Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
No, 35% of Leave voters want a complete end to free movement in the Comres poll I posted earlier, now some middle class Leavers will be satisfied with a fudged deal, at least a third of Leave voters will not and will be ideal targets for UKIP
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
It is about cost control, as there is a £2.4 billion NHS deficit. Our deficit in Leicester is actually not too bad at a projection of £40 million, and under control with a plausible recovery plan. Staffing costs are about 65% of NHS costs so hard to make savings without either cutting staff numbers or eroding pay.
"Safer Staffing" is something that came out of the Francis report into Staffs and recommends nursing numbers in a variety of settings. It was going to be issued as NICE guidance (thereby being binding on NHS organisations) but Jeremy Hunt stopped this being issued last year. Reasons were not given but are surely staff costs related: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/10/nice-publish-report-safe-nhs-staffing-levels-told-stop-work
In Leicester our Chief Executive has done a great job on the finances (we had one of the biggest % deficits in the country a few years back) but more importantly has brought down the SMR (Standardised Mortality Rate) from 106 to 98 (100 being average) over the same period. In part this has been because of the Safer Staffing initiative.
As well as meaning better safer care, having adequate nursing cover also shortens inpatient stays and improves retention and career development. Cutting nursing numbers may save money in the short term but is not the right direction for the NHS.
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
everyone keeps talking about a new centre left party to replace Labour but the tories are not real conservatives. I want to start a new Centre-rigtht party called "People FOR profit", it would be unashamedly pro business! Who's with me!
Most polling indicates that the EU per se is not a very salient issue in determining votes at a General Election. Post Brexit that is probably even more likely to be the case unless a real sense of 'betrayal' takes hold. To that extent UKIP has lost its core issue or raison d'etre - though it also attracted significant support based on immigration fears and as repository of 'a plague on all your houses ' protest vote. In the last Parliament the LibDems lost their place as the 'none of the above' option in England to UKIP and - to some extent - the Greens.There has been no evidence todate of a LibDem recovery at Parliamentary elections despite some successes at local by elections - nor is there any sign of the Greens advancing further. UKIP had a very disappointing result at the Oldham by election and polled just 12% at the local elections based on NEV.Effectively there are going to be three parties fishing for disaffected votes , and as such there has to be a good possibility that none of them will manage to break out in the way we have observed in earlier Parliaments.
Immigration though is a very salient issue and if free movement remains in some form, even with controls, that is where UKIP will focus their campaign.
Most polling indicates that the EU per se is not a very salient issue in determining votes at a General Election. Post Brexit that is probably even more likely to be the case unless a real sense of 'betrayal' takes hold. To that extent UKIP has lost its core issue or raison d'etre - though it also attracted significant support based on immigration fears and as repository of 'a plague on all your houses ' protest vote. In the last Parliament the LibDems lost their place as the 'none of the above' option in England to UKIP and - to some extent - the Greens.There has been no evidence todate of a LibDem recovery at Parliamentary elections despite some successes at local by elections - nor is there any sign of the Greens advancing further. UKIP had a very disappointing result at the Oldham by election and polled just 12% at the local based on NEV.Effectively there are going to be three parties fishing for disaffected votes , and as such there has to be a good possibility that none of them will manage to break out in the way we have observed in earlier Parliaments.
There is hope for the Lib dems, in the Scottish Parliament they gained Fife North East, and Edinburgh West, both were Lib dem strongholds before the coalition, they will gain those two as well as Cambridge and a couple others next time.
The LDs look set for a slow comeback. They are doing it in the way they did it before - starting locally. Good luck to them, I say.
At the moment when Brexit is still an unformed beast UKIP have a role to play in pushing for a hard Brexit with minimal/no freedom of movement. The problem is that their future and their electoral prospects are not in their own hands.
If May delivers a Brexit that most people are comfortable with and it has been implemented by the next election (which I expect, I can see no upside for her in an early election when the biggest issue in recent times is still up in the air) then you have to seriously wonder if UKIP will be fighting the 2020 election at all, let alone overtaking Labour.
My guess is that if Brexit has been delivered and people have moved on UKIP will be back amongst the Greens as a distinctly minority interest with the best part of 10% worth of the electorate looking for a new home. This is likely to help the Tories more than most but it may be that quite a lot just will not vote. Only if Brexit goes seriously off the rails in terms of the deal or the failure to get a deal will they play a meaningful role.
I'm pretty sure that whatever deal is reached on free movement will be more or less unintelligible certainly initially and probably for years.
