Mr. Jessop, you may have a point. A few converts have been involved in terrorism, but that's still probably a disproportionately high number. In addition, I'd guess new immigrants feel at ease with their (as it were) ancestral identity and the need to fit in with their new country, whereas their children may* feel those two cultures as opposing rather than complementing one another.
*There seems to be rather huge variance amongst migrant groups. The Chinese are stellar immigrants, by all accounts.
@Antifrank "The UKIP annual conference was derailed by Godfrey Bloom's gaffe and by Nigel Farage's panicky reaction to it."
I thought that whole episode showed up UK political reporting rather than Mr Farage. The coverage of the UKIP conference (much like all the conferences) was a game of spot-the-gaffe.
I think there's a gap in the market for serious news coverage that's not being offered at present.
(Canadian & Australian political and economic news coverage reportedly improved after their domestic economic crises. That doesn't seem to have happened in the UK.)
Sean_F - Watford is one of the seats I'm most looking forward too seeing the result of.
Is TSE saying he will vote tactically for Clegg in 2015? I'm not entirely sure if he's living in Sheffield Hallam. If so, why? He's said before that Clegg has no chance of losing Sheffield Hallam, so why not vote with his heart. Apologies if TSE is referring to a different constituency.
If the rumours turn out to be true that Farage stands in Hallam then I'd vote tactically.
Not that I can foresee Farage ever winning Sheffield Hallam.
But seeing Farage humiliated maybe the only high point of GE 2015 for me.
That would be my concern. Farage standing might give Clegg victory by default. Labour need a big chunk of 2010 LD voters and to avoid Con > LD switching.
Clegg is always winning Sheffield Hallam.
it's not by default.
I keep on telling you he and the Lib Dems are popular in this part of Sheffield.
The Labour branch in Hallam do honestly feel they have a shot of taking the seat in 2015, although they think the ceiling on Labour's own vote there is about 30%, so they'd have to rely on some independents or small-party candidates to pull down Clegg's vote below that. But they feel there's an outside chance of it happening.
Incorrect on so many levels.
The Lib Dems do well in the Wards that make up Hallam, as the Fullwood by election showed.
The constituents like him and think he's been badly treated by the media.
And the key demographic that adores Clegg, those that work in the university sectors and make up a large part of the Hallam constituency will vote for him because of his vote on university fees.
I admit I don't know anything about council results in the Hallam wards specifically, but I completely disagree that the university sector will prop him up - I was actually basing my opinion on those people in the university sector that I know. The liberal middle-class intelligentsia (the "Guardianistas") are more outraged than anyone at the Lib Dems, not necessarily because of tuition fees, but because of the general lack of care the government has paid to poverty. These are largely people who decamped from Labour to the Lib Dems because they thought the latter were more leftwing, and so they will flock either to Labour or maybe to the Greens (in seats where they're well-positioned) in future.
We've had a year of growth and if the economists are to be believed, we can expect better growth in 2014.
I challenge this assumption.
If the OBR is to be regarded as representative of the consensus view of economists - OBR forecasts do generally fall along the median line of a range of external forecasts - then the growth rates experienced in the middle 2013 quarters will not be sustained through 2014.
In their latest Economic and Fiscal Overview (EFO), the OBR have held to their March 2013 forecasts of 0.5% quarter on quarter growth through 2014: i.e. they have not revised next year's growth upwards as a result of what they repeatedly call "surprise growth" in 2013. Annual growth rates, as opposed to quarter on previous quarter, have increased but this is due to the higher starting point of GDP rather than an a change in forecast growth rates (yes, that old chestnut again!).
But the OBR view is not simply the caution of an official forecaster but the product of a fundamental assumption about the nature of the growth experienced in 2013. The OBR believe that the higher than expected growth in 2013 was purely cyclical and represents an acceleration in a natural recovery of spare capacity in the economy. In other words the 2013 growth has brought forward and replaced growth from later years in the cycle rather than being the product of newly created economic capacity.
The OBR see 2014 as a transitional year where growth will be suppressed by low growth in disposable incomes, with consumer confidence rising and the household savings ratio falling moderately to allow a sober increase in personal consumption. The OBR (contrary to another richard's protestations) do not see consumption being driven significantly higher by increased household debt. It believes credit supply and conditions will ease slightly but remain constrained in volume by the continuing impact of the 2008-9 recession on the financial sector.
The OBR does see a return to growth in lending to the SME sector and a recovery in the business investment during 2014, but does not see this translating to increased growth until 2015-19.
The OBR may be a shade more pessimistic than average in its 2014 growth forecasts but the forecasting range is not that wide.
There are however big differences in opinion among economic forecasters over calculating the extent and the importance the 'output gap' in the UK economy: i.e. at how much below capacity is the economy currently operating. At one extreme end of the range, Oxford Economics calculates the output gap at -5.8% (OBR = -2.3%). If OE are correct then there is greater potential for higher cyclical recovery growth rates pre-election, although probably not matching Boris Johnson's optimistic claim that 2014 may see four quarters of 1% growth.
Although the OBR underestimated growth by a large margin in 2013, this probably resulted more from mistiming the turning point in the economy rather than an inaccurate assessment of the fundamentals. It would be unwise to assume that the same degree of error will apply to their 2014 forecasts.
All this leads to prospect of early 2014 growth rates disappointing when compared to 2013. And this in turn will put pressure on Osborne to respond in the March 2014 budget with a degree of as-yet-unplanned fiscal stimulus to growth momentum and disposable incomes in the run-up to the General Election.
The political issue will be whether such a stimulus will be interpreted by the public as an electoral bribe or a sensible and timely application of cyclical economic management. Whatever the true answer, it is likely that voters will welcome the extra pounds in their pockets more than they will worry about any political tactics or justification.
@AveryLP I'm grateful for your lengthy thoughts on the subject (and it's refreshing to see you strike a note of caution about prospects for the UK economy). I feel cheated that I didn't get a yellow box though.
So a muslim fleeing Assad's murderous regime is not as worthy as a christian doing the same?
Nobody's saying that, but the lesson of the last 20 years is surely that christians find it easier to integrate in the UK than muslims (especially muslims of first generation).
There are plenty of peaceful, civilised muslim countries that muslims would surely find it more conducive to flee to.
It should be remembered that the two people recently convicted of the hideous Woolwich murder were both second- or third-generation Christian immigrants from Nigeria who had converted to Islam.
Anecdotally, it seems that many first-generation refugees and immigrants are thankful to their new home. Some of their children and grandchildren appear to have more difficulty in fitting in, regardless of their religion, or that of their parents.
A generalisation too far?
One other point worth making is that the 2nd/3rd generations are growing up at a time when there is a virulent form of Islam at large, one which emphasises violence and victimhood, a mindset which has always been attractive to a certain type of adolescent mind. So any young men who are disaffected are prey to this whereas possibly in other generations they might have gone for some other form of rebellion.
I agree with Mike - my opinion of Farage went up sharply, and now it's dropped back, though I still don't really dislike him. But although i'm old enough to be in UKIP's target audience I'm not grumpy enough (sorry, Mike, couldn't resist).
I doubt if most UKIP voters will be much bothered if they notice at all, though.They don't really see Farage as PM, more as someone who stirs up the establishment. He can weave around quite a bit and so long as he gets in the news he's doing his job. That used to be the position for the LibDems too - they might like compulsory sandals or legalising qat, but so what? No longer.
Thanks to antifrank for the interesting speculations, which deserve a column to themselves. Most look plausible but I'm sceptical about Labour losing the lead or Salmond resigning. On the former, it's actually quite rare that there's a period where everyone says the economy's mending. The Tories shouldn't assume that the media will placidly accept that indefinitely - there's usually something that journalists portray as dodgy. On the latter, Salmond doesn't seem like to resigning type to me at all, he shout "We fight on!" and there isn't an obvious challenger.
Indeed, Miss Cyclefree. However, I'd add that there's a kow-towing, fearful acceptance of extreme views (cf the Danish cartoons being published nowhere, not even shown on a Channel 4 live debate about freedom of speech following a 60% vote by the audience to see them) which helps to encourage such views and acts.
@danny565 Anecdotes are not necessarily a good basis for analysis and I'm with TSE on this. Clegg is not going to get beaten. Remember general election votes are for individuals not parties and party leaders rarely have problems getting re-elected. There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention. Current best betting price on Clegg winning is 1/4 which I'd suggest is generous
Most incumbent LD MPs defending their seats against Tories will hold on. Where there's a new candidate it will be different. The LDs will also struggle against LAB
BBC R2 reporting Nigel Farage's comments on Syrian Christians as if there had never been any other policy.. in fact I am pretty sure they said he "reiterated his postion..."
