The economy remains key and the numbers for both Cameron and Osborne are surprisingly good in a week which has not had the best of headlines. George's latest initiative tries to address the key problem which is lack of finance for SMEs who should be providing growth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10008093/Osbornes-new-bid-to-help-SMEs.html
There is an element of desperation about this and the desperation comes from the failure to grasp the deeply unpleasant nettle of publically owned and chronically undercapitalised banks left by the last government. I really have little doubt that if RBS and LLoyds had been sorted out into good and bad banks 3 years ago we would be enjoying better growth now.
There is a story of a recommendation to this effect in the ST today by a committee of MPs. Despite this I have no doubt it really should be a priority. I am concerned that uncle Vince has been a bit of a block on this as have the enormous vested interests of our bankster community. George should be asking himself what would Maggie have done faced with such intransigence?
Last week's news cycle was all about Thatcher and Boston. So it was a good week for bad news to come out. We'll need to see what happens to the polls after a week of largely non-Thatch stories to make any real judgements about whether there has been a significant shift in the polls.
Mrs T was a huge chum of the City and it was reciprocated.
I would agree with your first point Southam. The GDP figures this week will be very important for the tone of news coverage for the next 3 months.
I disagree with your second point. Mrs T demolished existing restrictive practices in the City removing many of the monopolies that bedevilled investment in the UK. This resulted in enormous growth which combined with the Docklands opportunities resulted in the City we see today but Maggie never saw a vested interest that she did not want to challenge and I think she would have found the degree of protection that our banksters get today as offensive as subsidising the production of coal no one wanted.
Hmmm, not so sure about that. There were plenty of vested interests she did not take on because she rather liked them or could not be bothered with them. And, of course, she created the City as it is now. Obviously, we will never know what she would have done, but it is certainly within Osborne's power to do something now.
On house prices, last week a place three or four doors down the road from us sold within days and achieved the full asking price. We are currently being bombarded by estate agent letters saying demand for places in the area is high etc etc. If that is happening around te country (or at least in margiunal constituencies like ours) that may well create some kind of feel good factor.
Not many examples of a similar nature ( fluoride in water maybe? Motorcycle helmets?) I'd be on the side of, but this one does seem clear enough.
Motorcycle helmets are emphatically not similar! The only harm from not wearing one is to the person themselves, not to anyone else.
Yeah you are right directly of course, and I pondered as I wrote it, but given the lesser number of dead and injured the emergency services and NHS have to deal with as a result I left it in as a ( sort of) similar thing. It's a "where do you draw the line?" debate isn't it? Generally I'm well on the individual's side but it's an interesting one all round.
"......whatever the GDP data will say this week, ask yourself whether an economy that has created nearly half a million jobs in the past year and where car sales are up 7.4 per cent is really in recession. I don't think we are growing fast enough, and there are concerns about the future, but common sense says this is not recession. The situation across the Channel, however, could become really alarming."
The economy remains key and the numbers for both Cameron and Osborne are surprisingly good in a week which has not had the best of headlines. George's latest initiative tries to address the key problem which is lack of finance for SMEs who should be providing growth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10008093/Osbornes-new-bid-to-help-SMEs.html
For an explanation of the Coalition's mildly improved polling, and the concurrent figures for Cam and Oz, I would again point to the recent rise in house prices, or, rather, the increased *expectation* that house prices will rise.
Nothing boosts confidence like knowing your home is rising in value. It may be unjustified, but it is the case.
Rising house prices like rising stock markets can generate the "wealth effect" for those owning those assets of course leading them to open their wallets a bit more and increasing demand ( "blimey the Daily Mail says me flat's worth 300 grand and it'll be 400 grand next year, lets go out and have a meal out and a few beers to celebrate"). Trouble is in the case of the West in general and the UK in particular, it's exactly that kind of debt driven nitrus oxide turbo boosted economy that landed us in the brown ( fill in a capital b or not depending on your leanings folks) stuff from 2001 roughly onwards. Ask the Dutch about tulips circa 1637....
The problem remains in the private sector where wages continue to grow much more slowly than in the public sector:
"Total private sector pay in February was 0.5% down on a year earlier. Though this was dragged down by lower bonuses, the picture for regular pay, up just 0.6%, was barely better. Public sector pay, up 1.1%, was stronger"
The reclassification of nearly 200,000 FE jobs last April artificially boosted public sector earnings by an estimated 0.8% and deflated private sector earnings by an estimated 0.2%. There are lots of other distorting factors (changing composition of workforces) that mean it is almost impossible to draw the conclusions you want to about public and private sector pay from this particular index.
Neil that could only make sense if those in FE were taking significant cuts in earnings at the same time as they were being reclassified so that they had a negative effect on the private sector and stripping them out had the effect of boosting the public sector.
My wife works in FE in Scotland. Although she has forgotten the last time she had a wage increase and although there have been redundancies wages for those still in post have not been cut.
Do you have a source for your comments? I have to say it seems extremely unlikely that is right. There are nearly 25m working in the private sector so for 200K employees to make a difference to the average would be truly remarkable.
@CarlottaVance It's interesting that Ed Miliband is more favoured by current Labour supporters than by 2010 Labour voters, given that there are more of them. It's grist to the mill of the idea that far from being floating voters who are open to persuasion by others, the Lib Dem defectors since 2010 are enthused with the zeal of the convert.
An interesting observation, and probably a wise one.
However, there is a corollary, which is that, when the great betrayal comes, as it must, they will be the most indignant.
Mrs T was a huge chum of the City and it was reciprocated.
That's another massive rewrite of history. Big Bang took on the vested interests of the City in a spectacular way (even more spectacular than it seemed at the time). All those cosy fixed commissions and barriers to competition were swept away. Insider dealing was finally outlawed (initially in 1980, but not very effectively, then it was done properly in 1985).
On house prices, last week a place three or four doors down the road from us sold within days and achieved the full asking price. We are currently being bombarded by estate agent letters saying demand for places in the area is high etc etc. If that is happening around te country (or at least in margiunal constituencies like ours) that may well create some kind of feel good factor.
A basement flat is for sale about three doors down from my flat (indeed you can see my car in the rightmove photo!)
Who the Frack pays SEVEN HUNDRED GRAND for a small basement flat?
But... anyway... yes, it's clear to me - as I've been saying for some months - that property is on the rebound. It started in prime central London a couple of years ago, but it is now rippling across the south of England, and beyond, boosted by Osborne's schemes. This *could* be significant.
Primrose Hill: didn't Ed go to the local inner city comp there and make much of it in a broadcast? Must be tough area when basement flats would buy a street in Merthyr .... Still prolier than thou is a good line I suppose when the other two are Eton and Westminster.
@RichardNabavi That depends on whether Labour get elected in 2015. If they don't, they can remain zealously pro-Labour. It remains to be seen whether that would assist such a Labour opposition in its evolution.
Either way, it's potentially one step further for the deproletariatisation of the Labour party.
Neil that could only make sense if those in FE were taking significant cuts in earnings at the same time as they were being reclassified so that they had a negative effect on the private sector and stripping them out had the effect of boosting the public sector.
No, they would just have to have lower earnings than the rest of the public sector to artificially boost public sector earnings by stripping them out and lower earnings than the private sector to also drag this figure down (by a much lower factor because the private sector is much bigger than the public sector). There is no requirement for their pay to change at all at the same time (indeed that would only happen by coincidence and I doubt that April would be a significant pay staging date for people working in education).
See the top of page 11 off (for example) the November ONS release:
"ONS estimates that, if the reclassification [of FE colleges from public to private sector] had not occured, ... public sector growth rates would be 0.6% to 0.8% lower and private sector growth rates would be between 0.1% and 0.2% higher."
(I must admit I had forgotten there was a range in the estimates, I didnt deliberately pick the maximum figures, they were just what I remembered.)
Mrs T was a huge chum of the City and it was reciprocated.
That's another massive rewrite of history. Big Bang took on the vested interests of the City in a spectacular way (even more spectacular than it seemed at the time). All those cosy fixed commissions and barriers to competition were swept away. Insider dealing was finally outlawed (initially in 1980, but not very effectively, then it was done properly in 1985).
On house prices, last week a place three or four doors down the road from us sold within days and achieved the full asking price. We are currently being bombarded by estate agent letters saying demand for places in the area is high etc etc. If that is happening around te country (or at least in margiunal constituencies like ours) that may well create some kind of feel good factor.