No one will be sure what it will actually mean for the number of people coming to the UK (and don't forget we have a solid base of nearly 200,000 non- EU immigrants annually anyway).
I think on balance this will be good for UKIP as they will be able to spin the numbers as they are released. On the negative side for them you would really have to care about immigration to follow it so assiduously over the next decade (and you would need not to die in the interim).
It also needs to be an issue that the media focuses on as relentlessly as it has up to now. Not sure that will be the case now that we have voted Leave and the Tories are set fair for years in office.
Indeed. A subset of the population will be very alive to the nuances of whatever deal is reached. Several orders of magnitudes more will be occupied instead by the Daily Mail's sidebar of shame.
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
No, 35% of Leave voters want a complete end to free movement in the Comres poll I posted earlier, now some middle class Leavers will be satisfied with a fudged deal, at least a third of Leave voters will not and will be ideal targets for UKIP
I think @SouthamObserver has it. Anti-EU oppressive yoke, ECJ, widget regulations, etc, is an ok position to take.
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
No, 35% of Leave voters want a complete end to free movement in the Comres poll I posted earlier, now some middle class Leavers will be satisfied with a fudged deal, at least a third of Leave voters will not and will be ideal targets for UKIP
I think @SouthamObserver has it. Anti-EU oppressive yoke, ECJ, widget regulations, etc, is an ok position to take.
Straight out anti-foreigners less so.
Straight out anti-foreigners is what won a majority for Leave. Had the campaign just been against the ECJ and widget regulations and migrations from Eastern Europe never happened then Leave would not have won
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
UKIP's message, while not explicit, implicitly at least may well now be 'send 'em back'
if they Woolfe stand by waiving the rules, then they have a problem with not waiving the rules for Suzanne Evans, who would have been an equally good candidate. But she appears to ba trouper, so probably wouldn't mount a legal challenge. The upside of that is that there will be more court time available for all the legal actions that are likely to emerge from the Labour party.....
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
UKIP's message, while not explicit, implicitly at least may well now be 'send 'em back'
No it isn't. In fact it has explicitly rejected that message. The only party that seems to even be flirting with that message currently is the Tories.
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
UKIP's message, while not explicit, implicitly at least may well now be 'send 'em back'
No it isn't. In fact it has explicitly rejected that message. The only party that seems to even be flirting with that message currently is the Tories.
If and when May agrees free movement with controls to get some access to the single market, UKIP's message will be that free movement should be ended completely. It will be a message focused almost entirely on immigration
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
UKIP's message, while not explicit, implicitly at least may well now be 'send 'em back'
No it isn't. In fact it has explicitly rejected that message. The only party that seems to even be flirting with that message currently is the Tories.
If and when May agrees free movement with controls to get some access to the single market, UKIP's message will be that free movement should be ended completely. It will be a message focused almost entirely on immigration
Stop moving the goalposts. You said UKIP's implicit policy was one of sending people back. That is the claim I challenged and what you seem unwilling to defend.
Maybe, but under FPTP people will see the 'UKIP vote is a Wasted Vote' argument being used and being predominantly true. The UKIP bandwagon has already slowed, ironically the Euro Elections which they have helped kill off would have been what sustained them.
Time will obviously tell but, assuming UKIP has the sense to let him stand, SW looks an outstanding candidate to fulfil UKIP potential, whatever that is. I don't think UKIP is a busted flush, far from it given Labour's dash to desert its working class base.
'That's the other way of maintaining momentum - winning Parliamentary By-Elections. UKIP have never done that without a defecting MP. If they did win the disunited party aspect could scupper them - how do Carswell and Woolfe get on?'
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%.
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
There will be some kind of fudged free movement deal which will hive off a good chunk of the polite company anti-foreigner vote.
That will leave a rump of 5-8%.
Yep - UKIP will need to play immigration very carefully. In a post-Brexit world, how much further can they go before drifting into toxic "send 'em back" territory?
UKIP's message, while not explicit, implicitly at least may well now be 'send 'em back'
No it isn't. In fact it has explicitly rejected that message. The only party that seems to even be flirting with that message currently is the Tories.
If and when May agrees free movement with controls to get some access to the single market, UKIP's message will be that free movement should be ended completely. It will be a message focused almost entirely on immigration
Stop moving the goalposts. You said UKIP's implicit policy was one of sending people back. That is the claim I challenged and what you seem unwilling to defend.
'Send 'em back' could apply equally to Eastern Europeans and those from elsewhere on the continent trying to come to the UK not just those already here.