Another thread digging out UKIP suffers when contrasted with the real world...
I am not sure that is fair. Everyone on here (well almost everyone) including yourself had plenty to say in support of or against Farage's original comments and they had made considerable news in the media. The change in emphasis (being kind) by Farage is a notable adjustment to his original position and one that most people would think would be likely to gain the same sort of public attention as the original comments. The fact they they have not is somewhat surprising even to me as a UKIP member.
If he has got away with this then I would be surprised and probably pleased for UKIP. That doesn't change the fact that the qualifications to his original very worthy comments have been rather shambolic, ill considered and potentially very damaging.
@danny565 There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention.
That's an important point. I'd never suggest Clegg wasn't favourite. However a significantly reduced majority would be pretty bruising. If we end up with a hung parliament, with the Lib Dems down about 10% in vote share, there will be some calling on Clegg to stand down having been plainly rejected by the British people. A massively reduced majority would further damage his credibility.
We do need more of a demographic breakdown of who these LD > Lab switchers are. All we can say at the moment is the Lib Dems will lose most support in areas where Labour can win.
I think that's a very interesting topic. It seems to me that, in 2010, there were 4 key parts making up the Lib Dem vote:
1. Liberal middle class/"Guardianistas" - including students, academics, and the stereotypical "sandals" brigade. Always made up a big part of Lib Dem support, but even more of them flocked from Labour to them after the Iraq war. Also concerned about the environment and civil liberties. Now detest the Lib Dems because they saw them as leftwing, will mostly either vote Labour or Green next time.
2. Urban working class/Labour voters on loan - people who religiously voted Labour until the 21st century, but started to gradually drift to the LDs during the last Labour government because they felt Labour had forgotten its roots and didn't care about them anymore. Tribally anti-Tory and so now hate the Lib Dems. Have already gone back to Labour.
3. None-of-the-above protest voters - an overlooked part of the Lib Dem vote, people who didn't know or didn't care about their policies but just wanted to make a generic protest vote against the Establishment. Were always going to desert them when they joined any government (no matter which party they joined with), will flock to UKIP or to not voting at all.
4. Rural working class: I sense this is the only group which have stayed loyal to the Lib Dems, mainly because there's nowhere else for them to really go - the Tories' policies hurt them, while they're also culturally very resistant to Labour, they think they don't understand their way of life no matter how good their policies might seem to them on paper. Loads of these types of seats in the southwest, as well as places like Eastleigh. I expect their vote to hold up quite well in these types of places next time (though I still think they'll lose quite a lot of those seats because their majorities are on such knife edges in many southwest seats that just a small fall will be enough to flip them).
One thing that I still maintain COULD make it difficult for Clegg is that Sheffield Hallam is full of the middle-class lefties who hate him, but as a wealthy (sub)urban seat has very few of the rural poor people who've stayed loyal.
Indeed, Miss Cyclefree. However, I'd add that there's a kow-towing, fearful acceptance of extreme views (cf the Danish cartoons being published nowhere, not even shown on a Channel 4 live debate about freedom of speech following a 60% vote by the audience to see them) which helps to encourage such views and acts.
I don't think it's acceptance so much as fear of what will happen if such views are challenged - as they ought to be in any self-respecting society. We are living on our knees. We should stand up to and challenge such views, all the time and vigorously. That is the only way such extremism will be countered and defeated.
"Do not be afraid" - as the Poles were told in 1981. Well, that seems to me to be a pretty good maxim for life. Or as La Pasionaria put it: "Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees".
@danny565 Anecdotes are not necessarily a good basis for analysis and I'm with TSE on this. Clegg is not going to get beaten. Remember general election votes are for individuals not parties and party leaders rarely have problems getting re-elected. There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention. Current best betting price on Clegg winning is 1/4 which I'd suggest is generous
Most incumbent LD MPs defending their seats against Tories will hold on. Where there's a new candidate it will be different. The LDs will also struggle against LAB
I agree with much of this, and I did acknowledge at the start that I thought Clegg was favourite to hold on - I said the absolute best-case scenario for Labour in that seat was 30%, and that they'd need some big independent candidates to be able to pull away from Clegg the types of voters who are off-limits to Labour to have a chance. But I do think there's a CHANCE of him losing, even if a slim one (I'd put his chances of holding at about 66%).
Mike - they're nominally defending Sheffield Hallam against the Tories, but Labour are by no means out of the picture as they are in much of the SW. From Labour's perspective I think it's one of those that will require two bites of the cherry to win. But they should still go for it.
Neil Kinnock on Stephen’s ambitions: “blah blah…he is looking to see if he can gain selection in a seat which is obviously of interest to him, because of all of its connections and the kind of people there…blah blah”
what kind of people live in Aberavon? And why would someone be more interested in them than in others?
BBC R2 reporting Nigel Farage's comments on Syrian Christians as if there had never been any other policy.. in fact I am pretty sure they said he "reiterated his postion..."
Another thread digging out UKIP suffers when contrasted with the real world...
I am not sure that is fair. Everyone on here (well almost everyone) including yourself had plenty to say in support of or against Farage's original comments and they had made considerable news in the media. The change in emphasis (being kind) by Farage is a notable adjustment to his original position and one that most people would think would be likely to gain the same sort of public attention as the original comments. The fact they they have not is somewhat surprising even to me as a UKIP member.
If he has got away with this then I would be surprised and probably pleased for UKIP. That doesn't change the fact that the qualifications to his original very worthy comments have been rather shambolic, ill considered and potentially very damaging.
I agree that it would have been better if he had left it at his original comments, I said I was disappointed by the "change in emphasis", as it would have been a real boost for UKIPs image, and an up yours to some people on here, if he had he said "all refugees" rather than specify Christian.
I was also surprised that the BBC didn't use todays comments as a U-Turn
I agree with all you've said, but there is a definite agenda with thread leaders to jump on any UKIP/Farage incident and portray it as bad for UKIP a la Hodges and Miliband... Bloom, Soubry I & II, have all been used to try and say the games up, regardless of the media coverage.. Mike was so desperate to show this as a disaster he even referenced a spoof twitter account , which is responsible for the thread title.
I guess I have fallen into a PB defensive trap of saying "in the real world no ones listening" because its bad for the party I support, when the fact is this isn't the real world, and in the sphere of a political thread, these things are big news. My bad!
@danny565 Anecdotes are not necessarily a good basis for analysis and I'm with TSE on this. Clegg is not going to get beaten. Remember general election votes are for individuals not parties and party leaders rarely have problems getting re-elected. There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention. Current best betting price on Clegg winning is 1/4 which I'd suggest is generous
Most incumbent LD MPs defending their seats against Tories will hold on. Where there's a new candidate it will be different. The LDs will also struggle against LAB
I agree with much of this, and I did acknowledge at the start that I thought Clegg was favourite to hold on - I said the absolute best-case scenario for Labour in that seat was 30%, and that they'd need some big independent candidates to be able to pull away from Clegg the types of voters who are off-limits to Labour to have a chance. But I do think there's a CHANCE of him losing, even if a slim one (I'd put his chances of holding at about 66%).
In the wards making up Hallam , Labour polled 28.9% in 2011 locals but only 23% in 2012 . The Lib Dems polled 39% in both years . Labour's chance of winning Hallam is roughly zero .
Neil Kinnock on Stephen’s ambitions: “blah blah…he is looking to see if he can gain selection in a seat which is obviously of interest to him, because of all of its connections and the kind of people there…blah blah”
what kind of people live in Aberavon? And why would someone be more interested in them than in others?
Labour voting people.
A Labour rotten borough. A perfect example of Labour's habitual nepotism. Vergognoso.
@danny565 Anecdotes are not necessarily a good basis for analysis and I'm with TSE on this. Clegg is not going to get beaten. Remember general election votes are for individuals not parties and party leaders rarely have problems getting re-elected. There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention. Current best betting price on Clegg winning is 1/4 which I'd suggest is generous
Most incumbent LD MPs defending their seats against Tories will hold on. Where there's a new candidate it will be different. The LDs will also struggle against LAB
I agree with much of this, and I did acknowledge at the start that I thought Clegg was favourite to hold on - I said the absolute best-case scenario for Labour in that seat was 30%, and that they'd need some big independent candidates to be able to pull away from Clegg the types of voters who are off-limits to Labour to have a chance. But I do think there's a CHANCE of him losing, even if a slim one (I'd put his chances of holding at about 66%).