A basement flat is for sale about three doors down from my flat (indeed you can see my car in the rightmove photo!)
Who the Frack pays SEVEN HUNDRED GRAND for a small basement flat?
But... anyway... yes, it's clear to me - as I've been saying for some months - that property is on the rebound. It started in prime central London a couple of years ago, but it is now rippling across the south of England, and beyond, boosted by Osborne's schemes. This *could* be significant.
Primrose Hill: didn't Ed go to the local inner city comp there and make much of it in a broadcast? Must be tough area when basement flats would buy a street in Merthyr .... Still prolier than thou is a good line I suppose when the other two are Eton and Westminster.
They all beat the comp I went to I'm sure :-)
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
@RichardNabavi That depends on whether Labour get elected in 2015. If they don't, they can remain zealously pro-Labour. It remains to be seen whether that would assist such a Labour opposition in its evolution.
Either way, it's potentially one step further for the deproletariatisation of the Labour party.
It's hard to have a big proletarian political party when most poeople are not proletarian, but are or aspire to be middle class.
On house prices, last week a place three or four doors down the road from us sold within days and achieved the full asking price. We are currently being bombarded by estate agent letters saying demand for places in the area is high etc etc. If that is happening around te country (or at least in margiunal constituencies like ours) that may well create some kind of feel good factor.
A basement flat is for sale about three doors down from my flat (indeed you can see my car in the rightmove photo!)
Who the Frack pays SEVEN HUNDRED GRAND for a small basement flat?
But... anyway... yes, it's clear to me - as I've been saying for some months - that property is on the rebound. It started in prime central London a couple of years ago, but it is now rippling across the south of England, and beyond, boosted by Osborne's schemes. This *could* be significant.
Plato - Maybe Ed just wants to guarantee his support in the event of another hung parliament, with its high Muslim vote Galloway probably has Bradford West locked up for now!
Neil that could only make sense if those in FE were taking significant cuts in earnings at the same time as they were being reclassified so that they had a negative effect on the private sector and stripping them out had the effect of boosting the public sector.
No, they would just have to have lower earnings than the rest of the public sector to artificially boost public sector earnings by stripping them out and lower earnings than the private sector to also drag this figure down (by a much lower factor because the private sector is much bigger than the public sector). There is no requirement for their pay to change at all at the same time (indeed that would only happen by coincidence and I doubt that April would be a significant pay staging date for people working in education).
See the top of page 11 off (for example) the November ONS release:
"ONS estimates that, if the reclassification [of FE colleges from public to private sector] had not occured, ... public sector growth rates would be 0.6% to 0.8% lower and private sector growth rates would be between 0.1% and 0.2% higher."
(I must admit I had forgotten there was a range in the estimates, I didnt deliberately pick the maximum figures, they were just what I remembered.)
Neil, you are confusing 2 completely different things. This release is talking about growth rates. Clearly reclassifying the FE workers as private exaggerated the growth of the private sector and understated the continuing increase in the size of the state sector.
But it has nothing to do with wage rates which is what we were discussing. To demonstrate this for less than 1% of the private sector workforce to reduce average earnings by 0.8% they would have to cut their wages by over 80%. I think my wife would have told me.
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
Another Dave - Further details from the conservative home poll
•34% of Conservative Party member respondents agreed that Cameron is the heir to Blair - "The Government he leads is essentially content not to depart from the economic and social settlement that Blair's governments left behind them". •11% agreed that Cameron is the heir to Thatcher - "The Government he leads is attempting to follow the same economic and social path as the governments she led." •55% believe that Cameron is the heir to neither. "His Government is following its own path, which is significantly different in both economic and social matters from Blair's and Thatcher's."
•46% of member respondents believe that it is most likely to be successful by moving on from the Thatcher era, because although what she did was right for her times, today's economic and social challenges require different responses. •43% believe that it is most likely to be successful by following the path she trod, because the approach she took and the policies she implemented are more likely to be successful than those of the present Government.
70.5% of member respondents believe that Ian Duncan Smith can correctly be described as a Thatcherite. The only other Cabinet members who scored above 50% on the same measure were William Hague (63%) and Michael Gove (61%). Owen Paterson scored 35%. George Osborne got 34.5%. Maria Miller came bottom of the Conservative Cabinet members in the Commons with 3.7%.
Duncan Smith also topped the poll when member respondents were asked which Cabinet member was closest to Lady Thatcher in outlook. He was named by 22% of them. Hague was second with 17% and Gove third with 14%. Paterson was fourth with 10%. Osborne scored 6%.
Less than an hour until the Bahrain Grand Prix. Pretty intrigued to see how it turns out, as there are numerous cars out of position and Ferrari have cars side-by-side but split on strategy.
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
I have not been to the Gurnos Estate, but I know there are plenty of parts of the Haverstock School catchment area I would not walk around in after dark. There are stabbings and shootings on a pretty regular basis, with police helicopters overhead most nights.
Another Dave - Further details from the conservative home poll
•34% of Conservative Party member respondents agreed that Cameron is the heir to Blair - "The Government he leads is essentially content not to depart from the economic and social settlement that Blair's governments left behind them". •11% agreed that Cameron is the heir to Thatcher - "The Government he leads is attempting to follow the same economic and social path as the governments she led." •55% believe that Cameron is the heir to neither. "His Government is following its own path, which is significantly different in both economic and social matters from Blair's and Thatcher's."
•46% of member respondents believe that it is most likely to be successful by moving on from the Thatcher era, because although what she did was right for her times, today's economic and social challenges require different responses. •43% believe that it is most likely to be successful by following the path she trod, because the approach she took and the policies she implemented are more likely to be successful than those of the present Government.
70.5% of member respondents believe that Ian Duncan Smith can correctly be described as a Thatcherite. The only other Cabinet members who scored above 50% on the same measure were William Hague (63%) and Michael Gove (61%). Owen Paterson scored 35%. George Osborne got 34.5%. Maria Miller came bottom of the Conservative Cabinet members in the Commons with 3.7%.
Duncan Smith also topped the poll when member respondents were asked which Cabinet member was closest to Lady Thatcher in outlook. He was named by 22% of them. Hague was second with 17% and Gove third with 14%. Paterson was fourth with 10%. Osborne scored 6%.
I'm surprised Owen Paterson didn't score higher. He strikes me as the best of the bunch.
Regulation, he says, is not just a headache but the thief of time. ‘Government can wreck a business by confiscating its money by taxation. But confiscating its time is absolutely critical too, and I think, sadly, not enough people in government have tried to run a small business. Time that small businesses devote to regulation is time they are not ringing up a customer, not looking at the product or visiting a supplier. And that I think that is not understood.’
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
I have not been to the Gurnos Estate, but I know there are plenty of parts of the Haverstock School catchment area I would not walk around in after dark. There are stabbings and shootings on a pretty regular basis, with police helicopters overhead most nights.
Fair comment. Always strikes me about London ( as an outsider that knows it fairly well I suppose) how the serious money is often right next to areas of relative deprivation. I'm sure that effect exists elsewhere of course but it does seem pronounced there.
On house prices, last week a place three or four doors down the road from us sold within days and achieved the full asking price. We are currently being bombarded by estate agent letters saying demand for places in the area is high etc etc. If that is happening around te country (or at least in margiunal constituencies like ours) that may well create some kind of feel good factor.
A basement flat is for sale about three doors down from my flat (indeed you can see my car in the rightmove photo!)
Who the Frack pays SEVEN HUNDRED GRAND for a small basement flat?
But... anyway... yes, it's clear to me - as I've been saying for some months - that property is on the rebound. It started in prime central London a couple of years ago, but it is now rippling across the south of England, and beyond, boosted by Osborne's schemes. This *could* be significant.
Primrose Hill: didn't Ed go to the local inner city comp there and make much of it in a broadcast? Must be tough area when basement flats would buy a street in Merthyr .... Still prolier than thou is a good line I suppose when the other two are Eton and Westminster.
They all beat the comp I went to I'm sure :-)
He went to Haverstock Comp, up towards Hampstead. It's known as "Labour's Eton", though it's quite a mixed state school. Primrose Hill, where he and his brother lived til recently, is infinitely posher now than it was 30 years ago. In the 50s and early 60s Primrose Hill was positively grimy and down-at-heel. A remarkable transformation.