A decision that Universal Credit will not be rolled out for another 6 years. No decision on Heathrow. A delay in the decision on Hinkley Point. An abandonment of Osborne's fiscal framework with little indication of what is replacing it. David Davis and Liam Fox back in government. Osborne and Gove out of government.
I am trying to remain positive. I really am.
apart from Fox being in government, those are mostly reasons for most of us to feel more positive than if the opposites had been true.
A decision that Universal Credit will not be rolled out for another 6 years. No decision on Heathrow. A delay in the decision on Hinkley Point. An abandonment of Osborne's fiscal framework with little indication of what is replacing it. David Davis and Liam Fox back in government. Osborne and Gove out of government.
I am trying to remain positive. I really am.
apart from Fox being in government, those are mostly reasons for most of us to feel more positive than if the opposites had been true.
Well I don't.
I do have reservations about the strike price for Hinkley C which seems to have assumed a rather different world from the one we are currently in but it really should be taking over from Crossrail as the largest development site in Europe. At the moment we need to be seen to be moving forward with business as usual. I hope the delay is short.
A decision that Universal Credit will not be rolled out for another 6 years. No decision on Heathrow. A delay in the decision on Hinkley Point. An abandonment of Osborne's fiscal framework with little indication of what is replacing it. David Davis and Liam Fox back in government. Osborne and Gove out of government.
I am trying to remain positive. I really am.
At least you haven't used a kipper's complaint that EU citizens are still in the country!
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
As ever your problem is that your 'argument ' is controlled by one poll which you cannot let go of - the poll may be unreliable, it is a snapshot, doesn't measure how strongly people feel and is not enough to support the importance you ascribe to it. If it did UKIP would already have many more MPs than they've managed in the last 20 odd years of GEs and By-elections. Enough already!
everyone keeps talking about a new centre left party to replace Labour but the tories are not real conservatives. I want to start a new Centre-rigtht party called "People FOR profit", it would be unashamedly pro business! Who's with me!
everyone keeps talking about a new centre left party to replace Labour but the tories are not real conservatives. I want to start a new Centre-rigtht party called "People FOR profit", it would be unashamedly pro business! Who's with me!
if they Woolfe stand by waiving the rules, then they have a problem with not waiving the rules for Suzanne Evans, who would have been an equally good candidate. But she appears to ba trouper, so probably wouldn't mount a legal challenge. The upside of that is that there will be more court time available for all the legal actions that are likely to emerge from the Labour party.....
Bending the rules in different fashions, given Woolfe was an MEP.
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
It is about cost control, as there is a £2.4 billion NHS deficit. Our deficit in Leicester is actually not too bad at a projection of £40 million, and under control with a plausible recovery plan. Staffing costs are about 65% of NHS costs so hard to make savings without either cutting staff numbers or eroding pay.
"Safer Staffing" is something that came out of the Francis report into Staffs and recommends nursing numbers in a variety of settings. It was going to be issued as NICE guidance (thereby being binding on NHS organisations) but Jeremy Hunt stopped this being issued last year. Reasons were not given but are surely staff costs related: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/10/nice-publish-report-safe-nhs-staffing-levels-told-stop-work
In Leicester our Chief Executive has done a great job on the finances (we had one of the biggest % deficits in the country a few years back) but more importantly has brought down the SMR (Standardised Mortality Rate) from 106 to 98 (100 being average) over the same period. In part this has been because of the Safer Staffing initiative.
As well as meaning better safer care, having adequate nursing cover also shortens inpatient stays and improves retention and career development. Cutting nursing numbers may save money in the short term but is not the right direction for the NHS.
Thanks, Doc, I rather thought that the Telegraph story was not explaining the whole picture.
I do feel sorry for your cat though. Yesterday he could keep you in bed until long after most decent folk were up and dressed, today booted off the bed by 0430 so you could watch the footer. Poor pussy cat. I hope you made it up to him/her with breakfast treats.
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
As ever your problem is that your 'argument ' is controlled by one poll which you cannot let go of - the poll may be unreliable, it is a snapshot, doesn't measure how strongly people feel and is not enough to support the importance you ascribe to it. If it did UKIP would already have many more MPs than they've managed in the last 20 odd years of GEs and By-elections. Enough already!
