"Independence could mean people in Scotland get state pensions earlier than the rest of the UK, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has suggested.
A Scottish government paper will say the Scottish Parliament will determine the state pension age if there is a Yes vote in next September's referendum.
Ms Sturgeon argued the pension age should suit "Scottish circumstances".
UK officials said spending on pensions, benefits and public services was "all more affordable" as part of the UK.
State pension policy is currently under UK government control."
I'm unclear - are you suggesting that it's a good poll for Labour so they delayed releasing it or that it's a bad poll for Labour so they've displayed it prominently?
Well I didn't want to break it to him, that a few weeks ago, when Labour's lead shot up to 10 points in the Sunday times from 4, the day before, that the Sunday Times published that polling snippet at 11.15pm
A YouGov poll today reveals that UKIP is now level with the Liberal Democrats on 11% after being ahead of Nick Clegg’s party for months — although people were surveyed before Bloom’s outburst.
The Opinium poll at the top of this page has UKIP 10 points clear of the LDs.
Well Opinium have flaws in their methodology.
Ah. So the ComRes 7 point UKIP lead is more accurate?
@frasernelson: George Osborne tomorrow attacks Labour for proposing “black holes”. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. My blog: http://t.co/XyL5r1XETU
"Polls show that between 6 per cent and 12 per cent of us realise that he is pushing up the national debt."
There are going to be a lot of surprised people during the 2015 general election.
Averys big yellow posts prove debt is falling.
They don't prove it, tim.
They state it as the latest official release of the ONS.
Wait 'til Lloyds Banking Group is declassified as a public sector bank (may be earlier than full sell off of government shares).
It may reduce PSND by around £300 billion.
But George is likely to miss the intervened banks. They have produced a very nice regular reduction in PSND over the term and have bolstered CG revenues too.
Disappointing polls for the Tories - no getting round it - after a run of good 'uns. Even worse for the Libs. No conference boost outside the MOE. Stuck at 7 with Opinium and just two years from the GE.
Yes, I must say that the delicious prospect of LibDem annihilation tantalisingly dangled by this poll has cheered me up immensely.
Although the Lib Dems have made mistakes and at times behaved badly, so have the Tories and Labour.
You think we better served with just Labour and tories as choices?
UKIP will probably get a big psychological boost if AfD enter the German Parliament tomorrow.
They shouldnt get too excited:
"AfD has made it clear that it does not see itself as a sister party to, for example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), but that it shares more in common with the British Conservatives. For instance one of AfD's founder members, journalist Konrad Adam, said, "We're by far from being in agreement with everything Cameron says, but we respect his plan to hold a referendum." Economics professor and AfD member Joachim Starbatty has also commented on Cameron: "He has a British sense of realism, a cool and healthy approach, which we could do with more of in Germany.""
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
You may not have noticed but Brown has been out of power since 2010, Avery.
Of course Neil we should forget the damage Labour caused last two times in office whilst remembering the mistakes of last Tory government.
Brown suffered a global banking crisis. He responded by leading the country through the deepest and longest recession since the war and virtually non-existent growth over five years.
You may not have noticed but Brown has been out of power since 2010, Avery.
Of course Neil we should forget the damage Labour caused last two times in office whilst remembering the mistakes of last Tory government.
UKIP will probably get a big psychological boost if AfD enter the German Parliament tomorrow.
They shouldnt get too excited:
"AfD has made it clear that it does not see itself as a sister party to, for example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), but that it shares more in common with the British Conservatives. For instance one of AfD's founder members, journalist Konrad Adam, said, "We're by far from being in agreement with everything Cameron says, but we respect his plan to hold a referendum." Economics professor and AfD member Joachim Starbatty has also commented on Cameron: "He has a British sense of realism, a cool and healthy approach, which we could do with more of in Germany.""
Your (and their) problem is what? That you believe that evasion of minimum wage regulations is a good thing, really - some sort of safety valve for the economy? I thought anti-NMW Tories had died out, but perhaps they were just hibernating?
@Greg_Callus: Increasing sentences ten-fold for Bigamy (contrary to s57 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) would be a more substantive policy than this
Yes, at present authorities feel it's hardly worth pursuing as the fine is so low. Are you actually opposed to the policy or not? (You can propose an increase in the fine for bigamy too if you feel this is a related argument.)
Conservatives tough on crime except when it is themselves or their mates breaking the law .
Sigh, Lib Dems tough on expense cheats .... except their own.