In the wards making up Hallam , Labour polled 28.9% in 2011 locals but only 23% in 2012 . The Lib Dems polled 39% in both years . Labour's chance of winning Hallam is roughly zero .
People are perfectly capable of voting differently at local and general elections. There are many people around the country who will continue to vote for popular Lib Dem councillors even though they despise Clegg. Whether that's true in Sheffield Hallam, I don't know.
It's an interesting seat. Used to be strongly Tory and one where John Major managed to get 33% of the vote in 1997. Arch 'moderniser' David Cameron managed 23% in 2010. Of course places will change over time in their political inclination. But the number of seats the Tories lost to the Lib Dems in 1997 that they are struggling to win again is a major impediment to them getting a majority. If they can't get many of them back, they'll need to win in places Neil Kinnock did in 1992 in order to govern alone.
Neil Kinnock on Stephen’s ambitions: “blah blah…he is looking to see if he can gain selection in a seat which is obviously of interest to him, because of all of its connections and the kind of people there…blah blah”
what kind of people live in Aberavon? And why would someone be more interested in them than in others?
Labour voting people.
A Labour rotten borough. A perfect example of Labour's habitual nepotism. Vergognoso.
You mean the Labour equivalent of Esher or Wealden .
The comments are as diverse as individual opinions always will be. PB thinks Farage has dropped a ghooly, the Daily Telegraph think he has performed a stroke of genius.
Conservative MEPs/MPs are volunteering in a social action project for syrian refugees in Turkey.
"Next week, [Daniel Hannan will] be taking a group of Centre-Right MPs from around Europe to do some work in a refugee camp in southern Turkey. There will be around 30 of us from nine countries, and the project is being co-ordinated by the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. You’d be surprised at how handy some MPs can be with a drill or a paintbrush. On a previous such project in Sarajevo, Brooks Newmark (pictured below) proved so extraordinarily adept at plastering that I began to think he had picked the wrong line of work."
The comments are as diverse as individual opinions always will be. PB thinks Farage has dropped a ghooly, the Daily Telegraph think he has performed a stroke of genius.
The only potential switchers it will affect are perhaps UKIP <-> BNP/NOTA. I suppose it could marginally affect UKIP's Euro chances but won't make any impact whatsoever on GE2015. Probably no effect
One interesting feature - there are a helluva a lot of teachers amongst them and they loathe what Gove is doing
Good, he's obviously doing something right.
There always a few people who, because they went to school several years ago, think they're experts on education. A bit like the people who once visted a friend in hospital and therefore feel entitled to pontificate about the state of the NHS!
One interesting feature - there are a helluva a lot of teachers amongst them and they loathe what Gove is doing
Good, he's obviously doing something right.
There always a few people who, because they went to school several years ago, think they're experts on education. A bit like the people who once visted a friend in hospital and therefore feel entitled to pontificate about the state of the NHS!
There are also plenty of people with first hand experience of today's school system who know exactly how dire it is and will see the reforms being proposed as the start of a long and difficult but very necessary process to start to put things right.
Only the ideologues are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that our education system is a mess and has been since the mid 80s.
I agree that Farage has got himself into a hole of inconsistency-He denies UKIP are prejudiced,yet will only support Christian refugees.
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Maybe I am spinning, but Farage could claim that he hasn't contradicted himself at all... he said we should take in Syrian refugees yesterday, and today has said he thinks the most needy Syrian refugees are the Christians... its not really a U turn
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
I agree that Farage has got himself into a hole of inconsistency-He denies UKIP are prejudiced,yet will only support Christian refugees.
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Maybe I am spinning, but Farage could claim that he hasn't contradicted himself at all... he said we should take in Syrian refugees yesterday, and today has said he thinks the most needy Syrian refugees are the Christians... its not really a U turn
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
Last week you argued that UKIP going against HS2 when they wanted three high speed lines in their 2010 manifesto was not a u-turn.
Given your post above, I wonder if you'd recognise a u-turn even if you were driving a coachload of UKIP supporters up the Alpe d'Huez ...
6. The Scottish independence referendum will be decisively lost
If votes were measured on intensity of feeling, the Yes campaign would win comfortably - its supporters are passionate to the point of monomania. But unless Alex Salmond can turn the referendum into a referendum on the Conservatives (something which he is now trying hard to do), it's hard to see how the Yes campaign can gather the support necessary to win. It is still floundering on the process questions. Until it has a cogent answer as to why Scots should take a leap in the dark, it will struggle. Since it hasn't found one in time for the White Paper, I expect it to lose and to lose convincingly this time.
That's not to say the No campaign has been much good. It has given no positive case for Britishness. But in the short term, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt should be sufficient to see it home.
tears of laughter etc.
Having a well organised and enthusiatic base for the ground campaign is somehow "monomania" and of little consequence is it? Like f*** it is.
Self determination isn't a cogent reason for independence? Well it's a view.
Wonderful complaceny that completely fails to see that uncertainty works both ways and there are no guarantees forthcoming from No on just as many issues as Yes. Not least the fact that a vote for No is a vote for nothing and all the unionist parties were very vocal in opposing Devomax and more powers.
Nor is the fact that the No campaign unsurprisingly don't like the answers remotely akin to there being no answers. Newsflash, we didn't expect the tories, lib dems or labour to like the answers nor did we expect the unionist press to suddenly change their tune. What matters is that when the scottish public see the issues debated there are answers for them to judge. If the hilariously awful buffoon Carmichael is anything to go by those answers already have the No side rattled and very upset. There's also a reason Darling is being briefed against by his own side.
So now Calamity Clegg and the incompetent fop Cammie are beginning to fear that they might just be an asset for Yes are they? Tough. Do the No campaign really imagine the Yes side are supposed to ignore that unpopularity because it somehow wouldn't be 'sporting'? Hardly. Calamity Clegg should be used to being widely disliked and the unpopular face of one side of a referendum. Cameron also had no hesitation in using Clegg's unpopularity either in the AV referendum, so it's a bit much for Cameron's supporters to cry about it now that Cammie is as big a liability in a referendum as Clegg is.
But in the short term, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt should be sufficient to see it home.
Like it did for the 2011 scottish election you mean?
LOL
Some of us do actually remember that campaign and it followed SLAB idiot "no-brainer" McTernan's strictures about negative campaigning to the letter. Remind me just how massive a triumph that was for SLAB? Well at least SLAB aren't involving the precise same people behind that 'triumph' in the No campaign. Oh that's right, they are.
It's delightful to see the precise same complacency that led to the 2011 landslide still in evidence on PB.
Neil Kinnock on Stephen’s ambitions: “blah blah…he is looking to see if he can gain selection in a seat which is obviously of interest to him, because of all of its connections and the kind of people there…blah blah”
what kind of people live in Aberavon? And why would someone be more interested in them than in others?
Labour voting people.
A Labour rotten borough. A perfect example of Labour's habitual nepotism. Vergognoso.
You mean the Labour equivalent of Esher or Wealden .
That's the Wealden which just selected the immigrant daughter of a Kashmiri schoolteacher in an open primary, which LibDems amongst others were able and did participate in. You have a curious view of what constitutes nepotism or a rotten borough.
Cameron's 47%? "@leftfootfwd: "F****** Muslims" - views of the man Cameron's chosen to lead Tory election campaign: http://bit.ly/10dDjaE "
Cammie is going to be spending most of his time before the EU elections posturing on the kippers core issues so I'm afraid he's not going to very credible with any supposed 'outrage' against Farage. Nor will tory kipper waverers care too much about that outrage and they absolutely aren't the target audience for those who will find Farage's own posturing risible.
It's hard to know without having access to the raw data, the knowledge of exactly what the raw data means, and the ability to manipulate it, but it does seem that there is something wrong with the "temperatures will always increase" meme (i.e. global warming).
Some of these scientists' reputations should live or die by their forecasts, especially when those forecasts are being used to fundamentally alter governments' policies around the world. If their forecasts are proved wrong (especially the alarmist ones) then they should be made to explain where they went wrong, and why we should trust their new forecasts.
To many climate change scientists are being given a free pass.
But that does not mean anthropomorphic climate change is not real, or a problem ...
Some of us do actually remember that campaign and it followed SLAB idiot "no-brainer" McTernan's strictures about negative campaigning to the letter. Remind me just how massive a triumph that was for SLAB? Well at least SLAB aren't involving the precise same people behind that 'triumph' in the No campaign. Oh that's right, they are.
It's delightful to see the precise same complacency that led to the 2011 landslide still in evidence on PB.