Nope, as no GE or by-election has yet been held after the terms of Brexit have been determined. Some Leavers may well have voted Tory at the last election to get an EU referendum, if having won that referendum some of them wanted an end to free movement which they do not get they will look elsewhere. Equally Labour voters who voted Leave will have done so mainly because of immigration, if they do not see an end to free movement after Brexit and with Corbyn leading Labour they may move to UKIP too
everyone keeps talking about a new centre left party to replace Labour but the tories are not real conservatives. I want to start a new Centre-rigtht party called "People FOR profit", it would be unashamedly pro business! Who's with me!
Hey, I accidentally coined that phrase!
I stole it from people before profit.
They stole it from the campaign for secularism - people before prophet.
A decision that Universal Credit will not be rolled out for another 6 years. No decision on Heathrow. A delay in the decision on Hinkley Point. An abandonment of Osborne's fiscal framework with little indication of what is replacing it. David Davis and Liam Fox back in government. Osborne and Gove out of government.
I am trying to remain positive. I really am.
apart from Fox being in government, those are mostly reasons for most of us to feel more positive than if the opposites had been true.
Well I don't.
I do have reservations about the strike price for Hinkley C which seems to have assumed a rather different world from the one we are currently in but it really should be taking over from Crossrail as the largest development site in Europe. At the moment we need to be seen to be moving forward with business as usual. I hope the delay is short.
Hinkley Point is a white elephant which would give too much control of our power generation away, and produce really really expensive electricity. That's without going anywhere near any discussion of whether nuclear power stations are a good idea. If we spent the same amount of money on tidal, we would be laughing.
UC was always going to struggle with IT. Puttint it back will save a lot of people a lot of problems - not just the recipients of benefits but the people who have to administer them.
everyone keeps talking about a new centre left party to replace Labour but the tories are not real conservatives. I want to start a new Centre-rigtht party called "People FOR profit", it would be unashamedly pro business! Who's with me!
A decision that Universal Credit will not be rolled out for another 6 years. No decision on Heathrow. A delay in the decision on Hinkley Point. An abandonment of Osborne's fiscal framework with little indication of what is replacing it. David Davis and Liam Fox back in government. Osborne and Gove out of government.
I am trying to remain positive. I really am.
At least you haven't used a kipper's complaint that EU citizens are still in the country!
And that universal credit thing is a little disingenuous. It was never a big bang thing. The delay has pushed back the completion until 2022. The programme is and has rolled out. Instead of everyone getting moved onto it at a certain date (and it failing....) all new applicants move to it. The churn means this will probably take until 2022.
There are several reasons why the change to UC has been difficult. One of them is an extraordinarily complicated welfare system full of perverse incentives and rules that required an expert level of understanding to comprehend. What does that tell you about the system it is replacing?
"'Send 'em back' could apply equally to Eastern Europeans and those from elsewhere on the continent trying to come to the UK not just those already here."
On your English usage, it could also apply to those not yet born. Down which rabbit hole did you work that one out?
Politics has become a little boring, and I've lost interest in the next Pharmaceutical Olympics, but the Football starts again soon. Interesting to see if the crackdown on referee intimidation has any effect.
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
Thanks, Doc, I rather thought that the Telegraph story was not explaining the whole picture.
I do feel sorry for your cat though. Yesterday he could keep you in bed until long after most decent folk were up and dressed, today booted off the bed by 0430 so you could watch the footer. Poor pussy cat. I hope you made it up to him/her with breakfast treats.
She sleeps in the kitchen, on a hot water bottle under her blanket. Part siamese so quite cold sensitive. The problem is that whoever gets up first lets her ecape from the kitchen, then she likes to go visit whoever is still tucked up in bed. As one of the household is usually up at 0600 because of shifts, she wakes us all up, very affectionally! Hence I often post between 0600 and 0800!
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
As ever your problem is that your 'argument ' is controlled by one poll which you cannot let go of - the poll may be unreliable, it is a snapshot, doesn't measure how strongly people feel and is not enough to support the importance you ascribe to it. If it did UKIP would already have many more MPs than they've managed in the last 20 odd years of GEs and By-elections. Enough already!
Nope, as no GE or by-election has yet been held after the terms of Brexit have been determined. Some Leavers may well have voted Tory at the last election to get an EU referendum, if having won that referendum some of them wanted an end to free movement which they do not get they will look elsewhere. Equally Labour voters who voted Leave will have done so mainly because of immigration, if they do not see an end to free movement after Brexit and with Corbyn leading Labour they may move to UKIP too
And yet you choose to ignore all of the recent polling which shows the Tories doing well and UKIP at best flat-lining because you assume that a ton of voters are waiting for a soft Brexit b4 switching to UKIP in their masses - you're obsessed by immigration to the exclusion of all else. If UKIP do thrive in 2020 it is more likelly to be at the expense of Labour. A Tory decline is much more likely to come from the effects of a recession - which if it occurs, will be as a result of Brexit. However, to be honest your obsession with immigration is clouding your judgement. We've had very high immigration for at least the last 12 years - which has produced a single [and rather odd] UKIP MP. There is no reason that will change in the future.