Disappointing polls for the Tories - no getting round it - after a run of good 'uns. Even worse for the Libs. No conference boost outside the MOE. Stuck at 7 with Opinium and just two years from the GE.
Yes, I must say that the delicious prospect of LibDem annihilation tantalisingly dangled by this poll has cheered me up immensely.
Although the Lib Dems have made mistakes and at times behaved badly, so have the Tories and Labour. You think we better served with just Labour and tories as choices?
Might as well eliminate the low hanging fruit before destroying the main lefty enemy of the country.
If the Conservatives had reintroduced the pre-1997 immigration laws, that driver wouldn't exist.
Pre 1997 immigration laws are still an open door to Romanians and Bulgarians from January. There's no way the Tories would ever be able to match UKIP's position on this.
If the Conservatives had reintroduced the pre-1997 immigration laws, that driver wouldn't exist.
Pre 1997 immigration laws are still an open door to Romanians and Bulgarians from January. There's no way the Tories would ever be able to match UKIP's position on this.
True, and I think that's going to be a huge winner for UKIP in the 2014 elections.
If the Conservatives had reintroduced the pre-1997 immigration laws, that driver wouldn't exist.
Pre 1997 immigration laws are still an open door to Romanians and Bulgarians from January. There's no way the Tories would ever be able to match UKIP's position on this.
On second thoughts, yes the Tories could match UKIP's position. They could declare they are extending the transition controls.
It's the sort of thing you can imagine a French government doing.
The Eurocrats havent forced national governments to accept the free movement of labour. It's a cornerstone of the whole operation that the national governments themselves created.
The Eurocrats havent forced national governments to accept the free movement of labour. It's a cornerstone of the whole operation that the national governments themselves created.
The french refused to accept british beef.
The power of the eurocrats is an illusion. If national governments choose stand up to them, they can win.
The Eurocrats havent forced national governments to accept the free movement of labour. It's a cornerstone of the whole operation that the national governments themselves created.
The french refused to accept british beef.
The power of the eurocrats is an illusion. If national governments choose stand up to them, they can win.
The French ended up scrapping the ban when the Commission threatened to fine them.
But if you're thinking the UK government can start ignoring its treaty obligations, the ultimate threat is that other countries will retaliate in kind. You ignore the agreement that says our citizens can live in your country, and refuse to pay the resulting fines, and we ignore the agreement that says your banks are allowed to sell to our consumers, etc etc.
The power of the eurocrats is an illusion. If national governments choose stand up to them, they can win.
Free movement of labour within the EU is not a diktat of a breed of people called eurocrats.
They wouldn't be challenging free movement of all people. They'd just be not extending that free movement to two new groups of people.
You might well see other nations join in.
Transition controls themselves were bending the rules, to suit the other nations. They'd just be bending them again.
Transitional controls were in the accession agreements. Those agreements can of course be changed, if all the members states that signed them agree, including the countries whose citizens are subject to the controls.
"A person close to Brown described McBride to me as ‘a wholly owned subsidiary of Ed Balls’. He may not have known all that McBride did, and he has plausibly denied some of the worst offences.
But in McBride’s intent and manner, he was acting out the wishes of his master, Balls."
I love playing p*ssed people at poker - 1000% return tonight so far
What does "www7" mean as far as a web address is concerned?
Isn't it to do with PBs load balancing servers or something? I remember during busy periods you'd often be directed to www5, www6 etc.
Yes, www is actually a non-functional part of the address and nowadays if you've got multiple real or virtual boxes then using a different prefix as PB does is just an archaic way of letting you know that you are on a rack of webservers rather than, say, an ftp box.
The www1,www2,etc. was actually useful at one point. Netscape originally used that naming schema to implement crude load balancing in the early browsers. Better techniques replaced it but old habits die hard it seems. The trend now is towards dropping www entirely.
Why is/was one all over the news and the other completely absent?
Is it completely absent? Is it absent in the link you keep on posting?
Perhaps scale is one thing. 1 in 200 women were raped in 2006/7 (and also a large number of men, although some do not class that as rape). A wide variety of crimes and levels of disdemeanour will be buried within those figures, but it ain't a pretty picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom
You could argue that *that* does not get nearly enough exposure in the media. Abuse by gangs is important and should be dealt with, but it is dwarfed by the major problem.
And Bloom's comments (not just yesterday's, but others as well) actively hinders progress. He shows f'all respect for women, so why should anyone respect him or the party he represents?
