, yet immigration was an issue for example. Pauline Hanson gets support in rural Queensland, not urban Sydney for example.
The feeling of cultural change is the motivator, more than physical resources, as can be seen in Hanson's manifesto:
http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/immigration
The resemblence to Trumpism and kippers is there, just less popular.
And it is rather stylish that PennyRed managed to ride straight through the middle with her ancestor's fictional George Cross and got off Scot-free.
But Hopkins chose to stand and fight, and put far too much reliance on the legal system's One Armed Bandit. Her choice. Her loss.
"Who gives a fuck as long as they vote Labour" seems to be the line from the outside looking in
If we replaced British Muslims with Trump voting type immigrants from the US, and they behaved exactly the same, the left would want them locked up
And what would Labour do instead?
Er....EvilToriesEvilToriesEvilToriesEvilToriesEvilToriesEvilTories.....
Colleague of mine (Romanian national, educated in UK & US) was appointed to a Professorship at a University in Southern Australia.
He obtained the necessary work permits.
Australia however refused to admit his wife (who had suffered cancer at an early age & survived). She would be a drain on state resources, and private insurance was prohibitively expensive.
He had to turn down the job.
Sure, Australia is willing to welcome immigrants. The right kind, only, though. Its immigration policy is way harsher than anything we've seen in the UK (yet).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
Foxinsox's dictum applies: "the only fair taxes are those paid by other people".
Australia has combined a high immigration policy with policies (and structural advantages) that reduce the side effects. So, high house prices are tempered by the fact that you can actually commute in less than 3 hours from places that have affordable houses. Low end/semi-skilled jobs in Australia aren't immigrant only etc etc.
This works better than denying there are side effects.
Ahem.
Gender Studies makes the use of Kant to understand Cubism feel simplistic. I've got that t-shirt.
Scottish Greens have just secured my second preference vote in the local elections on BBC Poltitics Scotland. Patrick Harvie talks profound sense on indy ref 2 in contrast to the grinning buffoon Willie Rennie who argues that 1) we should have a second European referendum to overturn the first without any General Election sanction and little support in the Hosue of Coomons2) Lib MPs should try and block a second referendum despite a clear Scottish election mandate for one under current circumstances and with a majority vote for one in the Scottish Parliament.
And the Liberals think that Corbyn has problems!!!!
Funny definitions. Campaigners seem to define "child bride" as under-18, which also pulls in most of Europe including the UK as permitting. The framing is also sexist. Under 18 boys are made to marry, too, but they don't seem to be worthy of attention.
Pew researched this, and came up with a map of "child brides" vs "population". Approx 0.5% of 15-17 year olds in the USA are married, and it seems to be permitted under 18 nearly everywhere.
The rates in California and New York are higher than NH, and the higher tendency is in the South. The laws are usually "no marriages under 18 except for defined exceptions (eg with Judicial Permission)".
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/10/31142005/FT_16.10.14_childMarriageUS.png
IMO they probably need to work on under 16 not under 18.
She showed the basic Labour problem - their inability to grasp how to fund the Big Numbers they love talking.
In what tiny part of the multiverse does she represent Labour's best hope of preventing electoral meltdown? It is funny, tragic and disturbing in equal measure.
https://twitter.com/AndrewBloch/status/840241154092351488
before: mean of Fiducial 16-18 and Opinionway 17-19;
after: mean of Fiducial 21-24 and Opinionway 21-23
That more than 15% are against the rise in NICs for self employed shows that there is a general objection to taxes even when they are on someone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGZ5grXcSFw&list=PLG4LBtUiXKfxzCMk84vMHPLTZe0aIGG7Q&index=5
Here are the Ifop Polls for Le Pen's share (highest against any LR candidate):
Sept - 29%
Oct - 29%
Dec - 29%
There was no Bataclan spike for Le Pen.
What about the July 2016 Nice attacks which killed 87 and injured 434?
April - 29%
Jun - 30.5%
Sept - 30%
Here, the gap of six weeks until the early September poll might hide a bump. But there was certainly no long lasting impact on voting patterns.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017)
All these journos moaning about 60p a week more in tax should consider the alternative! I have and 1% extra seems small beer compared to McMao and Co destroying the country.
The point that all this really misses is that "self-employed" doesn't refer to a specific category of worker now, it is ropes in a whole range of different types of employment. This NI move is just a sticking plaster.
Now, you want to tell me that as a senior doctor you would even notice the price of a small round of drinks per week out of your income? Give over. Have to put up fees indeed! And while we are on the subject how much do you pay your secretary and credit controller? Will they even be affected?
I expect that there are those primarily on the right hand edge of the Conservative Party who will regard any increase in taxation as bad. However, for a wealthy man who, from his posts on here, primarily supports left of centre parties and policies to try and say his income will be knocked by a tenner week tax increase looks, shall we say, a bit odd.
I detect the wave of populism receeding, not just in Australia, but in the EU too. In part this is fatigue due to overexposure to Trump and the alt.right, in part to the dampening of the migrant crisis, and in part general improvement in economic indicies.
Is the L shaped recovery from the GFC finally reaching an uptick?
More hopefully, the standard PDE5 inhibitors (Viagra, Levitra or Cialis) are often very effective in restoring function.
I'm not aware of decent research on very long term use of Zoladex and the like (the branded versions of Gosrelin). Happy to be corrected.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4305720/Bob-Geldof-booted-stage-corporate-gig-for.html