If we have tariffs with Europe you will all wish we had kept the widget regulations!
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
Combined with the freedom to selectively slash and burn tariffs on goods from elsewhere.
The Patrick Minford approach. Oh dear.
What's the logic of imposing a tariff on something that cannot be resourced or produced locally?
Removing tariffs is also a bargaining tool, which is why people keep blathering on about how important access to the single market is, isn't it?
Access to the single market is less about tariffs (we will still be able to buy the proverbial BMW) and much more about NTBs ie regulations and the like, which incidentally make up the vast majority of the "EU laws" we were "forced to follow" when we were in the EU.
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
Indeed - but HYUFD isn't listening - you're wasting your time.
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
As ever your problem is that your 'argument ' is controlled by one poll which you cannot let go of - the poll may be unreliable, it Es and By-elections. Enough already!
Nope, as no GE or by-election has yet been held after the terms of Brexit have been determined. Some Leavers may well have voted Tory at the last election to get an EU referendum, if having won that referendum some of them wanted free movement after Brexit and with Corbyn leading Labour they may move to UKIP too
And yet you choose to ignore all of the recent polling which shows the Tories doing well and UKIP at best flat-lining because you assume that a ton of voters are waiting for a soft Brexit b4 switching to UKIP in their masses - you're obsessed by immigration to the exclusion of all else. If UKIP do thrive in 2020 it is more likelly to be at the expense of Labour. A Tory decline is much more likely to come from the effects of a recession - which if it occurs, will be as a result of Brexit. However, to be honest your obsession with immigration is clouding your judgement. We've had very high immigration for at least the last 12 years - which has produced a single [and rather odd] UKIP MP. There is no reason that will change in the future.
Even now UKIP are holding the 12% who voted for them at the last election in the polls, if May does produce a soft Brexit that total will likely only increase. Leave only won because of immigration, those who voted for sovereignty reasons were not enough. Labour will certainly suffer from a rising UKIP in the north and Midlands but the Tories will not be immune either in areas like Kent or Essex.
If May keeps us in the single market with some freedom of movement controls a recession is much less likely, only if she ends free movement completely and leaves the single market will a recession be on the cards, at which point the LDs rather than UKIP would probably be the main beneficiaries unless Labour dump Corbyn.
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
OH GODDAMIT I'M WORKING!
OK, I'll make this quick. Tariffs are not an income, they are a cost.
If the UK government puts a tariff of £1,000,000 on every banana imported, it does not gain £1,000,000, it just makes bananas more expensive and fewer are purchased.
Tariffs transfer money from consumers (who know how best to spend money) to governments (who don't). They distort the meaning of money (ultimately a means of communication between purchaser and supplier about what best to buy and make). They interfere with price signals between consumer and supplier, leading to market distortions and an imperfect market, leading to lower quality goods, fewer goods being supplied, and increased consumer dissatisfaction.
They are not good. They are not an income. They are bad. They are a cost.
Depends on the subject and the institution. Graduates of law or economics from Oxbridge will warn a significant wage premium even with student loans to repay, graduates who studied, for example, gender studies at Manchester Metropolitan or the University of West London you may not earn enough to cover the costs of study. However if you wish to pay to broaden your mind that is up to you
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
Indeed - but HYUFD isn't listening - you're wasting your time.
He's as right about this as he was about the Labour Party rulebook.
.... UKIP have a perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to give Labour a drubbing in the north-east and they're failing to even get the leadership paperwork right.
If we have tariffs with Europe you will all wish we had kept the widget regulations!
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
Combined with the freedom to selectively slash and burn tariffs on goods from elsewhere.
The Patrick Minford approach. Oh dear.
What's the logic of imposing a tariff on something that cannot be resourced or produced locally?
Removing tariffs is also a bargaining tool, which is why people keep blathering on about how important access to the single market is, isn't it?
Access to the single market is less about tariffs (we will still be able to buy the proverbial BMW) and much more about NTBs ie regulations and the like, which incidentally make up the vast majority of the "EU laws" we were "forced to follow" when we were in the EU.