It's okay you won't say which you feel is more important out of a) a politician using the word "slut" or b) (almost) the entire media and political class ignoring this
because it would make your position cheering Bloom getting sacked nonsensical.
"Is it completely absent?"
Correct, it's not *entirely* absent from the media otherwise no-one could mention it - like the grooming gangs in all the years before the Times reported it. I wonder how many other problems there are like that which no-one can mention because the media wall hasn't leaked?
"Is it absent in the link you keep on posting?"
Hehe. That's cognitive dissonance that is - annoying innit.
I could alternate with the other mention, the Guardian article from 2004. The estimate in that is only 360 a year but that's because it's been getting worse every year.
Matthew Norman writes: “Why did we tolerate this putrid nonsense from New Labour?
New Labour achieved virtually nothing, but its toxic feuding left a stain on a great democracy”
“How on earth did a great democracy tolerate this putrid nonsense for so long? The answer to that is that the democracy which put up with it for a decade has axiomatically (and, touch wood, temporarily) lost the right to regard itself as great.”
I really hope Mr Norman is using the ‘Royal We’ in this instance – because a primary reason this nonsense was allowed to continue unfettered, was the utter failure of a cowed fourth estate, which I believe constitutes a part of this ‘great democracy’ to report a great deal of it.
UKIP will probably get a big psychological boost if AfD enter the German Parliament tomorrow.
And the other UK parties will get a sense of impending doom. Fingers crossed.
I think it's fair to posit that UKIP will do at least as well in 2015 as AfD do tomorrow, in percentage terms.
So if AfD get 5.5%, for example, UKIP will probably get more than the 5% Dave says will be enough to stop the Tories winning a majority next time.
If Mr Cameron thinks UKIP are what stands between the Conservatives and electoral success Lynton Crosby is not earning his money.
Wasn't that precisely what Lord Ashcroft's marginals poll was showing - a big surge in UKIP support in the crucial Con/Lab marginals?
If Labour seats are weighted more DE and Con/Lib seats are weighted more AB and marginals are weighted more C2/C1 (dunno if they are, just an assumption.)
and
UKIP vote is: disgruntled Tories + people who currently see themselves in the middle but now looking over a cliff + bitter ex-labour
The Eurocrats havent forced national governments to accept the free movement of labour. It's a cornerstone of the whole operation that the national governments themselves created.
The french refused to accept british beef.
The power of the eurocrats is an illusion. If national governments choose stand up to them, they can win.
The French ended up scrapping the ban when the Commission threatened to fine them.
But if you're thinking the UK government can start ignoring its treaty obligations, the ultimate threat is that other countries will retaliate in kind. You ignore the agreement that says our citizens can live in your country, and refuse to pay the resulting fines, and we ignore the agreement that says your banks are allowed to sell to our consumers, etc etc.
The French scrapped the ban, what? Three years later?
Though you are right, of course. The danger of retaliation must be borne in mind before starting a trade war.
Modest Labour uptick in LibDem conference week is encouraging, but we need to wait for all the conferences to get a clear view. The YouGov details also show a modest uptick in people thinking the Coalition has been a good thing, and don't show any impressive shifts either way if EdM was replaced by any of the other possibilities, even though the question is only the mild more likely/less likely to vote Labour - the impression given is that it doesn't matter much to most current Labour voters. The free school meals thing gets a lukewarm reception, even among LibDems - people quite like it but many think the money would be better used elsewhere. The usual quirks in the detail as people wrestle with the complex questions - 6% of CURRENT Tory voters say it wouldn't matter whether DM replaced EdM since they will vote Labour anyway - eh?
On Germany, FWIW I broadly agree with AndyJS's prediction except that I think the AfD will possibly just miss out and the Left will do a bit better than the polls (9.2%?), as they really do have a shy voter issue. I also wonder if the attention to the AfD could tip the FDP under 5%. I don't understand the FT instability prediction - a CDU-SPD coalition is the most likely outcome and that's as solid as you can get.
It's okay you won't say which you feel is more important out of a) a politician using the word "slut" or b) (almost) the entire media and political class ignoring this
because it would make your position cheering Bloom getting sacked nonsensical.
"Is it completely absent?"
Correct, it's not *entirely* absent from the media otherwise no-one could mention it - like the grooming gangs in all the years before the Times reported it. I wonder how many other problems there are like that which no-one can mention because the media wall hasn't leaked?
"Is it absent in the link you keep on posting?"