Yes indeed - that part of London is very different to how it was when I was a boy (and when Ed was too). I can remember the Angel and Upper Street being pokey places to avoid, while Kentish Towm, Camden Town, Tufnell Park and the like were all solidly working class, with a few bohemians and down at heel professionals thrown in. A lot of the big houses you see in all those places were actually council owned and only entered the private sector during the 80s.
Ukip voters being less likely to believe MMR is safe enough - if it's true - would be an extension of a general lack of trust in the political class based on all sorts of direct personal experience
for example the gang culture in London which has got slowly worse over the last 40 years because the BBC and political class pretended it didn't exist.
"an interim report revealed that a hard core of muggers carry out an alarming number of gang rapes in London, with an average of one attack for every day of the last year."
"comes as youth workers and sex crime experts across the country call for an urgent inquiry into the cause of the surge in rapes, particularly those committed by teenagers as part of gang initiation rites. The latest Home Office figures show that one-third of all sex crimes are now committed by offenders under 21. The number of rapes by gangs of youths has risen sharply in recent years, mirroring a dramatic rise in gang culture and gun crime."
One a day is around 1000 every three years. That's a lot of families, friends and relatives that know the BBC and political class can't be trusted - still a long way away from a majority of course but 40 years ago it was maybe 1% of the population knew the truth whereas now it's maybe 10-15%.
And that's just one example - another obvious one is the political class' coverup of industrial scale child abuse that was going on in 30-40 labour constituencies.
It amazes me anyone believes a word the political class say about anything.
However, by no conceivable stretch of language can Maggie be characterised as a 'chum of the City'. Quite the opposite, in fact: she was most un-chummy with it.
AnotherDave - Indeed, I voted for Paterson as most Thatcherite, which by any objective measure he is, anti-gay marriage, pro-grammar school (Thatcher seemed to regret her actions as education secretary and in her later years was a frequent attendee at Brady's pro-grammar school meetings), fiercely eurosceptic, for slashing taxes and spending etc. It is probably just name recognition, after all Hague and IDS were the Thatcherite leadership candidates in 1997 and 2001 and Gove has been in the headlines frequently, so in some respects Paterson did well to come 4th and rightly beat Osborne who is more of a moderniser
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
I have not been to the Gurnos Estate, but I know there are plenty of parts of the Haverstock School catchment area I would not walk around in after dark. There are stabbings and shootings on a pretty regular basis, with police helicopters overhead most nights.
Fair comment. Always strikes me about London ( as an outsider that knows it fairly well I suppose) how the serious money is often right next to areas of relative deprivation. I'm sure that effect exists elsewhere of course but it does seem pronounced there.
London has always been like that. What is chaging now, though, is that you do not get the people in the middle, at least in inner London. It's either council estates, many of which are decidely dodgy, or Victorian and Edwardian housing owned by incredibly rich people or retirees who bought 30 or 40 years ago.
However, by no conceivable stretch of language can Maggie be characterised as a 'chum of the City'. Quite the opposite, in fact: she was most un-chummy with it.
She was very chummy with its post-85 incarnation, hence the cheering crowds in Fleet Street and up Ludgate Hill last week.
Not many examples of a similar nature ( fluoride in water maybe? Motorcycle helmets?) I'd be on the side of, but this one does seem clear enough.
Motorcycle helmets are emphatically not similar! The only harm from not wearing one is to the person themselves, not to anyone else.
Completely and ludicrously untrue!
Do you think if you die on the road due to not putting on a helmet that you're the only one affected?
There's your own friends and family - who'd have thought they wouldn't count at least? There's the first responders who have to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your mess. There's potentially another driver who has the trauma for the rest of their life potentially of being in a fatal accisent, even if they're not to blame. For fatal rashes there's typically road closures which can create traffic mayhem for thousands of commuters, especially if its on a motorway.
The list goes on and on. You may not think a road closure meaning it takes an hour more for me and thousands of others to get to where we need to be (happens far too often on the M62) is a big deal, but its our roads too. If you want to flout the laws of the road do so on your own private land and private roads, once your on public roads the rest of us get impacted by idiots far too often.
Thatcher suspected Heath was gay according to Bill Deedes
“It is possible that Mrs Thatcher was also ambitious enough to be dropping a hint, at a time when such things were considered a source of shame, that Heath was homosexual. Many at the time believed that he was. WF Deedes [former Tory minister, then editor of The Daily Telegraph] noted a private conversation with Mrs Thatcher in 1976: “M. seems convinced TH is a homosexual. (Women have more accurate instincts than we.) I said charitably: "an instinct sublimated in boats!’
To demonstrate this for less than 1% of the private sector workforce to reduce average earnings by 0.8% they would have to cut their wages by over 80%. I think my wife would have told me.
No, less than 1% of the private sector workforce could reduce average earnings in the private sector by 0.1% to 0.2% (not 0.8% - that's the impact on the smaller public sector) simply by having wages that are about 80% of the average of the private sector. This is completely plausible (as the ONS report shows). It does not require anyone having a wage cut of 80% (in fact it doesnt require anyone having a wage cut at all).
However, by no conceivable stretch of language can Maggie be characterised as a 'chum of the City'. Quite the opposite, in fact: she was most un-chummy with it.
She was very chummy with its post-85 incarnation, hence the cheering crowds in Fleet Street and up Ludgate Hill last week.
Just because the post-85 version liked her does not mean she was overly chummy with them.
She was very chummy with its post-85 incarnation, hence the cheering crowds in Fleet Street and up Ludgate Hill last week.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding her relationship with the City, which was anything but chummy, and in any case you seem to be (a) assuming the crowd at her funeral comprised the City, and (b) confusing admiration with chuminess.
Were those Londoners who cheered Churchill chummy with him?
"The Prime Minister vented his fury after being given no choice but to climb down over proposals aiming to make it easier to build home extensions without planning permission. ‘Who does that man think he’s accountable to?’ Mr Cameron raged when Mr Goldsmith went back on a pledge to Ministers and led a Tory revolt in the Commons."
Ukip voters being less likely to believe MMR is safe enough - if it's true - would be an extension of a general lack of trust in the political class based on all sorts of direct personal experience
for example the gang culture in London which has got slowly worse over the last 40 years because the BBC and political class pretended it didn't exist.
"an interim report revealed that a hard core of muggers carry out an alarming number of gang rapes in London, with an average of one attack for every day of the last year."
"comes as youth workers and sex crime experts across the country call for an urgent inquiry into the cause of the surge in rapes, particularly those committed by teenagers as part of gang initiation rites. The latest Home Office figures show that one-third of all sex crimes are now committed by offenders under 21. The number of rapes by gangs of youths has risen sharply in recent years, mirroring a dramatic rise in gang culture and gun crime."
One a day is around 1000 every three years. That's a lot of families, friends and relatives that know the BBC and political class can't be trusted - still a long way away from a majority of course but 40 years ago it was maybe 1% of the population knew the truth whereas now it's maybe 10-15%.
And that's just one example - another obvious one is the political class' coverup of industrial scale child abuse that was going on in 30-40 labour constituencies.
It amazes me anyone believes a word the political class say about anything.
It is a worrying trend and out of kilter with other crime stats which would tend to suggest that there is an additional factor such as the initiation idea although it could be more reporting as the BBC suggests. Either way I don't think it is true to say that the BBC do not cover the story although our political class could certainly be more vocal about it.
Then why do you think MMR take up has risen in the last few years. Racial conspiracy theories can't explain that.
I don't know anything about MMR. I just felt like using it to illustrate why not trusting the BBC and political class is perfectly understandable for the growing percentage of people who know from personal experience that the BBC and political class lie about all sorts of very serious things.
On topic, the more right-wing you are the less likely you are to believe what the government tells you without questioning it, so it makes sense that more UKIP supporters don't trust the MMR.
Of course that will probably allow vaccine experts and unemployed Labour supporting scientific genuises to paint all UKIP supporters as nutjobs (I can't load the older comments to check for some reason).
She was very chummy with its post-85 incarnation, hence the cheering crowds in Fleet Street and up Ludgate Hill last week.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding her relationship with the City, which was anything but chummy, and in any case you seem to be (a) assuming the crowd at her funeral comprised the City, and (b) confusing admiration with chuminess.
Were those Londoners who cheered Churchill chummy with him?
I do not hold the same view as you Richard. That does not mean I do not know what I am talking about. It could actually mean that you do not know what you are talking about!