Isn't that disingenuous drum getting a little worn out by now ? You know as well as the rest of us that the number of regulations/laws has nothing to do with their impact or saliency with the voters. There may very well have been thousands of NTB related laws, but even a relative handful of European Arrest Warrants and Common Border Policy, or Working Time directives will have far more impact on the running of the country.
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
OH GODDAMIT I'M WORKING!
OK, I'll make this quick. Tariffs are not an income, they are a cost.
If the UK government puts a tariff of £1,000,000 on every banana imported, it does not gain £1,000,000, it just makes bananas more expensive and fewer are purchased.
Tariffs transfer money from consumers (who know how best to spend money) to governments (who don't). They distort the meaning of money (ultimately a means of communication between purchaser and supplier about what best to buy and make). They interfere with price signals between consumer and supplier, leading to market distortions and an imperfect market, leading to lower quality goods, fewer goods being supplied, and increased consumer dissatisfaction.
They are not good. They are not an income. They are bad. They are a cost.
Of course Minford wants to abolish tariffs unilaterally (AIU his position).
He believes this will eliminate manufacturing in the UK.
As the LSE put it, with admirable understatement: "this may be hard to sell to UK citizens as a desirable political option."
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
It is about cost control, as there is a £2.4 billion NHS deficit. Our deficit in Leicester is actually not too bad at a projection of £40 million, and under control with a plausible recovery plan. Staffing costs are about 65% of NHS costs so hard to make savings without either cutting staff numbers or eroding pay.
"Safer Staffing" is something that came out of the Francis report into Staffs and recommends nursing numbers in a variety of settings. It was going to be issued as NICE guidance (thereby being binding on NHS organisations) but Jeremy Hunt stopped this being issued last year. Reasons were not given but are surely staff costs related: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/10/nice-publish-report-safe-nhs-staffing-levels-told-stop-work
In Leicester our Chief Executive has done a great job on the finances (we had one of the biggest % deficits in the country a few years back) but more importantly has brought down the SMR (Standardised Mortality Rate) from 106 to 98 (100 being average) over the same period. In part this has been because of the Safer Staffing initiative.
As well as meaning better safer care, having adequate nursing cover also shortens inpatient stays and improves retention and career development. Cutting nursing numbers may save money in the short term but is not the right direction for the NHS.
Very interesting and informative post, Dr Sox. I work in safety, and am constantly making the point that investments in safety actually cut costs (for a whole variety of reasons), decrease turnaround time and improve quality, resulting in productivity gains. I can quite see how more appropriate levels of nursing could do the same in healthcare.
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
Thanks, Doc, I rather thought that the Telegraph story was not explaining the whole picture.
I do feel sorry for your cat though. Yesterday he could keep you in bed until long after most decent folk were up and dressed, today booted off the bed by 0430 so you could watch the footer. Poor pussy cat. I hope you made it up to him/her with breakfast treats.
She sleeps in the kitchen, on a hot water bottle under her blanket. Part siamese so quite cold sensitive. The problem is that whoever gets up first lets her ecape from the kitchen, then she likes to go visit whoever is still tucked up in bed. As one of the household is usually up at 0600 because of shifts, she wakes us all up, very affectionally! Hence I often post between 0600 and 0800!
Dear God, the cruelty! And these admissions from a physician too.
Most polling indicates that the EU per se is not a very salient issue in determining votes at a General Election. Post Brexit that is probably even more likely to be the case unless a real sense of 'betrayal' takes hold. To that extent UKIP has lost its core issue or raison d'etre - though it also attracted significant support based on immigration fears and as repository of 'a plague on all your houses ' protest vote. In the last Parliament the LibDems lost their place as the 'none of the above' option in England to UKIP and - to some extent - the Greens.There has been no evidence todate of a LibDem recovery at Parliamentary elections despite some successes at local by elections - nor is there any sign of the Greens advancing further. UKIP had a very disappointing result at the Oldham by election and polled just 12% at the local based on NEV.Effectively there are going to be three parties fishing for disaffected votes , and as such there has to be a good possibility that none of them will manage to break out in the way we have observed in earlier Parliaments.
There is hope for the Lib dems, in the Scottish Parliament they gained Fife North East, and Edinburgh West, both were Lib dem strongholds before the coalition, they will gain those two as well as Cambridge and a couple others next time.
Cambridge is doubtful . Labour should have an incumbency bonus there and will go to great lengths to remind left of centre voters that the LibDems helped propel the Tories to office.
Indeed, but there is less and less reason to go to a traditional university for this. MOOCs are a wonderful thing. Question is, are the fees worth the social benefits?