Dunno about complacency, but I'm pretty certain that antifrank made a very good profit from correctly reading the 2011 Scottish election.
And he is right. Cook is great at the flat track bully situations and still an excellent opening bat (If slightly out of nick) but he should be replaced as captain.
Day 5 at the Oval showed everything good about Clarke's captaincy. In a hole but prepared to take risks to win the match. In the end Aleem Dar's light-meter saved Australia, but I liked the decision.
I agree that Farage has got himself into a hole of inconsistency-He denies UKIP are prejudiced,yet will only support Christian refugees.
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Maybe I am spinning, but Farage could claim that he hasn't contradicted himself at all... he said we should take in Syrian refugees yesterday, and today has said he thinks the most needy Syrian refugees are the Christians... its not really a U turn
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
Last week you argued that UKIP going against HS2 when they wanted three high speed lines in their 2010 manifesto was not a u-turn.
Given your post above, I wonder if you'd recognise a u-turn even if you were driving a coachload of UKIP supporters up the Alpe d'Huez ...
;-)
I am not going to get into another argument about HS2!
They wanted some High Speed lines which may well have been unworkable, and foolish, costly, impossible, whatever you, as the expert, say. I am willing to agree with you.
But they didn't want the planned HS2, so its not a U-Turn, especially as Farage was not even leader at the last election when these three lines were apparently mooted in the manifesto.
Regarding Syrian refugees, I wish he had not made a distinction of any sort. But, as he said refugees and then specified Christian refugees, its not a U-Turn.
A U-Turn is when you suggest something and then do/argue for the complete opposite.
Lib Dems pledge on tuition fees is a specific example of a U-Turn (the effect of which I think is wildly underestimated by those who think LD>UKIP at GE2015)
Some of us do actually remember that campaign and it followed SLAB idiot "no-brainer" McTernan's strictures about negative campaigning to the letter. Remind me just how massive a triumph that was for SLAB? Well at least SLAB aren't involving the precise same people behind that 'triumph' in the No campaign. Oh that's right, they are.
It's delightful to see the precise same complacency that led to the 2011 landslide still in evidence on PB.
Dunno about complacency, but I'm pretty certain that antifrank made a very good profit from correctly reading the 2011 Scottish election.
So did Mike and a great many other people. Those who wrongly thought that was all about Salmond obviously don't remember that campaign too clearly. Salmond was a big part of it as was Iain Gray. (who SLAB have 'wisely' brought back just in time for the No campaign) The fact is that was a campaign which was so negative little Ed and his minions had to run to scotland more than once to try and belatedly change it's focus. Way, way too late in the day to do so of course, but little Ed could hardly be seen to be doing nothing as his own strategy saw SLAB crashing in the polls.
I think one might legitimately allow oneself a wry smile at the fact that the ship stuck in Antarctic ice is carrying carrying climate-change scientists who say that the ice is much thicker than usual for this time of year.
It's hard to know without having access to the raw data, the knowledge of exactly what the raw data means, and the ability to manipulate it, but it does seem that there is something wrong with the "temperatures will always increase" meme (i.e. global warming).
Some of these scientists' reputations should live or die by their forecasts, especially when those forecasts are being used to fundamentally alter governments' policies around the world. If their forecasts are proved wrong (especially the alarmist ones) then they should be made to explain where they went wrong, and why we should trust their new forecasts.
To many climate change scientists are being given a free pass.
But that does not mean anthropomorphic climate change is not real, or a problem ...
The "man made warming" climate scam, is just that; a scam. Scientists (can we really call them that) who have received huge grants, money and new and bigger university and government posts, should be ashamed at alarming the world with their faulty and mistaken theories. They wont be, of course, and will continue to milk the credible governments and people for all their worth.
Climate does change. Sometimes slowly as over the last two centuries, sometimes very quickly as in the mini ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries. However it changes, Homo Sapiens are not to blame.
I think one might legitimately allow oneself a wry smile at the fact that the ship stuck in Antarctic ice is carrying carrying climate-change scientists who say that the ice is much thicker than usual for this time of year.
Last week you argued that UKIP going against HS2 when they wanted three high speed lines in their 2010 manifesto was not a u-turn.
Given your post above, I wonder if you'd recognise a u-turn even if you were driving a coachload of UKIP supporters up the Alpe d'Huez ...
;-)
I am not going to get into another argument about HS2!
They wanted some High Speed lines which may well have been unworkable, and foolish, costly, impossible, whatever you, as the expert, say. I am willing to agree with you.
But they didn't want the planned HS2, so its not a U-Turn, especially as Farage was not even leader at the last election when these three lines were apparently mooted in the manifesto.
Regarding Syrian refugees, I wish he had not made a distinction of any sort. But, as he said refugees and then specified Christian refugees, its not a U-Turn.
A U-Turn is when you suggest something and then do/argue for the complete opposite.
Lib Dems pledge on tuition fees is a specific example of a U-Turn (the effect of which I think is wildly underestimated by those who think LD>UKIP at GE2015)
What utter rubbish - you surely can't believe that.
UKIP wanted three lines, including one (in two parts) that would link London to Birmingham. They are against HS2 which links London to Birmingham. I would have some sympathy if they said that they were still in favour of high-speed rail but were against this scheme for stated reasons, but they are now silent about the need for high-speed rail, yet alone increasing capacity.
They have utterly u-turned on the policy. By your argument, they could be for HS2, then a tiny detail could be changed, and they could say there were now against it as it was not as planned.
Likewise today's nonsense.
By the way, I pretty much take it as read that the lines were proposed in their manifesto. Sadly, as UKIP have removed it from their website and no-one has been able to give me a link to the document, I cannot be 100% sure. But hiding behind 'apparently' does you no credit. I have provided sources showing that it was in there.
Syrian Christians, and the half million Iraqi christians that had taken refuge in Syria because of persecution in Iraq are at major risk. It is hard to see them being safely returned, or welcomed by any other mideastern country, even Turkey. They are more in need than most.
I agree that Farage has got himself into a hole of inconsistency-He denies UKIP are prejudiced,yet will only support Christian refugees.
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Maybe I am spinning, but Farage could claim that he hasn't contradicted himself at all... he said we should take in Syrian refugees yesterday, and today has said he thinks the most needy Syrian refugees are the Christians... its not really a U turn
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
It's hard to know without having access to the raw data, the knowledge of exactly what the raw data means, and the ability to manipulate it, but it does seem that there is something wrong with the "temperatures will always increase" meme (i.e. global warming).
Some of these scientists' reputations should live or die by their forecasts, especially when those forecasts are being used to fundamentally alter governments' policies around the world. If their forecasts are proved wrong (especially the alarmist ones) then they should be made to explain where they went wrong, and why we should trust their new forecasts.
To many climate change scientists are being given a free pass.
But that does not mean anthropomorphic climate change is not real, or a problem ...
The "man made warming" climate scam, is just that; a scam. Scientists (can we really call them that) who have received huge grants, money and new and bigger university and government posts, should be ashamed at alarming the world with their faulty and mistaken theories. They wont be, of course, and will continue to milk the credible governments and people for all their worth.
Climate does change. Sometimes slowly as over the last two centuries, sometimes very quickly as in the mini ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries. However it changes, Homo Sapiens are not to blame.
Whilst it is clearly wrong to have overstated man made global warming it is equally wrong and stupid to say that the growing numbers of Homo Sapiens has no effect on climate at all . The expansion of the Saharan Desert southwards is at least in part caused by over grazing by man's animals at the margins and longer term our descendants will probably see the creation of the Great Amazonian Desert where rain forest is being destroyed at ever increasing rates .
I agree that Farage has got himself into a hole of inconsistency-He denies UKIP are prejudiced,yet will only support Christian refugees.
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Maybe I am spinning, but Farage could claim that he hasn't contradicted himself at all... he said we should take in Syrian refugees yesterday, and today has said he thinks the most needy Syrian refugees are the Christians... its not really a U turn
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
You are spinning only as well as Swann did in Australia. Look what happened to him !
It's hard to know without having access to the raw data, the knowledge of exactly what the raw data means, and the ability to manipulate it, but it does seem that there is something wrong with the "temperatures will always increase" meme (i.e. global warming).
Some of these scientists' reputations should live or die by their forecasts, especially when those forecasts are being used to fundamentally alter governments' policies around the world. If their forecasts are proved wrong (especially the alarmist ones) then they should be made to explain where they went wrong, and why we should trust their new forecasts.
To many climate change scientists are being given a free pass.