Ukip voters being less likely to believe MMR is safe enough - if it's true - would be an extension of a general lack of trust in the political class based on all sorts of direct personal experience
for example the gang culture in London which has got slowly worse over the last 40 years because the BBC and political class pretended it didn't exist.
"an interim report revealed that a hard core of muggers carry out an alarming number of gang rapes in London, with an average of one attack for every day of the last year."
"comes as youth workers and sex crime experts across the country call for an urgent inquiry into the cause of the surge in rapes, particularly those committed by teenagers as part of gang initiation rites. The latest Home Office figures show that one-third of all sex crimes are now committed by offenders under 21. The number of rapes by gangs of youths has risen sharply in recent years, mirroring a dramatic rise in gang culture and gun crime."
One a day is around 1000 every three years. That's a lot of families, friends and relatives that know the BBC and political class can't be trusted - still a long way away from a majority of course but 40 years ago it was maybe 1% of the population knew the truth whereas now it's maybe 10-15%.
And that's just one example - another obvious one is the political class' coverup of industrial scale child abuse that was going on in 30-40 labour constituencies.
It amazes me anyone believes a word the political class say about anything.
It is a worrying trend and out of kilter with other crime stats which would tend to suggest that there is an additional factor such as the initiation idea although it could be more reporting as the BBC suggests. Either way I don't think it is true to say that the BBC do not cover the story although our political class could certainly be more vocal about it.
When the BBC have spent as much time on the 6 o' clock news talking about the 1000s of gang rapes within a few miles of Broadcasting House as they spent talking about celeb phones then i'll agree with you.
and *more* vocal is a bit disingenuous when the current level of vocalizing is zero.
She was very chummy with its post-85 incarnation, hence the cheering crowds in Fleet Street and up Ludgate Hill last week.
You don't know what you are talking about regarding her relationship with the City, which was anything but chummy, and in any case you seem to be (a) assuming the crowd at her funeral comprised the City, and (b) confusing admiration with chuminess.
Were those Londoners who cheered Churchill chummy with him?
I do not hold the same view as you Richard. That does not mean I do not know what I am talking about. It could actually mean that you do not know what you are talking about!
I know what I am talking about and I can tell you Richard is right.
Hahahaha....Labour proposes to stop people for spiralling into debt by....lending them more money!!!!
Seriously, you just couldn't make it up. And the incentive to return to work when facing such high marginal rates of tax/repayment would be??? And the debts that would end up be written off are to be funded how?
As they fill in that sheet of paper the tories have some real hope.
Then you'll be seeing the rise in uptake of MMR as a sign that trust has risen will you?
As I said earlier Tim, the interesting point is that although only 2% of Lib Dems don't trust the MMR jab, fully 25% of them have not had their children vaccinated. To me that shows a pretty reckless attitude, far worse than those who have doubts but who decide to have their children vaccinated anyway.
@MrJones Then you'll be seeing the rise in uptake of MMR as a sign that trust has risen will you?
No idea. Pointing out some of the reasons why a large-ish minority don't trust the BBC or political class makes a good counter-point to jabs about fruitcakes not believing in MMR.
Then you'll be seeing the rise in uptake of MMR as a sign that trust has risen will you?
As I said earlier Tim, the interesting point is that although only 2% of Lib Dems don't trust the MMR jab, fully 25% of them have not had their children vaccinated. To me that shows a pretty reckless attitude, far worse than those who have doubts but who decide to have their children vaccinated anyway.
Welcome back, Mr. Tyndall.
Does your finding that UKIP supporters will mouth off in opposition to a policy then act sensibly mean that they can be expected to return to the fold in 2015 and vote for a party which will deliver an IN/OUT referendum?
Does your finding that UKIP supporters will mouth off in opposition to a policy then act sensibly mean that they can be expected to return to the fold in 2015 and vote for a party which will deliver an IN/OUT referendum?
Completely different issues. One is a matter of trusting doctors, the other of trusting politicians. So no, the vain hope held by some Tories that they will be saved by an en masse return to the fold by UKIP supporters is going to be dashed. There will of course be some return - that is inevitable. But as it stands Cameron's promises are not something most UKIP supporters will trust.
Does your finding that UKIP supporters will mouth off in opposition to a policy then act sensibly mean that they can be expected to return to the fold in 2015 and vote for a party which will deliver an IN/OUT referendum?
Completely different issues. One is a matter of trusting doctors, the other of trusting politicians. So no, the vain hope held by some Tories that they will be saved by an en masse return to the fold by UKIP supporters is going to be dashed. There will of course be some return - that is inevitable. But as it stands Cameron's promises are not something most UKIP supporters will trust.
Ah, I see.
You are a rare breed. An intelligent kipper, mostly motivated I guess by the EU issue, although I may have misunderstood your views on Pullman trains.
I don't think it is mistrust of Cameron which is driving votes. I see no logical or experiential reason for trusting Cameron less, for example, than Farage,
Much more likely to be the problem is opposition to Cameron's policy on the EU rather than lack of belief in his intent to deliver on a referendum promise.
Cameron is an EU reformer, who wants to win a referendum to stay in on the basis of a "new settlement". He is likely therefore to offer an IN/OUT referendum at a time when he is best positioned to achieve his desired outcome.
Still it must be better for true BOOs to have a referendum and argue their case than vote in a government which will never offer the public a choice.
I fear this issue is closer to the vaccine conundrum than you protest.
Yes, it is used for access to the admin of the Wordpress website.
One of the first things I do when setting up a WP site is to remove the Meta widget from the sidebar to stop anyone getting ideas about accessing the Admin Dashboard and doing naughty things. You can still access the admin dashboard by using the wp-login.php at anytime
There is a major hacking attempt on WP sites at the moment as most users are listed as "admin" and the password is cracked using programs that can attempt several passwords a second - so guess what, I don't use "admin" and I have a lock plugin that stops more than 3 attempts with a false password.
"The party (UKIP) is fielding a lot of candidates in Manchester, where the Tories barely exist, a sign that Ukip has ambitions to establish itself as a challenger to Labour in the north of England"
You are a rare breed. An intelligent kipper, mostly motivated I guess by the EU issue, although I may have misunderstood your views on Pullman trains.
I don't think it is mistrust of Cameron which is driving votes. I see no logical or experiential reason for trusting Cameron less, for example, than Farage,
Much more likely to be the problem is opposition to Cameron's policy on the EU rather than lack of belief in his intent to deliver on a referendum promise.
Cameron is an EU reformer, who wants to win a referendum to stay in on the basis of a "new settlement". He is likely therefore to offer an IN/OUT referendum at a time when he is most likely to achieve his desired outcome.
Still it must be better for true BOOs to have a referendum and argue their case than vote in a government which will never offer the public a choice.
I fear this issue is closer to the vaccine conundrum than you protest.
I am not sure what is driving the increase in UKIP vote at the moment. I think it is many things - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.
Clearly the ongoing Euro crisis and the response to it by the EU has had some impact. The disregard the EU has shown to the wishes of the populations in Greece and Cyprus has not won them many friends and I think this has hardened opposition in the UK and so made UKIP more attractive. Appearing to have been proved right about the undemocratic nature of the EU can only help Farage.
I also think there is a clear element of a pox on all your houses as far as the Three main parties are concerned which also helps UKIP.
There is also clearly an element of success breeding success. The fact that UKIP are showing strongly in polls, winning council seats in by-elections and performing very well in Parliamentary by-elections helps to make them seem more acceptable as an alternative.
But - and for me it is a big but - I do also think there is an element of the less savory which is also driving the UKIP growth. A lot of people still object to the Same Sex Marriage by Cameron which is supported by the other two parties. Farage has - mistakenly in my opinion - exploited this and tried to position UKIP as the party of 'old fashioned values'. Whatever they might be. In doing so he has made a calculation that people like me who are primarily UKIP supporters because of the EU issue will not jump ship even though we wish for a far more Libertarian stance by the party. And at the same time he believes he will attract a lot of converts from those in both Labour and the Tories who are socially conservative and who disagree with the stance of the main parties.
Unfortunately he is a politician and his prime interest is in gaining support. It seems to me that although there are a lot of different factors driving support for UKIP, he has calculated that the dog whistle issue of Same Sex Marriage is one which will at least get people looking at UKIP and considering supporting them. I am afraid that in that calculation he may well have turned out to be correct.