Hehe. That's cognitive dissonance that is - annoying innit.
I could alternate with the other mention, the Guardian article from 2004. The estimate in that is only 360 a year but that's because it's been getting worse every year.
The rest was just deflection so i'll keep it short.
Bloom getting sacked wasn't nonsensical at all. He has a track record of making comments that demean women and others in various ways. I know you might think that's unimportant, but fortunately most of us have moved on from that point of view.
I'm not answering your question because it's rubbish: Bloom was not sacked because of gang rapes. There's no connection between the two. The fact you try to make a connection says more about you than anything else.
The sheer, unmitigated stupidity of your attitude is that you don't see that getting rid of a dinosaur like Bloom should actually help UKIP in the future. A few months ago, after a previous gaffe, I suggested that UKIP should sack him. If they had done, then they would have saved their conference from becoming a laughing stock.
Bloom getting sacked wasn't nonsensical at all. He has a track record of making comments that demean women and others in various ways. I know you might think that's unimportant, but fortunately most of us have moved on from that point of view.
I'm not answering your question because it's rubbish: Bloom was not sacked because of gang rapes. There's no connection between the two. The fact you try to make a connection says more about you than anything else.
The sheer, unmitigated stupidity of your attitude is that you don't see that getting rid of a dinosaur like Bloom should actually help UKIP in the future. A few months ago, after a previous gaffe, I suggested that UKIP should sack him. If they had done, then they would have saved their conference from becoming a laughing stock.
"Bloom getting sacked wasn't nonsensical at all."
I didn't say Bloom getting sacked was nonsensical though did I. It's sensible enough on multiple grounds. I said your position is nonsensical - cheering Bloom getting sacked as a sign of some kind of progress while not a single member of the political class could mention this
Bloom getting sacked wasn't nonsensical at all. He has a track record of making comments that demean women and others in various ways. I know you might think that's unimportant, but fortunately most of us have moved on from that point of view.
I'm not answering your question because it's rubbish: Bloom was not sacked because of gang rapes. There's no connection between the two. The fact you try to make a connection says more about you than anything else.
The sheer, unmitigated stupidity of your attitude is that you don't see that getting rid of a dinosaur like Bloom should actually help UKIP in the future. A few months ago, after a previous gaffe, I suggested that UKIP should sack him. If they had done, then they would have saved their conference from becoming a laughing stock.
"Bloom getting sacked wasn't nonsensical at all."
I didn't say Bloom getting sacked was nonsensical though did I. It's sensible enough on multiple grounds. I said your position is nonsensical - cheering Bloom getting sacked as a sign of some kind of progress while not a single member of the political class could mention this
without having their career disintegrated by the same sort of people at the BBC and Channel 4 who would cheer the most over Bloom.
I think you need to learn the definition of 'nonsensical'.
You repeatedly spam this site with an old link about gang rapes, whilst ignoring the much larger number of women (and men) who get raped every year by non-gangs.
Some victims recover: others have their lives ruined. Yet you never mention them.
Comments
"Independence could mean people in Scotland get state pensions earlier than the rest of the UK, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has suggested.
A Scottish government paper will say the Scottish Parliament will determine the state pension age if there is a Yes vote in next September's referendum.
Ms Sturgeon argued the pension age should suit "Scottish circumstances".
UK officials said spending on pensions, benefits and public services was "all more affordable" as part of the UK.
State pension policy is currently under UK government control."
It is Ed's lucky weekend.
They state it as the latest official release of the ONS.
Wait 'til Lloyds Banking Group is declassified as a public sector bank (may be earlier than full sell off of government shares).
It may reduce PSND by around £300 billion.
But George is likely to miss the intervened banks. They have produced a very nice regular reduction in PSND over the term and have bolstered CG revenues too.
Master strategist, our George.
After all, he has to obsess on someone.
You think we better served with just Labour and tories as choices?
"AfD has made it clear that it does not see itself as a sister party to, for example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), but that it shares more in common with the British Conservatives. For instance one of AfD's founder members, journalist Konrad Adam, said, "We're by far from being in agreement with everything Cameron says, but we respect his plan to hold a referendum." Economics professor and AfD member Joachim Starbatty has also commented on Cameron: "He has a British sense of realism, a cool and healthy approach, which we could do with more of in Germany.""
http://www.aecr.eu/content/alternative-für-deutschland
Though they would say that wouldnt they...
I think not.