If we have tariffs with Europe you will all wish we had kept the widget regulations!
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
Combined with the freedom to selectively slash and burn tariffs on goods from elsewhere.
The Patrick Minford approach. Oh dear.
What's the logic of imposing a tariff on something that cannot be resourced or produced locally?
Removing tariffs is also a bargaining tool, which is why people keep blathering on about how important access to the single market is, isn't it?
Access to the single market is less about tariffs (we will still be able to buy the proverbial BMW) and much more about NTBs ie regulations and the like, which incidentally make up the vast majority of the "EU laws" we were "forced to follow" when we were in the EU.
Isn't that disingenuous drum getting a little worn out by now ? You know as well as the rest of us that the number of regulations/laws has nothing to do with their impact or saliency with the voters. There may very well have been thousands of NTB related laws, but even a relative handful of European Arrest Warrants and Common Border Policy, or Working Time directives will have far more impact on the running of the country.
So you are saying the thousands of NTB laws which were critical to our economic well-being and which we will now have to follow yet have no input into, are less important than the cross-EU measures which we are virtually certain to retain?
Ha! Excellent to see you on here this afternoon, I expect now that it is getting towards Sunday Lunch time you cat has let you out of bed. Anyway, I wonder if I could ask a favour.
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning that is about hospitals apparently employing too many nurses. It mentions Leicester by name. Might I ask you, please, to cast your eye over the article and tell us what is really going on, in your experience?
I was up at 0430 this morning so the cat got no lie in! (Leicester playing live on Sky in California).
Thanks, Doc, I rather thought that the Telegraph story was not explaining the whole picture.
I do feel sorry for your cat though. Yesterday he could keep you in bed until long after most decent folk were up and dressed, today booted off the bed by 0430 so you could watch the footer. Poor pussy cat. I hope you made it up to him/her with breakfast treats.
She sleeps in the kitchen, on a hot water bottle under her blanket. Part siamese so quite cold sensitive. The problem is that whoever gets up first lets her ecape from the kitchen, then she likes to go visit whoever is still tucked up in bed. As one of the household is usually up at 0600 because of shifts, she wakes us all up, very affectionally! Hence I often post between 0600 and 0800!
Dear God, the cruelty! And these admissions from a physician too.
Shes sleeps by the radiator in a cardboard box lined with a fleecy blanket and hot water bottle. Pesty is a combination of pedigree Siamese and feral farm cat, as a neighbours Siamese escaped at the wrong time. She has the sleekness and intelligence of a Siamese, but also the cold intolerance and finikiness. On the other hand she has the robust health and mousing ability of her father.
Fear not, she is well fed with a fondness for roast chicken, but will often turns her nose up at scraps. Fortunately my terrier obliges with any left overs.
If we have tariffs with Europe you will all wish we had kept the widget regulations!
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
Combined with the freedom to selectively slash and burn tariffs on goods from elsewhere.
The Patrick Minford approach. Oh dear.
What's the logic of imposing a tariff on something that cannot be resourced or produced locally?
Removing tariffs is also a bargaining tool, which is why people keep blathering on about how important access to the single market is, isn't it?
Access to the single market is less about tariffs (we will still be able to buy the proverbial BMW) and much more about NTBs ie regulations and the like, which incidentally make up the vast majority of the "EU laws" we were "forced to follow" when we were in the EU.
Isn't that disingenuous drum getting a little worn out by now ? You know as well as the rest of us that the number of regulations/laws has nothing to do with their impact or saliency with the voters. There may very well have been thousands of NTB related laws, but even a relative handful of European Arrest Warrants and Common Border Policy, or Working Time directives will have far more impact on the running of the country.
So you are saying the thousands of NTB laws which were critical to our economic well-being and which we will now have to follow yet have no input into, are less important than the cross-EU measures which we are virtually certain to retain?
Gotit.
Still can't get over having lost I see... time to move on.
Despite HYUFD's daily constant attempts to talk up UKIP's chances of progress despite all the evidence of probable terminal decline , UKIP and a putative leader again show why they are unfit for office .
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
Some but it provides a large pool for UKIP to dip into
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
Indeed - but HYUFD isn't listening - you're wasting your time.
He's as right about this as he was about the Labour Party rulebook.
Plenty of lawyers and Labour MPs agreed with me, the NEC narrowly did not
They came within 600 votes of winning Heywood and Middleton, if Woolfe is elected leader by the membership what he says goes, regardless of what Carswell thinks. Woolfe, running on an anti free movement platform could get UKIP up to 25% of the vote, Carswell, running on a relatively libertarian, not bothered that much about immigration platform would take UKIP back to about 5%
"could get up to 25%" means "will get much less".