I still hope that there are enough of us within the party that we can make an impact and that once UKIP has a breakthrough we might be able to push the party back towards a more Libertarian approach on sexuality to match it's anti-statist position on other issues. But I would be very foolish to try and claim that that is by any means a certainty.
Capped at £200 a week it is going to be pretty useless for majority of working people with mortgages.
Why?
Because you could not live on it , my mortgage is more than that , my council tax is £60 a week, phone and energy , over £50. So unless they hand out subsidised social housing with it it is useless. If they made it relative to what you pay in then it may be livable.
"The party (UKIP) is fielding a lot of candidates in Manchester, where the Tories barely exist, a sign that Ukip has ambitions to establish itself as a challenger to Labour in the north of England"
They are not voting in Manchester this May!
How much these journalists are paid?
You'd think the Guardian, of all papers, would know better!
One of the reasons I rarely comment on here these days is the cheap tawdry nature of the propaganda that the site owner comes up with. This blog has turned into the Sunday Sport of blogs. 10% of the vote makes a headline does it? Its not even worth a margin of error comments
So what do you think happens now at much lower levels of support?
And the average mortgage is around £130k in this country, repayments of £400 a month on interest only.
You seem to be arguing that it's not enough,but you usually argue benefits are too high
Yes they are too high and most to people who have not and will not contribute to society. If they had to pay less to the feckless they could look after the people who really need it a lot better. Compare people who have contributed serious amounts over the years who would get less than the layabouts if they were unlucky enough to lose their jobs. Anyone on benefits more than 3 months should have to do 40 hours work a week or no more money, plenty of things needing done.
You are a rare breed. An intelligent kipper, mostly motivated I guess by the EU issue, although I may have misunderstood your views on Pullman trains.
I don't think it is mistrust of Cameron which is driving votes. I see no logical or experiential reason for trusting Cameron less, for example, than Farage,
Much more likely to be the problem is opposition to Cameron's policy on the EU rather than lack of belief in his intent to deliver on a referendum promise.
Cameron is an EU reformer, who wants to win a referendum to stay in on the basis of a "new settlement". He is likely therefore to offer an IN/OUT referendum at a time when he is most likely to achieve his desired outcome.
Still it must be better for true BOOs to have a referendum and argue their case than vote in a government which will never offer the public a choice.
I fear this issue is closer to the vaccine conundrum than you protest.
I am not sure what is driving the increase in UKIP vote at the moment. I think it is many things - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.
Clearly the ongoing Euro crisis and the response to it by the EU has had some impact. The disregard the EU has shown to the wishes of the populations in Greece and Cyprus has not won them many friends and I think this has hardened opposition in the UK and so made UKIP more attractive. Appearing to have been proved right about the undemocratic nature of the EU can only help Farage.
I also think there is a clear element of a pox on all your houses as far as the Three main parties are concerned which also helps UKIP.
There is also clearly an element of success breeding success. The fact that UKIP are showing strongly in polls, winning council seats in by-elections and performing very well in Parliamentary by-elections helps to make them seem more acceptable as an alternative.
But - and for me it is a big but - I do also think there is an element of the less savory which is also driving the UKIP growth. A lot of people still object to the Same Sex Marriage by Cameron which is supported by the other two parties. Farage has - mistakenly in my opinion - exploited this and tried to position UKIP as the party of 'old fashioned values'. Whatever they might be. In doing so he has made a calculation that people like me who are primarily UKIP supporters because of the EU issue will not jump ship even though we wish for a far more Libertarian stance by the party. And at the same time he believes he will attract a lot of converts from those in both Labour and the Tories who are socially conservative and who disagree with the stance of the main parties.
Unfortunately he is a politician and his prime interest is in gaining support. It seems to me that although there are a lot of different factors driving support for UKIP, he has calculated that the dog whistle issue of Same Sex Marriage is one which will at least get people looking at UKIP and considering supporting them. I am afraid that in that calculation he may well have turned out to be correct.
I still hope that there are enough of us within the party that we can make an impact and that once UKIP has a breakthrough we might be able to push the party back towards a more Libertarian approach on sexuality to match it's anti-statist position on other issues. But I would be very foolish to try and claim that that is by any means a certainty.
Rapid uncontrolled growth is always dangerous. It encourages delusion and increases the likelihood of unintended consequence.
The delusion risk is that UKIP attempts to create a policy platform to match the two and half main parties and thereby dilutes its foundational cause. UKIP voters and politicians will start chasing issues which are topical and popular without regard to how they interrelate with the core message on the EU. We are already beginning to see this with the scare stories on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration which has its roots in the EU policy of free movement of labour but has become far more a racist banner behind which the unsavoury can rally.
Your comments on same sex marriage and the retreat from libertarianism are related. The central message is becoming diluted.
My second bugbear with UKIP is its absolutism. Public policy has to acceptable to supporters, suitable to the environment in which it is being applied and feasible to implement. UKIP gives the impression that it is only interested in the appeal of its policies to supporters rather than their suitability or feasibility. This is fine for a party of protest but it doesn't inspire confidence in rational voters who are looking to elect a governing party.
I would far prefer Farage to concentrate on the FCO Audit of Competences exercise and join in with Hague in a closer analysis and public communication of the role of the EU, than to hear his views on social issues.
You are quite right that the undemocratic nature of the EU is its core weakness and unless addressed will undoubtedly be its downfall. It is what is driving Cameron's desire for reform and Farage's for exit.
I feel 2014 is likely to be a decisive year. Merkel will have been reelected, the US will be pushing the cause of expansionary stimulus and the PIIGS countries will be a critical further year down the path of austerity. If the payback of pain is not being felt then demands for radical change will become louder and more violent.
The cards are in the air. Those politicians capable of catching them first and rearranging them into a coherent hand will win.
But obviously by the very nature of this scheme it would help those who have worked, who take on financial responsibilities, up to the first six months of unemployment. It's more than current benefit level which is "too high" but you claim it's not enough.
I don't know what your issue is with it, same goes for DavidL who seemingly would prefer that the person gets racks up debt to the mortgage provider or another lender.
Better than nothing but does not address the huge problems in the current system, too many people getting benefits for nothing. They should be tied to contributions and not subsiding low pay , childcare , lazy gets , etc. Fit Labour better to plan how they will make it impossible for large corporations to pay miserable wages, avoid paying tax etc, but given they are just Tories in disguise they would rather tinker on the edges and come up with stupid sticking plasters rather than tackle the problem.
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
Ring fencing the government budget is a stupid idea. You get into the ridiculous situation the US is in, where social security and medicare are protected, meaning that spending cuts always hit everything else. The result is that old people have their sacred cows continue in perpetuity, while all the important growth things like R&D, infrastructure and education get slashed.
On topic: Why should we be surprised ? This "support" is from the nutters who will always blame someone else. Previously, some of them voted Tory [ as they were the other immigrant bashing vehicle ] and the rest were protesters.
Today they are under the UKIP banner. How long that will last ? I am not sure. But I am pretty sure their votes in the GE 2015 will not be less than 6%. I'd say of the additional 3% from 2010, 2% will otherwise have voted Tory.
One of the reasons I rarely comment on here these days is the cheap tawdry nature of the propaganda that the site owner comes up with. This blog has turned into the Sunday Sport of blogs. 10% of the vote makes a headline does it? Its not even worth a margin of error comments
I agree with you that this is the most miniscule of miniscule issues: the difference of one in twenty UKIP voters versus Labour voters on a very minor political issue. However, Mike does have to start new threads several times a day. On slow news days that means scraping the barrel a bit, and I think the political prejudices of anyone would show in that situation.
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
"The party (UKIP) is fielding a lot of candidates in Manchester, where the Tories barely exist, a sign that Ukip has ambitions to establish itself as a challenger to Labour in the north of England"
They are not voting in Manchester this May!
How much these journalists are paid?
You'd think the Guardian, of all papers, would know better!
The main purpose of his article was to take a cheap shot at Miliband like all Blairites are doing now. Of course, they are too lazy to do their homework.
One of the reasons I rarely comment on here these days is the cheap tawdry nature of the propaganda that the site owner comes up with. This blog has turned into the Sunday Sport of blogs. 10% of the vote makes a headline does it? Its not even worth a margin of error comments
We survived without you and I'm sure will do so in the future too. Goodbye !