But that does not mean anthropomorphic climate change is not real, or a problem ...
The "man made warming" climate scam, is just that; a scam. Scientists (can we really call them that) who have received huge grants, money and new and bigger university and government posts, should be ashamed at alarming the world with their faulty and mistaken theories. They wont be, of course, and will continue to milk the credible governments and people for all their worth.
Climate does change. Sometimes slowly as over the last two centuries, sometimes very quickly as in the mini ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries. However it changes, Homo Sapiens are not to blame.
Whilst it is clearly wrong to have overstated man made global warming it is equally wrong and stupid to say that the growing numbers of Homo Sapiens has no effect on climate at all . The expansion of the Saharan Desert southwards is at least in part caused by over grazing by man's animals at the margins and longer term our descendants will probably see the creation of the Great Amazonian Desert where rain forest is being destroyed at ever increasing rates .
It's a shame we don't have a 'Like' button any more.
There's another aspect to this: *some* environmental policies are harmful in the short-term as industries adjust, but can have massively positive effects long-term. I doubt SeanT would find living in his London suburb as salubrious if the Clean Air Act 1956 had not been passed. (*)
Whilst it is clearly wrong to have overstated man made global warming it is equally wrong and stupid to say that the growing numbers of Homo Sapiens has no effect on climate at all . The expansion of the Saharan Desert southwards is at least in part caused by over grazing by man's animals at the margins and longer term our descendants will probably see the creation of the Great Amazonian Desert where rain forest is being destroyed at ever increasing rates .
I think you are spot on there Mark. That is one of the problems that those of us who understand the climate issues but are also very environmentally aware find the most frustrating aspect of the whole problem.
There are some very serious, man made, reversible issues that need addressing urgently. Deforestation is one, water resources is another. But as long as every one is preoccupied with throwing money, resources, research and good will at the AGW issue, these other serious issues are neglected. This was the basis of Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He argued that for a fraction of the money being spent on combating 'man made' climate change, we could be providing almost everyone on earth with a permanent secure clean water supply which would certainly save far more lives and do a lot more to help the environment.
Man has a huge and often adverse effect on his environment. Unfortunately we have been conned into trying to deal with a phantom problem whilst ignoring many other far more serious ones.
What utter rubbish - you surely can't believe that.
UKIP wanted three lines, including one (in two parts) that would link London to Birmingham. They are against HS2 which links London to Birmingham. I would have some sympathy if they said that they were still in favour of high-speed rail but were against this scheme for stated reasons, but they are now silent about the need for high-speed rail, yet alone increasing capacity.
They have utterly u-turned on the policy. By your argument, they could be for HS2, then a tiny detail could be changed, and they could say there were now against it as it was not as planned.
Likewise today's nonsense.
By the way, I pretty much take it as read that the lines were proposed in their manifesto. Sadly, as UKIP have removed it from their website and no-one has been able to give me a link to the document, I cannot be 100% sure. But hiding behind 'apparently' does you no credit. I have provided sources showing that it was in there.
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
But in the short term, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt should be sufficient to see it home.
Like it did for the 2011 scottish election you mean?
LOL
Some of us do actually remember that campaign and it followed SLAB idiot "no-brainer" McTernan's strictures about negative campaigning to the letter. Remind me just how massive a triumph that was for SLAB? Well at least SLAB aren't involving the precise same people behind that 'triumph' in the No campaign. Oh that's right, they are.
It's delightful to see the precise same complacency that led to the 2011 landslide still in evidence on PB.
Mick, Typical quote from someone in the London bubble. It will be a YES victory or a very very close result. If NO , then when Westminster do their usual and bactrack on giving Devo Max and further cut the budgets, all hell will be let loose and there will be another quick referendum that will finish the matter.
Ed Miliband had a disagreement with the shadow defence minister, Jim Murphy, on the morning of the parliamentary votes on 29 August when the Labour leader told him the party would vote against a government motion even after Cameron agreed to his demand to delay a vote authorising military action until a later date. Murphy was later demoted from his post in what was described as a "punishment beating".
"Some 27,000 charities are now dependent on the government for more than 75 per cent of their income and the “voluntary sector” now receives more money from the state than it receives in actual voluntary donations"
Lombergs books are excellent and pragmatic. He suggests that better flood defences are a better bet than giant windmills when wanting to minimise rising sea levels caused by changes in climate.
It would have done the Medway some good recently...
Whilst it is clearly wrong to have overstated man made global warming it is equally wrong and stupid to say that the growing numbers of Homo Sapiens has no effect on climate at all . The expansion of the Saharan Desert southwards is at least in part caused by over grazing by man's animals at the margins and longer term our descendants will probably see the creation of the Great Amazonian Desert where rain forest is being destroyed at ever increasing rates .
I think you are spot on there Mark. That is one of the problems that those of us who understand the climate issues but are also very environmentally aware find the most frustrating aspect of the whole problem.
There are some very serious, man made, reversible issues that need addressing urgently. Deforestation is one, water resources is another. But as long as every one is preoccupied with throwing money, resources, research and good will at the AGW issue, these other serious issues are neglected. This was the basis of Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He argued that for a fraction of the money being spent on combating 'man made' climate change, we could be providing almost everyone on earth with a permanent secure clean water supply which would certainly save far more lives and do a lot more to help the environment.
Man has a huge and often adverse effect on his environment. Unfortunately we have been conned into trying to deal with a phantom problem whilst ignoring many other far more serious ones.
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
Try telling a Syrian Muslim who might have been hoping to take asylum in this country that it isn't a U-turn.
Without making this an HS2-fest, I would have sympathy with your view if they had not thrown *all* support for high-speed rail out of the window since the GE. (*) There's no way that could be called that anything other than a U-turn.
I know you're a UKIP supporter, but that shouldn't stop you from doing some critical thinking about your party occasionally.
(*) I'd be interested to know if this is wrong; I've done some searching and it seems that UKIP is now fully against high-speed rail.
One interesting feature - there are a helluva a lot of teachers amongst them and they loathe what Gove is doing
Good, he's obviously doing something right.
There always a few people who, because they went to school several years ago, think they're experts on education. A bit like the people who once visted a friend in hospital and therefore feel entitled to pontificate about the state of the NHS!
There are also plenty of people with first hand experience of today's school system who know exactly how dire it is and will see the reforms being proposed as the start of a long and difficult but very necessary process to start to put things right.
Only the ideologues are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that our education system is a mess and has been since the mid 80s.
Arguing against myself in a way, the primary school two of my grandchildren go is much more demanding than either the one I went to in the 40's or that to which their father (and his siblings) went in the 60's. And I think it's more demanding than those my older grandchildren wqent to in the 90's. One of those is now a teacher and seems to put in a lot more hours than is often alleged.
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
Try telling a Syrian Muslim who might have been hoping to take asylum in this country that it isn't a U-turn.
Without making this an HS2-fest, I would have sympathy with your view if they had not thrown *all* support for high-speed rail out of the window since the GE. (*) There's no way that could be called that anything other than a U-turn.
I know you're a UKIP supporter, but that shouldn't stop you from doing some critical thinking about your party occasionally.
(*) I'd be interested to know if this is wrong; I've done some searching and it seems that UKIP is now fully against high-speed rail.
I am having enough trouble telling you it wasn't a U-Turn, let alone a Syrian muslim!
I have said I wish Farage hadn't made the distinction between Syrian refugees, and I admitted this morning that some supporters were "BNP lite"... maybe the utter bile/racist smears etc that get thrown over UKIP on here has made me too stubborn.. if so I apologise.
It was thinking critically about politics at Brighton Uni as a mature student that made me join UKIP and renounce Labour!
While I agree that man has had huge and adverse effects on various environments. But he is not responsible for climate change. Homo sapiens does respond to changing circumstances, however, most of the sahara desert was caused mainly by the affects of the last Ice age and changing sea currants.
I think that we will see more and more of this incoherent policy on the hoof over the next year. UKIP are not our saviours, they are a very diverse bunch united by their dislike of the modern age.
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
Try telling a Syrian Muslim who might have been hoping to take asylum in this country that it isn't a U-turn.
Without making this an HS2-fest, I would have sympathy with your view if they had not thrown *all* support for high-speed rail out of the window since the GE. (*) There's no way that could be called that anything other than a U-turn.
I know you're a UKIP supporter, but that shouldn't stop you from doing some critical thinking about your party occasionally.
(*) I'd be interested to know if this is wrong; I've done some searching and it seems that UKIP is now fully against high-speed rail.