So if AfD get 5.5%, for example, UKIP will probably get more than the 5% Dave says will be enough to stop the Tories winning a majority next time.
Tough on sexist behavior ... except their own....
perhaps they are tough on anti semites?
oh
no party perfect Mark
If the Conservatives had reintroduced the pre-1997 immigration laws, that driver wouldn't exist.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/decline-in-net-migration-stalls/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany
The equivalent date for UKIP is 3rd September 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukip
BUT the numbers would have come down noticeably.
2012 immigration: EU 155,000 / Non-EU 260,000
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/latest-immigration-statistics
The Conservatives could have said, vote for us and things change. But they tinkered with the New Labour laws instead.
It's the sort of thing you can imagine a French government doing.
The british politicians, and bureaucrats seem to regard submission as the only available option in all circumstances. It's pathetic.
The Eurocrats havent forced national governments to accept the free movement of labour. It's a cornerstone of the whole operation that the national governments themselves created.
The power of the eurocrats is an illusion. If national governments choose stand up to them, they can win.
You might well see other nations join in.
Transition controls themselves were bending the rules, to suit the other nations. They'd just be bending them again.
But if you're thinking the UK government can start ignoring its treaty obligations, the ultimate threat is that other countries will retaliate in kind. You ignore the agreement that says our citizens can live in your country, and refuse to pay the resulting fines, and we ignore the agreement that says your banks are allowed to sell to our consumers, etc etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428513/The-unstable-ill-suited-PM-Robert-Walpole-1735-says-Anthony-Seldon.html
"A person close to Brown described McBride to me as ‘a wholly owned subsidiary of Ed Balls’. He may not have known all that McBride did, and he has plausibly denied some of the worst offences.
But in McBride’s intent and manner, he was acting out the wishes of his master, Balls."
I love playing p*ssed people at poker - 1000% return tonight so far
The www1,www2,etc. was actually useful at one point. Netscape originally used that naming schema to implement crude load balancing in the early browsers. Better techniques replaced it but old habits die hard it seems. The trend now is towards dropping www entirely.
Mostly because they aren't Spanish.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
because it would make your position cheering Bloom getting sacked nonsensical.
"Is it completely absent?"
Correct, it's not *entirely* absent from the media otherwise no-one could mention it - like the grooming gangs in all the years before the Times reported it. I wonder how many other problems there are like that which no-one can mention because the media wall hasn't leaked?
"Is it absent in the link you keep on posting?"
Hehe. That's cognitive dissonance that is - annoying innit.
I could alternate with the other mention, the Guardian article from 2004. The estimate in that is only 360 a year but that's because it's been getting worse every year.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/04/ukcrime.ameliahill
The rest was just deflection so i'll keep it short.
and
UKIP vote is: disgruntled Tories + people who currently see themselves in the middle but now looking over a cliff + bitter ex-labour
then UKIP ought to do best in marginals.
Though you are right, of course. The danger of retaliation must be borne in mind before starting a trade war.
On Germany, FWIW I broadly agree with AndyJS's prediction except that I think the AfD will possibly just miss out and the Left will do a bit better than the polls (9.2%?), as they really do have a shy voter issue. I also wonder if the attention to the AfD could tip the FDP under 5%. I don't understand the FT instability prediction - a CDU-SPD coalition is the most likely outcome and that's as solid as you can get.
I'm not answering your question because it's rubbish: Bloom was not sacked because of gang rapes. There's no connection between the two. The fact you try to make a connection says more about you than anything else.
The sheer, unmitigated stupidity of your attitude is that you don't see that getting rid of a dinosaur like Bloom should actually help UKIP in the future. A few months ago, after a previous gaffe, I suggested that UKIP should sack him. If they had done, then they would have saved their conference from becoming a laughing stock.
I didn't say Bloom getting sacked was nonsensical though did I. It's sensible enough on multiple grounds. I said your position is nonsensical - cheering Bloom getting sacked as a sign of some kind of progress while not a single member of the political class could mention this
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
without having their career disintegrated by the same sort of people at the BBC and Channel 4 who would cheer the most over Bloom.
You repeatedly spam this site with an old link about gang rapes, whilst ignoring the much larger number of women (and men) who get raped every year by non-gangs.
Some victims recover: others have their lives ruined. Yet you never mention them.
Why?
So some major pollsters have Lab and Con level pegging - and others show a fairly wide gap.
One set of pollsters is therefore wrong.
I'll leave it to those more in the know than me to say which is which.