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
At the risk of sounding economically perverse: nice and high at about 5% please for a 15 yr gilt. That should sort out most pension defecits and counteract 16 years of dividend pension tax :-)
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
At the risk of sounding economically perverse: nice and high at about 5% please for a 15 yr gilt. That should sort out most pension defecits and counteract 16 years of dividend pension tax :-)
Logically, the 10 year gilt should reach about 3% and that will, in fact, be a sign of normality.
However, you can bet your last pound that the PBTories and the Tory parties propaganda then will be: we left gilt rates at historical lows [ of course, not mentioning the continuing pouring of QE money ]
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
At the risk of sounding economically perverse: nice and high at about 5% please for a 15 yr gilt. That should sort out most pension defecits and counteract 16 years of dividend pension tax :-)
So the debt problem "blowing up" means bond yields reverting to their 1997 to 2005 average? I'm sceptical, but even if it happened, it doesn't sound like much of a crisis. I'd quite happily take that to get people back to work.
One of the reasons I rarely comment on here these days is the cheap tawdry nature of the propaganda that the site owner comes up with. This blog has turned into the Sunday Sport of blogs. 10% of the vote makes a headline does it? Its not even worth a margin of error comments
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
At the risk of sounding economically perverse: nice and high at about 5% please for a 15 yr gilt. That should sort out most pension defecits and counteract 16 years of dividend pension tax :-)
Logically, the 10 year gilt should reach about 3% and that will, in fact, be a sign of normality.
However, you can bet your last pound that the PBTories and the Tory parties propaganda then will be: we left gilt rates at historical lows [ of course, not mentioning the continuing pouring of QE money ]
Thing is, I am seriously unconvinced low interest rates and gilt yields are all that brilliant at all, given they are crucifying the spending power of those with savings and ( as stated before) are bending pension schemes out of shape causing companies to hose cash down artificially created black holes to fill those schemes up again thereby depressing investment in plant and new productive capacity.
The counter argument is of course without low rates many would've gone to the wall ( especially in the housing market) lowering prices and causing issues there. Nevertheless I can state with utter clarity that a nice rise to more normal gilt rates would be by far the best thing that could happen to our company, and would correct another of the disincentives there have been over the years not to save enough.
The govt and opposition know we have to save more long term but also know we need the demand now so both are left with variations of policy best described as "Lord makes us virtuous, but not quite yet".
This is an interesting exchange from the father of the alleged Boston bombers:
Q Did he want to be an American citizen?
A. He wanted to, of course. Why not?
Q. But it didn’t work out, right?
A. Because with his girlfriend, there was a scandal. He hit her lightly. He was locked up for half an hour. There was jealousy there. He paid $250, that was it, he went home. Because of that — in America you can’t touch a woman, they wouldn’t give him citizenship.
A. Because of that they didn’t give him citizenship?
Q. He had gone through the interview, that was it. But they said, he said, they will check the federal authorities, when they check me they will give it. He would have been granted it, he passed the interview. Now we have a new system where they check young people. Because he is a Muslim, I think, and a Chechen, too.
That's right. Tsarnaev believes it's Islamophobic to deny citizenship to someone because they're a wife-beater. Rather reminiscent of certain posters on here, who cry "bigotry" towards any criticism of people that are Muslims. In reality, this is the sort of viewpoint among Muslim immigrants we need to stamp out. And also not let more in with similar views.
We should not discriminate against any religion in immigration policy, but we should certainly discriminate against views that contradict Western beliefs in democracy, equal rights and human liberty. If such a policy hits one religious group harder, so be it.
This is an interesting exchange from the father of the alleged Boston bombers:
Q Did he want to be an American citizen?
A. He wanted to, of course. Why not?
Q. But it didn’t work out, right?
A. Because with his girlfriend, there was a scandal. He hit her lightly. He was locked up for half an hour. There was jealousy there. He paid $250, that was it, he went home. Because of that — in America you can’t touch a woman, they wouldn’t give him citizenship.
A. Because of that they didn’t give him citizenship?
Q. He had gone through the interview, that was it. But they said, he said, they will check the federal authorities, when they check me they will give it. He would have been granted it, he passed the interview. Now we have a new system where they check young people. Because he is a Muslim, I think, and a Chechen, too.
That's right. Tsarnaev believes it's Islamophobic to deny citizenship to someone because they're a wife-beater. Rather reminiscent of certain posters on here, who cry "bigotry" towards any criticism of people that are Muslims. In reality, this is the sort of viewpoint among Muslim immigrants we need to stamp out. And also not let more in with similar views.
We should not discriminate against any religion in immigration policy, but we should certainly discriminate against views that contradict Western beliefs in democracy, equal rights and human liberty. If such a policy hits one religious group harder, so be it.
That is almost as tasty bait for Tim as the thread leader! A Muslim MMR honey trap!
One of the reasons I rarely comment on here these days is the cheap tawdry nature of the propaganda that the site owner comes up with. This blog has turned into the Sunday Sport of blogs. 10% of the vote makes a headline does it? Its not even worth a margin of error comments
We survived without you and I'm sure will do so in the future too. Goodbye !
Oh thats perfectly charming of you, surbiton.
Actually, smithersjones2013, you are welcome to the fold and do say what you like.
Looks like the US authorities did their job. Socrates implies particular religious or racial groups have a greater tendency to domestic violence, has he any evidence? We shall no doubt see if he backs it up.
Come on tim, Socrates said no such thing. As for implications; look to thyself.
My last post got me wondering about whether we have any data on domestic violence by ethnic group. Here is a US woman's rights group:
Various groups experience domestic violence at disproportionate rates. The NVAWS found that African-American and Native American/Alaskan Indian women and men reported higher rates of domestic violence than did women and men from other communities of color(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), while Asian/Pacific Islander women and men tended to report lower rates of intimate partner violence than did women and men from other minority backgrounds(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). It also found that 23.4% of Hispanic/Latina women had been domestic violence victims in their lifetime(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that African-American women experienced domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than Caucasian women(Rennison & Welchans, 2000).
Domestic violence affects women from all ethnic groups, and there is no evidence to suggest that women from some ethnic or cultural communities are any more at risk than others.
Surprise, surprise. The US investigates the issue and documents the facts in an effort to better protect women. The UK doesn't look into it because it might come up with some non-PC answers.
PS. I see while researching this post that tim actually asked the same question. Just to confirm, I'm still not going back on my policy of not engaging with you.
Labours answer to the debt problem they created is more debt. Mind you the Tories are playing along as well. Should blow up nicely in a couple of years, hopefully when Labour are back in power.
What would "blowing up nicely" entail? How high are you predicting UK bond yields will go?
At the risk of sounding economically perverse: nice and high at about 5% please for a 15 yr gilt. That should sort out most pension defecits and counteract 16 years of dividend pension tax :-)
So the debt problem "blowing up" means bond yields reverting to their 1997 to 2005 average? I'm sceptical, but even if it happened, it doesn't sound like much of a crisis. I'd quite happily take that to get people back to work.
Sorry I accidentally pressed " off topic" and I have no idea how to delete it. All thumbs today I am.
My gilt comment was more if a heartfelt plea than a forecast :-)
Comments
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21576437-better-policing-only-one-reason-why-despite-persistent-economic-slump-and-high-youth?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/downthesenotsomeanstreets
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/04/one-in-three-tory-members-think-cameron-is-the-heir-to-blair.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-what-hope-if-germany-is-floundering-8581266.html
My wife works in FE in Scotland. Although she has forgotten the last time she had a wage increase and although there have been redundancies wages for those still in post have not been cut.
Do you have a source for your comments? I have to say it seems extremely unlikely that is right. There are nearly 25m working in the private sector so for 200K employees to make a difference to the average would be truly remarkable.
However, there is a corollary, which is that, when the great betrayal comes, as it must, they will be the most indignant.
They all beat the comp I went to I'm sure :-)
Either way, it's potentially one step further for the deproletariatisation of the Labour party.
See the top of page 11 off (for example) the November ONS release:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_284362.pdf
For ease of reference:
"ONS estimates that, if the reclassification [of FE colleges from public to private sector] had not occured, ... public sector growth rates would be 0.6% to 0.8% lower and private sector growth rates would be between 0.1% and 0.2% higher."