Well, I think Farage has hit a nerve here. I think we should help some Syrian refugees. Christians probably head the list because of the discrimination against them. Why do the left disagree?
Well, I think Farage has hit a nerve here. I think we should help some Syrian refugees. Christians probably head the list because of the discrimination against them. Why do the left disagree?
It's not just the left, a few Kippers on here disagree with Farage.
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
Try telling a Syrian Muslim who might have been hoping to take asylum in this country that it isn't a U-turn.
Without making this an HS2-fest, I would have sympathy with your view if they had not thrown *all* support for high-speed rail out of the window since the GE. (*) There's no way that could be called that anything other than a U-turn.
I know you're a UKIP supporter, but that shouldn't stop you from doing some critical thinking about your party occasionally.
(*) I'd be interested to know if this is wrong; I've done some searching and it seems that UKIP is now fully against high-speed rail.
I might be forced into a U-Turn on UKIP and High Speed Rail...
Well, I think Farage has hit a nerve here. I think we should help some Syrian refugees. Christians probably head the list because of the discrimination against them. Why do the left disagree?
No point constructing a straw-man argument here.
Labour have already said we should take some refugees.They cite 500 refugees which is a ridiculously low number given the severity of the problem.
It is this right of centre government which disagrees presumably as a result of fear of losing votes to the far-right.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I don't think it would be wrong to prioritise Christians, but taking a few muslims as well would be good for PR and the moral high ground... and two wrongs don't make a right
Anyone who cannot explain the statistical and scientific errors in treating a short trend in temperature in a small portion of the globe - less than 0.1% - as somehow "proof" that the honest work of many climate scientists is erroneous has no right to lecture others or accuse them of being responsible for a scam.
The lack of self-awareness would be shocking, were it not sadly so commonplace.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I can feel your anger. It gives you focus, makes you stronger!
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I don't think it would be wrong to prioritise Christians, but taking a few muslims as well would be good for PR and the moral high ground... and two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs make the outline of a Labour manifesto.
It's worth remembering that when the West, particularly the US, took military action to save the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo from evil perpetrated by largely Christian Serbs, they got precious little thanks for their pains from the Muslim world. Rather Islamists have woven that conflict into their victimhood narrative, conveniently omitting the role of the US in shaking Europe out of its torpor and the role of the Jewish community in awakening the US's conscience.
Whatever we now do for the victims of the Syrian civil war will bring us no thanks, will never be seen as enough and will probably be used against us. We should certainly try to provide aid to the refugees in their camps but we do - as I, Sean T and others have observed - owe a special duty to help the Christians of the Middle East who are slowly and viciously being squeezed out of their homeland.
We may well end up with a purely Muslim Middle East - and this would be a great loss for the peoples of that area. As the recent Byzantium documentary showed, the Middle and Near East has been at its most successful and flourishing when it was diverse: intellectually, religiously and with lots of different communities living and working together.
It seems a puzzle - and a tragedy - that the Muslim world is so intent on cutting its nose off to spite its face.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I don't think it would be wrong to prioritise Christians, but taking a few muslims as well would be good for PR and the moral high ground... and two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs make the outline of a Labour manifesto.
Believe it or not,some things are more important than Tory-Labour bashing atleast for some people.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I don't think it would be wrong to prioritise Christians, but taking a few muslims as well would be good for PR and the moral high ground... and two wrongs don't make a right
As of this moment, the persecution of Christians in the Middle East is akin to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany circa 1938-39. i.e. undeniable, and overtly cruel, and likely to get worse rather than better.
Were there bleating lefties around at the time saying Oh we must rescue all of them, Nazi Germans and Jews alike? Ridiculous.
One of the things UKIP would do if in charge is send any refugee wrong'uns back alot faster than we got rid of Qatada !
How?
Wouldn't have to worry about the Strasbourg court...
How long would it take to withdraw from the relevant treaties? This is the biggest problem UKIP supporters face. They think they will operate in a vacuum, where what they wish for goes with no external impacts.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
I don't think it would be wrong to prioritise Christians, but taking a few muslims as well would be good for PR and the moral high ground... and two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs make the outline of a Labour manifesto.
Believe it or not,some things are more important than Tory-Labour bashing atleast for some people.
I agree with Nigel. We should be saving the Christians of the Middle East. They are, morally and historically, our kith and kin.
I've searched, but I can't find it in me to disagree especially as your statement doesn't imply that we shouldn't try to save certain others too.
It is ludicrous that multiculti and neo-Marxism prevents us from saying the obvious - our duty of rescue is primarily to the Middle Eastern Christians. They are 1. our cultural cousins, in some ways our honoured cultural ancestors. and 2. quite obviously the most persecuted community in many of these countries (I know Coptic Egypt pretty well)
The Muslims seem determined to create a non-Christian Muslim world; so be it. I believe that is deeply regrettable and maybe downright evil, certainly the idea we should "rescue" some of these xenophobic Islamists from the result of their own sectarian violence is utterly ridiculous and offensive.
Totally agree with SeanT. This is where immigration under Labour totally failed; immigration from Christian countries (Poland, USA, Australia) should be allowed as they share British Christian values; immigration from Muslim countries (Pakistan, Somalia, Syria) should only be allowed for Christians to escape (true assylum seekers). The Muslim world can then be left to fester in their sectarian violence.
While I agree that man has had huge and adverse effects on various environments. But he is not responsible for climate change. Homo sapiens does respond to changing circumstances, however, most of the sahara desert was caused mainly by the affects of the last Ice age and changing sea currants.
I notice he hasn't admitted his lie about deforestation when confronted with the proof either.
I'll be charitable; assume he has gone to bed early and will recant and apologise in the morning.
Anyone who cannot explain the statistical and scientific errors in treating a short trend in temperature in a small portion of the globe - less than 0.1% - as somehow "proof" that the honest work of many climate scientists is erroneous has no right to lecture others or accuse them of being responsible for a scam.
The lack of self-awareness would be shocking, were it not sadly so commonplace.
Talk about desperate.
Anyone who doesn't know that it is not just a short term trend and is not confined to one small area of the globe has no right to make any comment about climate science at all.
Comments
Mr. Jessop, you may have a point. A few converts have been involved in terrorism, but that's still probably a disproportionately high number. In addition, I'd guess new immigrants feel at ease with their (as it were) ancestral identity and the need to fit in with their new country, whereas their children may* feel those two cultures as opposing rather than complementing one another.
*There seems to be rather huge variance amongst migrant groups. The Chinese are stellar immigrants, by all accounts.
"The UKIP annual conference was derailed by Godfrey Bloom's gaffe and by Nigel Farage's panicky reaction to it."
I thought that whole episode showed up UK political reporting rather than Mr Farage. The coverage of the UKIP conference (much like all the conferences) was a game of spot-the-gaffe.
I think there's a gap in the market for serious news coverage that's not being offered at present.
(Canadian & Australian political and economic news coverage reportedly improved after their domestic economic crises. That doesn't seem to have happened in the UK.)
If the OBR is to be regarded as representative of the consensus view of economists - OBR forecasts do generally fall along the median line of a range of external forecasts - then the growth rates experienced in the middle 2013 quarters will not be sustained through 2014.
In their latest Economic and Fiscal Overview (EFO), the OBR have held to their March 2013 forecasts of 0.5% quarter on quarter growth through 2014: i.e. they have not revised next year's growth upwards as a result of what they repeatedly call "surprise growth" in 2013. Annual growth rates, as opposed to quarter on previous quarter, have increased but this is due to the higher starting point of GDP rather than an a change in forecast growth rates (yes, that old chestnut again!).
But the OBR view is not simply the caution of an official forecaster but the product of a fundamental assumption about the nature of the growth experienced in 2013. The OBR believe that the higher than expected growth in 2013 was purely cyclical and represents an acceleration in a natural recovery of spare capacity in the economy. In other words the 2013 growth has brought forward and replaced growth from later years in the cycle rather than being the product of newly created economic capacity.
The OBR see 2014 as a transitional year where growth will be suppressed by low growth in disposable incomes, with consumer confidence rising and the household savings ratio falling moderately to allow a sober increase in personal consumption. The OBR (contrary to another richard's protestations) do not see consumption being driven significantly higher by increased household debt. It believes credit supply and conditions will ease slightly but remain constrained in volume by the continuing impact of the 2008-9 recession on the financial sector.
The OBR does see a return to growth in lending to the SME sector and a recovery in the business investment during 2014, but does not see this translating to increased growth until 2015-19.
The OBR may be a shade more pessimistic than average in its 2014 growth forecasts but the forecasting range is not that wide.