Not at all certain, 26% of all voters want a complete end to freedom of movement in that Comres poll
Yes, and that's the absolute ceiling. In the real world many of these voters will vote on other issues at a general election.
Indeed - but HYUFD isn't listening - you're wasting your time.
I am simply pointing the facts whether you like them or not
Comments
It is about cost control, as there is a £2.4 billion NHS deficit. Our deficit in Leicester is actually not too bad at a projection of £40 million, and under control with a plausible recovery plan. Staffing costs are about 65% of NHS costs so hard to make savings without either cutting staff numbers or eroding pay.
"Safer Staffing" is something that came out of the Francis report into Staffs and recommends nursing numbers in a variety of settings. It was going to be issued as NICE guidance (thereby being binding on NHS organisations) but Jeremy Hunt stopped this being issued last year. Reasons were not given but are surely staff costs related: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/10/nice-publish-report-safe-nhs-staffing-levels-told-stop-work
In Leicester our Chief Executive has done a great job on the finances (we had one of the biggest % deficits in the country a few years back) but more importantly has brought down the SMR (Standardised Mortality Rate) from 106 to 98 (100 being average) over the same period. In part this has been because of the Safer Staffing initiative.
As well as meaning better safer care, having adequate nursing cover also shortens inpatient stays and improves retention and career development. Cutting nursing numbers may save money in the short term but is not the right direction for the NHS.
Straight out anti-foreigners less so.
I do have reservations about the strike price for Hinkley C which seems to have assumed a rather different world from the one we are currently in but it really should be taking over from Crossrail as the largest development site in Europe. At the moment we need to be seen to be moving forward with business as usual. I hope the delay is short.
Why? The UK will collect more in tariffs than it has to pay out.
I do feel sorry for your cat though. Yesterday he could keep you in bed until long after most decent folk were up and dressed, today booted off the bed by 0430 so you could watch the footer. Poor pussy cat. I hope you made it up to him/her with breakfast treats.
UC was always going to struggle with IT. Puttint it back will save a lot of people a lot of problems - not just the recipients of benefits but the people who have to administer them.
There are several reasons why the change to UC has been difficult. One of them is an extraordinarily complicated welfare system full of perverse incentives and rules that required an expert level of understanding to comprehend. What does that tell you about the system it is replacing?
Will set about the post-race piece shortly. Last race weekend until the end of August. Good time for a break, I think. Coincides with the Olympics.
"'Send 'em back' could apply equally to Eastern Europeans and those from elsewhere on the continent trying to come to the UK not just those already here."
On your English usage, it could also apply to those not yet born. Down which rabbit hole did you work that one out?
Politics has become a little boring, and I've lost interest in the next Pharmaceutical Olympics, but the Football starts again soon. Interesting to see if the crackdown on referee intimidation has any effect.
Removing tariffs is also a bargaining tool, which is why people keep blathering on about how important access to the single market is, isn't it?
Education is worth more than money though.
If May keeps us in the single market with some freedom of movement controls a recession is much less likely, only if she ends free movement completely and leaves the single market will a recession be on the cards, at which point the LDs rather than UKIP would probably be the main beneficiaries unless Labour dump Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/759749009992880128
OH GODDAMIT I'M WORKING!
OK, I'll make this quick. Tariffs are not an income, they are a cost.
If the UK government puts a tariff of £1,000,000 on every banana imported, it does not gain £1,000,000, it just makes bananas more expensive and fewer are purchased.
Tariffs transfer money from consumers (who know how best to spend money) to governments (who don't). They distort the meaning of money (ultimately a means of communication between purchaser and supplier about what best to buy and make). They interfere with price signals between consumer and supplier, leading to market distortions and an imperfect market, leading to lower quality goods, fewer goods being supplied, and increased consumer dissatisfaction.
They are not good. They are not an income. They are bad. They are a cost.
.... UKIP have a perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to give Labour a drubbing in the north-east and they're failing to even get the leadership paperwork right.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/germany-post-race-analysis-2016.html
He believes this will eliminate manufacturing in the UK.
As the LSE put it, with admirable understatement: "this may be hard to sell to UK citizens as a desirable political option."
Gotit.
Fear not, she is well fed with a fondness for roast chicken, but will often turns her nose up at scraps. Fortunately my terrier obliges with any left overs.