(I must admit I had forgotten there was a range in the estimates, I didnt deliberately pick the maximum figures, they were just what I remembered.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hpw
But it has nothing to do with wage rates which is what we were discussing. To demonstrate this for less than 1% of the private sector workforce to reduce average earnings by 0.8% they would have to cut their wages by over 80%. I think my wife would have told me.
Ed went to Haverstock, which is not in Primrose Hill but Chalk Farm. Its catchment area is mostly comprised of council estates now and was back when Ed was at school there too.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
•34% of Conservative Party member respondents agreed that Cameron is the heir to Blair - "The Government he leads is essentially content not to depart from the economic and social settlement that Blair's governments left behind them".
•11% agreed that Cameron is the heir to Thatcher - "The Government he leads is attempting to follow the same economic and social path as the governments she led."
•55% believe that Cameron is the heir to neither. "His Government is following its own path, which is significantly different in both economic and social matters from Blair's and Thatcher's."
•46% of member respondents believe that it is most likely to be successful by moving on from the Thatcher era, because although what she did was right for her times, today's economic and social challenges require different responses.
•43% believe that it is most likely to be successful by following the path she trod, because the approach she took and the policies she implemented are more likely to be successful than those of the present Government.
70.5% of member respondents believe that Ian Duncan Smith can correctly be described as a Thatcherite. The only other Cabinet members who scored above 50% on the same measure were William Hague (63%) and Michael Gove (61%). Owen Paterson scored 35%. George Osborne got 34.5%. Maria Miller came bottom of the Conservative Cabinet members in the Commons with 3.7%.
Duncan Smith also topped the poll when member respondents were asked which Cabinet member was closest to Lady Thatcher in outlook. He was named by 22% of them. Hague was second with 17% and Gove third with 14%. Paterson was fourth with 10%. Osborne scored 6%.
I stand corrected. I was in Chalk Farm a couple of weeks ago and it it didn't bear much resemblance to the Gurnos estate up the Valleys shall we say. I have no experience of it in the 70's mind.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
edit: for what should be obvious cost/benefit type reasons.
@ Southam Observer: sorry meant to quote you but I phone got awkward on me. Scuse stubby fingers!
I have not been to the Gurnos Estate, but I know there are plenty of parts of the Haverstock School catchment area I would not walk around in after dark. There are stabbings and shootings on a pretty regular basis, with police helicopters overhead most nights.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/court-crime/drugs_gang_who_terrorised_gospel_oak_are_jailed_1_1195209
I have not been to the Gurnos Estate, but I know there are plenty of parts of the Haverstock School catchment area I would not walk around in after dark. There are stabbings and shootings on a pretty regular basis, with police helicopters overhead most nights.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/court-crime/drugs_gang_who_terrorised_gospel_oak_are_jailed_1_1195209
Fair comment. Always strikes me about London ( as an outsider that knows it fairly well I suppose) how the serious money is often right next to areas of relative deprivation. I'm sure that effect exists elsewhere of course but it does seem pronounced there.
for example the gang culture in London which has got slowly worse over the last 40 years because the BBC and political class pretended it didn't exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/04/ukcrime.ameliahill
"an interim report revealed that a hard core of muggers carry out an alarming number of gang rapes in London, with an average of one attack for every day of the last year."
"comes as youth workers and sex crime experts across the country call for an urgent inquiry into the cause of the surge in rapes, particularly those committed by teenagers as part of gang initiation rites. The latest Home Office figures show that one-third of all sex crimes are now committed by offenders under 21. The number of rapes by gangs of youths has risen sharply in recent years, mirroring a dramatic rise in gang culture and gun crime."
One a day is around 1000 every three years. That's a lot of families, friends and relatives that know the BBC and political class can't be trusted - still a long way away from a majority of course but 40 years ago it was maybe 1% of the population knew the truth whereas now it's maybe 10-15%.
And that's just one example - another obvious one is the political class' coverup of industrial scale child abuse that was going on in 30-40 labour constituencies.
It amazes me anyone believes a word the political class say about anything.
However, by no conceivable stretch of language can Maggie be characterised as a 'chum of the City'. Quite the opposite, in fact: she was most un-chummy with it.
Plus, most people think his circuits have a tendency to be a bit shit.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/court-crime/drugs_gang_who_terrorised_gospel_oak_are_jailed_1_1195209
Fair comment. Always strikes me about London ( as an outsider that knows it fairly well I suppose) how the serious money is often right next to areas of relative deprivation. I'm sure that effect exists elsewhere of course but it does seem pronounced there.
London has always been like that. What is chaging now, though, is that you do not get the people in the middle, at least in inner London. It's either council estates, many of which are decidely dodgy, or Victorian and Edwardian housing owned by incredibly rich people or retirees who bought 30 or 40 years ago.
Do you think if you die on the road due to not putting on a helmet that you're the only one affected?
There's your own friends and family - who'd have thought they wouldn't count at least?
There's the first responders who have to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your mess.
There's potentially another driver who has the trauma for the rest of their life potentially of being in a fatal accisent, even if they're not to blame.
For fatal rashes there's typically road closures which can create traffic mayhem for thousands of commuters, especially if its on a motorway.
The list goes on and on. You may not think a road closure meaning it takes an hour more for me and thousands of others to get to where we need to be (happens far too often on the M62) is a big deal, but its our roads too. If you want to flout the laws of the road do so on your own private land and private roads, once your on public roads the rest of us get impacted by idiots far too often.
“It is possible that Mrs Thatcher was also ambitious enough to be dropping a hint, at a time when such things were considered a source of shame, that Heath was homosexual. Many at the time believed that he was. WF Deedes [former Tory minister, then editor of The Daily Telegraph] noted a private conversation with Mrs Thatcher in 1976: “M. seems convinced TH is a homosexual. (Women have more accurate instincts than we.) I said charitably: "an instinct sublimated in boats!’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312299/The-squirrel-killing-Minister-Wildlife-Environment-Secretary-Owen-Paterson-shows-photo-proudly-holding-dead-greys-hanging-traps--boasts-They-wont-that.html
Were those Londoners who cheered Churchill chummy with him?
"The Prime Minister vented his fury after being given no choice but to climb down over proposals aiming to make it easier to build home extensions without planning permission. ‘Who does that man think he’s accountable to?’ Mr Cameron raged when Mr Goldsmith went back on a pledge to Ministers and led a Tory revolt in the Commons."
This is just one of the stories that the BBC has published about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18200190
It is a worrying trend and out of kilter with other crime stats which would tend to suggest that there is an additional factor such as the initiation idea although it could be more reporting as the BBC suggests. Either way I don't think it is true to say that the BBC do not cover the story although our political class could certainly be more vocal about it.
Edit, and here we are: http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2009/03/rape-not-necessarily-a-crime-in-londonuntil-last-year/
Evidence of a substantial change in police practice, by coincidence, 4 years ago, as to how rapes are to be classified. Might explain the "spike".
Of course that will probably allow vaccine experts and unemployed Labour supporting scientific genuises to paint all UKIP supporters as nutjobs (I can't load the older comments to check for some reason).
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/04/john-glen-mp-and-jeremy-lefroy-mp-nhs-spending-should-be-paid-for-by-ring-fenced-ni-contributions.html
and *more* vocal is a bit disingenuous when the current level of vocalizing is zero.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/wp-login.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/20/labour-plans-student-style-salary-loans-unemployed
He is a Tory.
Seriously, you just couldn't make it up. And the incentive to return to work when facing such high marginal rates of tax/repayment would be??? And the debts that would end up be written off are to be funded how?
As they fill in that sheet of paper the tories have some real hope.
Does your finding that UKIP supporters will mouth off in opposition to a policy then act sensibly mean that they can be expected to return to the fold in 2015 and vote for a party which will deliver an IN/OUT referendum?
You are a rare breed. An intelligent kipper, mostly motivated I guess by the EU issue, although I may have misunderstood your views on Pullman trains.
I don't think it is mistrust of Cameron which is driving votes. I see no logical or experiential reason for trusting Cameron less, for example, than Farage,
Much more likely to be the problem is opposition to Cameron's policy on the EU rather than lack of belief in his intent to deliver on a referendum promise.
Cameron is an EU reformer, who wants to win a referendum to stay in on the basis of a "new settlement". He is likely therefore to offer an IN/OUT referendum at a time when he is best positioned to achieve his desired outcome.
Still it must be better for true BOOs to have a referendum and argue their case than vote in a government which will never offer the public a choice.