[to be continued]
[...continued]
There are however big differences in opinion among economic forecasters over calculating the extent and the importance the 'output gap' in the UK economy: i.e. at how much below capacity is the economy currently operating. At one extreme end of the range, Oxford Economics calculates the output gap at -5.8% (OBR = -2.3%). If OE are correct then there is greater potential for higher cyclical recovery growth rates pre-election, although probably not matching Boris Johnson's optimistic claim that 2014 may see four quarters of 1% growth.
Although the OBR underestimated growth by a large margin in 2013, this probably resulted more from mistiming the turning point in the economy rather than an inaccurate assessment of the fundamentals. It would be unwise to assume that the same degree of error will apply to their 2014 forecasts.
All this leads to prospect of early 2014 growth rates disappointing when compared to 2013. And this in turn will put pressure on Osborne to respond in the March 2014 budget with a degree of as-yet-unplanned fiscal stimulus to growth momentum and disposable incomes in the run-up to the General Election.
The political issue will be whether such a stimulus will be interpreted by the public as an electoral bribe or a sensible and timely application of cyclical economic management. Whatever the true answer, it is likely that voters will welcome the extra pounds in their pockets more than they will worry about any political tactics or justification.
I doubt if most UKIP voters will be much bothered if they notice at all, though.They don't really see Farage as PM, more as someone who stirs up the establishment. He can weave around quite a bit and so long as he gets in the news he's doing his job. That used to be the position for the LibDems too - they might like compulsory sandals or legalising qat, but so what? No longer.
Thanks to antifrank for the interesting speculations, which deserve a column to themselves. Most look plausible but I'm sceptical about Labour losing the lead or Salmond resigning. On the former, it's actually quite rare that there's a period where everyone says the economy's mending. The Tories shouldn't assume that the media will placidly accept that indefinitely - there's usually something that journalists portray as dodgy. On the latter, Salmond doesn't seem like to resigning type to me at all, he shout "We fight on!" and there isn't an obvious challenger.
Anecdotes are not necessarily a good basis for analysis and I'm with TSE on this. Clegg is not going to get beaten. Remember general election votes are for individuals not parties and party leaders rarely have problems getting re-elected. There is often a local pride that your guy is getting so much attention. Current best betting price on Clegg winning is 1/4 which I'd suggest is generous
Most incumbent LD MPs defending their seats against Tories will hold on. Where there's a new candidate it will be different. The LDs will also struggle against LAB
If he has got away with this then I would be surprised and probably pleased for UKIP. That doesn't change the fact that the qualifications to his original very worthy comments have been rather shambolic, ill considered and potentially very damaging.
1. Liberal middle class/"Guardianistas" - including students, academics, and the stereotypical "sandals" brigade. Always made up a big part of Lib Dem support, but even more of them flocked from Labour to them after the Iraq war. Also concerned about the environment and civil liberties. Now detest the Lib Dems because they saw them as leftwing, will mostly either vote Labour or Green next time.
2. Urban working class/Labour voters on loan - people who religiously voted Labour until the 21st century, but started to gradually drift to the LDs during the last Labour government because they felt Labour had forgotten its roots and didn't care about them anymore. Tribally anti-Tory and so now hate the Lib Dems. Have already gone back to Labour.
3. None-of-the-above protest voters - an overlooked part of the Lib Dem vote, people who didn't know or didn't care about their policies but just wanted to make a generic protest vote against the Establishment. Were always going to desert them when they joined any government (no matter which party they joined with), will flock to UKIP or to not voting at all.
4. Rural working class: I sense this is the only group which have stayed loyal to the Lib Dems, mainly because there's nowhere else for them to really go - the Tories' policies hurt them, while they're also culturally very resistant to Labour, they think they don't understand their way of life no matter how good their policies might seem to them on paper. Loads of these types of seats in the southwest, as well as places like Eastleigh. I expect their vote to hold up quite well in these types of places next time (though I still think they'll lose quite a lot of those seats because their majorities are on such knife edges in many southwest seats that just a small fall will be enough to flip them).
One thing that I still maintain COULD make it difficult for Clegg is that Sheffield Hallam is full of the middle-class lefties who hate him, but as a wealthy (sub)urban seat has very few of the rural poor people who've stayed loyal.
"Do not be afraid" - as the Poles were told in 1981. Well, that seems to me to be a pretty good maxim for life. Or as La Pasionaria put it: "Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees".
what kind of people live in Aberavon? And why would someone be more interested in them than in others?
I was also surprised that the BBC didn't use todays comments as a U-Turn
I agree with all you've said, but there is a definite agenda with thread leaders to jump on any UKIP/Farage incident and portray it as bad for UKIP a la Hodges and Miliband... Bloom, Soubry I & II, have all been used to try and say the games up, regardless of the media coverage.. Mike was so desperate to show this as a disaster he even referenced a spoof twitter account , which is responsible for the thread title.
I guess I have fallen into a PB defensive trap of saying "in the real world no ones listening" because its bad for the party I support, when the fact is this isn't the real world, and in the sphere of a political thread, these things are big news. My bad!
I've got together a lot of data the 2010 LD switchers and I plan a post over the next couple of days.
One interesting feature - there are a helluva a lot of teachers amongst them and they loathe what Gove is doing
A Labour rotten borough. A perfect example of Labour's habitual nepotism. Vergognoso.
It's an interesting seat. Used to be strongly Tory and one where John Major managed to get 33% of the vote in 1997. Arch 'moderniser' David Cameron managed 23% in 2010. Of course places will change over time in their political inclination. But the number of seats the Tories lost to the Lib Dems in 1997 that they are struggling to win again is a major impediment to them getting a majority. If they can't get many of them back, they'll need to win in places Neil Kinnock did in 1992 in order to govern alone.
Up more with 365 then I am with Stan James too...
(Even Trekkies don't scare me!)
"Next week, [Daniel Hannan will] be taking a group of Centre-Right MPs from around Europe to do some work in a refugee camp in southern Turkey. There will be around 30 of us from nine countries, and the project is being co-ordinated by the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. You’d be surprised at how handy some MPs can be with a drill or a paintbrush. On a previous such project in Sarajevo, Brooks Newmark (pictured below) proved so extraordinarily adept at plastering that I began to think he had picked the wrong line of work."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100252303/the-case-for-intervention-in-syria/
If he was going to `u` turn,it would have been better to stay out of the debate.
Only the ideologues are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that our education system is a mess and has been since the mid 80s.
That said, I don't think he needed to make any distinction, morally or politically, so why bother?
Given your post above, I wonder if you'd recognise a u-turn even if you were driving a coachload of UKIP supporters up the Alpe d'Huez ...
;-)
Having a well organised and enthusiatic base for the ground campaign is somehow "monomania" and of little consequence is it? Like f*** it is.
Self determination isn't a cogent reason for independence? Well it's a view.
Wonderful complaceny that completely fails to see that uncertainty works both ways and there are no guarantees forthcoming from No on just as many issues as Yes. Not least the fact that a vote for No is a vote for nothing and all the unionist parties were very vocal in opposing Devomax and more powers.
Nor is the fact that the No campaign unsurprisingly don't like the answers remotely akin to there being no answers. Newsflash, we didn't expect the tories, lib dems or labour to like the answers nor did we expect the unionist press to suddenly change their tune. What matters is that when the scottish public see the issues debated there are answers for them to judge. If the hilariously awful buffoon Carmichael is anything to go by those answers already have the No side rattled and very upset. There's also a reason Darling is being briefed against by his own side.
So now Calamity Clegg and the incompetent fop Cammie are beginning to fear that they might just be an asset for Yes are they? Tough. Do the No campaign really imagine the Yes side are supposed to ignore that unpopularity because it somehow wouldn't be 'sporting'? Hardly. Calamity Clegg should be used to being widely disliked and the unpopular face of one side of a referendum. Cameron also had no hesitation in using Clegg's unpopularity either in the AV referendum, so it's a bit much for Cameron's supporters to cry about it now that Cammie is as big a liability in a referendum as Clegg is.
LOL
Some of us do actually remember that campaign and it followed SLAB idiot "no-brainer" McTernan's strictures about negative campaigning to the letter. Remind me just how massive a triumph that was for SLAB? Well at least SLAB aren't involving the precise same people behind that 'triumph' in the No campaign. Oh that's right, they are.
It's delightful to see the precise same complacency that led to the 2011 landslide still in evidence on PB.
No it's getting colder in central Europe!
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/30/real-data-2013-germanys-second-coldest-in-at-least-17-years-overall-trend-shows-clear-cooling/
That should prove entertaining with Crosby 'master strategising' that attack.
This Crosby lest we forget. Cammie is going to be spending most of his time before the EU elections posturing on the kippers core issues so I'm afraid he's not going to very credible with any supposed 'outrage' against Farage. Nor will tory kipper waverers care too much about that outrage and they absolutely aren't the target audience for those who will find Farage's own posturing risible.
Some of these scientists' reputations should live or die by their forecasts, especially when those forecasts are being used to fundamentally alter governments' policies around the world. If their forecasts are proved wrong (especially the alarmist ones) then they should be made to explain where they went wrong, and why we should trust their new forecasts.
To many climate change scientists are being given a free pass.
But that does not mean anthropomorphic climate change is not real, or a problem ...
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/antarctic-ice-swallows-boat-media-spin/
And he is right. Cook is great at the flat track bully situations and still an excellent opening bat (If slightly out of nick) but he should be replaced as captain.
Day 5 at the Oval showed everything good about Clarke's captaincy. In a hole but prepared to take risks to win the match. In the end Aleem Dar's light-meter saved Australia, but I liked the decision.
They wanted some High Speed lines which may well have been unworkable, and foolish, costly, impossible, whatever you, as the expert, say. I am willing to agree with you.
But they didn't want the planned HS2, so its not a U-Turn, especially as Farage was not even leader at the last election when these three lines were apparently mooted in the manifesto.
Regarding Syrian refugees, I wish he had not made a distinction of any sort. But, as he said refugees and then specified Christian refugees, its not a U-Turn.
A U-Turn is when you suggest something and then do/argue for the complete opposite.
Lib Dems pledge on tuition fees is a specific example of a U-Turn (the effect of which I think is wildly underestimated by those who think LD>UKIP at GE2015)
The fact is that was a campaign which was so negative little Ed and his minions had to run to scotland more than once to try and belatedly change it's focus. Way, way too late in the day to do so of course, but little Ed could hardly be seen to be doing nothing as his own strategy saw SLAB crashing in the polls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25553200
They wont be, of course, and will continue to milk the credible governments and people for all their worth.
Climate does change. Sometimes slowly as over the last two centuries, sometimes very quickly as in the mini ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries. However it changes, Homo Sapiens are not to blame.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/04/husky-1_1895614b.jpg
UKIP wanted three lines, including one (in two parts) that would link London to Birmingham. They are against HS2 which links London to Birmingham. I would have some sympathy if they said that they were still in favour of high-speed rail but were against this scheme for stated reasons, but they are now silent about the need for high-speed rail, yet alone increasing capacity.
They have utterly u-turned on the policy. By your argument, they could be for HS2, then a tiny detail could be changed, and they could say there were now against it as it was not as planned.
Likewise today's nonsense.
By the way, I pretty much take it as read that the lines were proposed in their manifesto. Sadly, as UKIP have removed it from their website and no-one has been able to give me a link to the document, I cannot be 100% sure. But hiding behind 'apparently' does you no credit. I have provided sources showing that it was in there.
Oh, and UKIP's transport policy as linked to from Google:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPtransport.pdf
:-)
I support the Barnabus fund to help their plight: http://www.barnabasfund.org/UK/Act/Campaign/The-church-in-Syria/There-is-a-church-in-Syria/#timeline
There's another aspect to this: *some* environmental policies are harmful in the short-term as industries adjust, but can have massively positive effects long-term. I doubt SeanT would find living in his London suburb as salubrious if the Clean Air Act 1956 had not been passed. (*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956
(*) This is not a dig at SeanT ...
Rates of destruction are steadily declining. 2013 was the second lowest rate (after 2012) since records began in 2004
Brazil Ministry of Science and Technology figures here:
http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.php
There are some very serious, man made, reversible issues that need addressing urgently. Deforestation is one, water resources is another. But as long as every one is preoccupied with throwing money, resources, research and good will at the AGW issue, these other serious issues are neglected. This was the basis of Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He argued that for a fraction of the money being spent on combating 'man made' climate change, we could be providing almost everyone on earth with a permanent secure clean water supply which would certainly save far more lives and do a lot more to help the environment.
Man has a huge and often adverse effect on his environment. Unfortunately we have been conned into trying to deal with a phantom problem whilst ignoring many other far more serious ones.
http://tinyurl.com/qbbb74z
http://tinyurl.com/q6okwqz
I don't think you know what U-Turn means by the sound of it
If Farage had said today that he didn't support offering asylum to Syrian refugees, that would have been a U-Turn.
Specifying which Syrian refugees he wants to offer asylum to, rightly or wrongly, is not a U-Turn.
When the Lib Dems said they would abolish tuition fees, then voted to treble them, that was a U-Turn.
UKIP seem to have some half arsed policy on High Speed Railway lines in their last manifesto, but weren't proposing building HS2 so opposing it now isn't a U-Turn, just as proposing building three new airports, then opposing a different one wouldn't be either.
If they oppose UK leaving the EU, I'd give you that one, or if they opposed Grammar schools.
Is proposing a flat tax then saying they wanted 40% top rate and 25% low rate a U-Turn? UKIP seem to have done that.. or is that just a policy change
What kind of change of policy isn't a U-Turn in your book?
Alistair Burt reveals anger over Syria vote at Westminster
Former minister says the decision to defy David Cameron on military action created a 'constitutional mess'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/30/alistair-burt-anger-syria-westminster
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100164169/charity-sock-puppetry-how-government-lobbies-itself-for-more-government-and-we-pay/
It would have done the Medway some good recently...
Without making this an HS2-fest, I would have sympathy with your view if they had not thrown *all* support for high-speed rail out of the window since the GE. (*) There's no way that could be called that anything other than a U-turn.
I know you're a UKIP supporter, but that shouldn't stop you from doing some critical thinking about your party occasionally.
(*) I'd be interested to know if this is wrong; I've done some searching and it seems that UKIP is now fully against high-speed rail.
I have said I wish Farage hadn't made the distinction between Syrian refugees, and I admitted this morning that some supporters were "BNP lite"... maybe the utter bile/racist smears etc that get thrown over UKIP on here has made me too stubborn.. if so I apologise.
It was thinking critically about politics at Brighton Uni as a mature student that made me join UKIP and renounce Labour!
While I agree that man has had huge and adverse effects on various environments. But he is not responsible for climate change. Homo sapiens does respond to changing circumstances, however, most of the sahara desert was caused mainly by the affects of the last Ice age and changing sea currants.
Thanks for your earlier reply on why you think Farage has changed positions.
Well, I think Farage has hit a nerve here. I think we should help some Syrian refugees. Christians probably head the list because of the discrimination against them. Why do the left disagree?
Isn't the entire state of Israel based around what Farage proposed (In a roundabout kind of way) but for Jews not Christians ?
I still think we should take some refugees of any religion, but the 3 main parties are in no position to critisice UKIP on this.
A large sinkhole has appeared in part of the Peak District in Derbyshire.
The hole, which eye witnesses said measures about 160ft (49m) wide, has opened up in the village of Foolow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-25554549
http://www.ukip.org/component/content/article?id=538
Labour have already said we should take some refugees.They cite 500 refugees which is a ridiculously low number given the severity of the problem.
It is this right of centre government which disagrees presumably as a result of fear of losing votes to the far-right.
No lengthen yet again over at Betfair, now 1.24
Yes at 5
As recently as early November Yes was trading at 6.6 and No at 1.17
Liquidity is now excellent. Matched: GBP 72,723
The lack of self-awareness would be shocking, were it not sadly so commonplace.
Talk about desperate.
The truth is if you wanted £300 on Yes you would have wiped out the Betfair market.. v shallow market, not liquid at all
Whatever we now do for the victims of the Syrian civil war will bring us no thanks, will never be seen as enough and will probably be used against us. We should certainly try to provide aid to the refugees in their camps but we do - as I, Sean T and others have observed - owe a special duty to help the Christians of the Middle East who are slowly and viciously being squeezed out of their homeland.
We may well end up with a purely Muslim Middle East - and this would be a great loss for the peoples of that area. As the recent Byzantium documentary showed, the Middle and Near East has been at its most successful and flourishing when it was diverse: intellectually, religiously and with lots of different communities living and working together.
It seems a puzzle - and a tragedy - that the Muslim world is so intent on cutting its nose off to spite its face.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/25/us-iraq-christmas-idUSBRE9BO06I20131225
I'll be charitable; assume he has gone to bed early and will recant and apologise in the morning.
Talk about deluded.