I fear this issue is closer to the vaccine conundrum than you protest.
Yes, it is used for access to the admin of the Wordpress website.
One of the first things I do when setting up a WP site is to remove the Meta widget from the sidebar to stop anyone getting ideas about accessing the Admin Dashboard and doing naughty things. You can still access the admin dashboard by using the wp-login.php at anytime
There is a major hacking attempt on WP sites at the moment as most users are listed as "admin" and the password is cracked using programs that can attempt several passwords a second - so guess what, I don't use "admin" and I have a lock plugin that stops more than 3 attempts with a false password.
Sorry for going off topic.
Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/labour-lib-dems-tories-all-beware-ukip
"The party (UKIP) is fielding a lot of candidates in Manchester, where the Tories barely exist, a sign that Ukip has ambitions to establish itself as a challenger to Labour in the north of England"
They are not voting in Manchester this May!
How much these journalists are paid?
Our Sophy finally got selected somewhere!
Still she has an impressive cv and would add far more to Labour than Ms. Bluebell Woods.
I haven't seen her speak yet so only post a video link if you think I'll approve. I would hate to spill more coffee on my keyboard!
Clearly the ongoing Euro crisis and the response to it by the EU has had some impact. The disregard the EU has shown to the wishes of the populations in Greece and Cyprus has not won them many friends and I think this has hardened opposition in the UK and so made UKIP more attractive. Appearing to have been proved right about the undemocratic nature of the EU can only help Farage.
I also think there is a clear element of a pox on all your houses as far as the Three main parties are concerned which also helps UKIP.
There is also clearly an element of success breeding success. The fact that UKIP are showing strongly in polls, winning council seats in by-elections and performing very well in Parliamentary by-elections helps to make them seem more acceptable as an alternative.
But - and for me it is a big but - I do also think there is an element of the less savory which is also driving the UKIP growth. A lot of people still object to the Same Sex Marriage by Cameron which is supported by the other two parties. Farage has - mistakenly in my opinion - exploited this and tried to position UKIP as the party of 'old fashioned values'. Whatever they might be. In doing so he has made a calculation that people like me who are primarily UKIP supporters because of the EU issue will not jump ship even though we wish for a far more Libertarian stance by the party. And at the same time he believes he will attract a lot of converts from those in both Labour and the Tories who are socially conservative and who disagree with the stance of the main parties.
Unfortunately he is a politician and his prime interest is in gaining support. It seems to me that although there are a lot of different factors driving support for UKIP, he has calculated that the dog whistle issue of Same Sex Marriage is one which will at least get people looking at UKIP and considering supporting them. I am afraid that in that calculation he may well have turned out to be correct.
I still hope that there are enough of us within the party that we can make an impact and that once UKIP has a breakthrough we might be able to push the party back towards a more Libertarian approach on sexuality to match it's anti-statist position on other issues. But I would be very foolish to try and claim that that is by any means a certainty.
Ed Milliband's rating among 2010 Lab: +22; 2013 Lab: +31
Still a significant difference in I think the most important aspect of leadership ratings.
Compare people who have contributed serious amounts over the years who would get less than the layabouts if they were unlucky enough to lose their jobs.
Anyone on benefits more than 3 months should have to do 40 hours work a week or no more money, plenty of things needing done.
The delusion risk is that UKIP attempts to create a policy platform to match the two and half main parties and thereby dilutes its foundational cause. UKIP voters and politicians will start chasing issues which are topical and popular without regard to how they interrelate with the core message on the EU. We are already beginning to see this with the scare stories on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration which has its roots in the EU policy of free movement of labour but has become far more a racist banner behind which the unsavoury can rally.
Your comments on same sex marriage and the retreat from libertarianism are related. The central message is becoming diluted.
My second bugbear with UKIP is its absolutism. Public policy has to acceptable to supporters, suitable to the environment in which it is being applied and feasible to implement. UKIP gives the impression that it is only interested in the appeal of its policies to supporters rather than their suitability or feasibility. This is fine for a party of protest but it doesn't inspire confidence in rational voters who are looking to elect a governing party.
I would far prefer Farage to concentrate on the FCO Audit of Competences exercise and join in with Hague in a closer analysis and public communication of the role of the EU, than to hear his views on social issues.
You are quite right that the undemocratic nature of the EU is its core weakness and unless addressed will undoubtedly be its downfall. It is what is driving Cameron's desire for reform and Farage's for exit.
I feel 2014 is likely to be a decisive year. Merkel will have been reelected, the US will be pushing the cause of expansionary stimulus and the PIIGS countries will be a critical further year down the path of austerity. If the payback of pain is not being felt then demands for radical change will become louder and more violent.
The cards are in the air. Those politicians capable of catching them first and rearranging them into a coherent hand will win.
Fit Labour better to plan how they will make it impossible for large corporations to pay miserable wages, avoid paying tax etc, but given they are just Tories in disguise they would rather tinker on the edges and come up with stupid sticking plasters rather than tackle the problem.
Today they are under the UKIP banner. How long that will last ? I am not sure. But I am pretty sure their votes in the GE 2015 will not be less than 6%. I'd say of the additional 3% from 2010, 2% will otherwise have voted Tory.
However, you can bet your last pound that the PBTories and the Tory parties propaganda then will be: we left gilt rates at historical lows [ of course, not mentioning the continuing pouring of QE money ]
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576418-diverging-politics-labour-north-and-conservative-south-make-england-look-ever-more
Post-race analysis (with spoilers, Mr. B!) is here: http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/bahrain-post-race-analysis.html
The counter argument is of course without low rates many would've gone to the wall ( especially in the housing market) lowering prices and causing issues there. Nevertheless I can state with utter clarity that a nice rise to more normal gilt rates would be by far the best thing that could happen to our company, and would correct another of the disincentives there have been over the years not to save enough.
The govt and opposition know we have to save more long term but also know we need the demand now so both are left with variations of policy best described as "Lord makes us virtuous, but not quite yet".
Q Did he want to be an American citizen?
A. He wanted to, of course. Why not?
Q. But it didn’t work out, right?
A. Because with his girlfriend, there was a scandal. He hit her lightly. He was locked up for half an hour. There was jealousy there. He paid $250, that was it, he went home. Because of that — in America you can’t touch a woman, they wouldn’t give him citizenship.
A. Because of that they didn’t give him citizenship?
Q. He had gone through the interview, that was it. But they said, he said, they will check the federal authorities, when they check me they will give it. He would have been granted it, he passed the interview. Now we have a new system where they check young people. Because he is a Muslim, I think, and a Chechen, too.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/updates-on-aftermath-of-boston-marathon-explosions-2/
That's right. Tsarnaev believes it's Islamophobic to deny citizenship to someone because they're a wife-beater. Rather reminiscent of certain posters on here, who cry "bigotry" towards any criticism of people that are Muslims. In reality, this is the sort of viewpoint among Muslim immigrants we need to stamp out. And also not let more in with similar views.
We should not discriminate against any religion in immigration policy, but we should certainly discriminate against views that contradict Western beliefs in democracy, equal rights and human liberty. If such a policy hits one religious group harder, so be it.
That is almost as tasty bait for Tim as the thread leader! A Muslim MMR honey trap!
Actually, smithersjones2013, you are welcome to the fold and do say what you like.
Various groups experience domestic violence at disproportionate rates. The NVAWS found that African-American and Native American/Alaskan Indian women and men reported higher rates of domestic violence than did women and men from other communities of color(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), while Asian/Pacific Islander women and men tended to report lower rates of intimate partner violence than did women and men from other minority backgrounds(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). It also found that 23.4% of Hispanic/Latina women had been domestic violence victims in their lifetime(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that African-American women experienced domestic violence at a rate 35% higher than Caucasian women(Rennison & Welchans, 2000).
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/inbriefs/domesticviolence/domesticviolence.html
Here is a UK one:
Domestic violence affects women from all ethnic groups, and there is no evidence to suggest that women from some ethnic or cultural communities are any more at risk than others.
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220045§ionTitle=BAMER+issues
Surprise, surprise. The US investigates the issue and documents the facts in an effort to better protect women. The UK doesn't look into it because it might come up with some non-PC answers.
PS. I see while researching this post that tim actually asked the same question. Just to confirm, I'm still not going back on my policy of not engaging with you.
My gilt comment was more if a heartfelt plea than a forecast :-)