politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP hit a record 18% from YouGov in the latest daily poll
Comments
-
Personal doldrums (if you are unemployed), as opposed to macroeconomic doldrumsSpeedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
0 -
Indeed. Unemployment was over 10% in May 1987. That's a shit-load of families feeling the impact.RobD said:
Personal doldrums (if you are unemployed), as opposed to macroeconomic doldrumsSpeedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.0 -
Adam Smith Institute...
Lord Freud has been shamefully treated by Ed Miliband.0 -
That's a really good example, but not in the way you intend. The League tables really don't look that different with 2 points for a win. Arsenal would move up three places above West Ham, Swansea and Tottenham. Sunderland would move up two places above Leicester and Hull. And, um, that would be it.isam said:
People on here doing forecasts using models from 2010 and before might as well be using the old "2 points for a win" scoring system in football to work out League tablesItajai said:Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.
So using "2 points for a win" is actually a really good approximation for the actual league table using 3 points for a win.
Everyone knows that all the election forecasting models are simply approximations which won't get the details right, but in a chamber of 650 seats, 532 of which are in England, the approximation is good enough to be useful. Obviously not good enough to predict the number of UKIP seats, but only trolls pretend otherwise now.0 -
An economic boom is not a doldrum, even if unemployment was high the vast majority of the voters was very happy with the economy.Anorak said:
I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.Speedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
And here's the definition of doldrums from Thesaurus:
doldrums - a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"0 -
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Plus, you've put your money where your mouth is, so good luck. Mind you if it's 10th most winnable for UKIP, do you think they will win > 10?isam said:
As it happens the Euros and locals have been quite a good indicator of the three by elections since I think (Newark, Clacton & Heywood and Middleton)logical_song said:
OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind.isam said:
What? Where do you get that from?logical_song said:
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?isam said:logical_song said:
.isam said:logical_song said:
.Socrates said:
.Richard_Nabavi said:isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
But on this specific seat...
I live half a mile away, and know the area quite well... not necessarily a big deal, but UKIP won a ward in my constituency that is very similar to Thurrock last year so I decided to look into it more closely
I made an attempt at modelling each constituency 18 months ago based on 2010 results and it came out as one of the top 10 seats for UKIP. Doesn't really mean much, I could be mistaken . But I have been in the odds compiling game 15 years, so should know vaguely what I am doing
I backed UKIP to win the seat at 16/1, UKIP then won the Euros and local elections in the seat quite easily
Ashcroft polling (from 4 or 5 months ago when UKIP were nowhere near as strong) has them well ahead
UKIP have one of their top men (Head of policy) who is also a local lad, as the candidate, and have been canvassing the area extensively for 6 months already
I have spoken with the UKIP people in the area and they say its a two horse race.. the Tories aren't even really trying
UKIP are now 5/4 to win the seat, and I think its still value
If they win Thursdays by election, it is more or less all over
Feel free to disagree, but I am pretty confident that voting Tory in Thurrock makes a Tory government less likely0 -
1931, though that's a bit of a fiddle as the government seeking re-election was not the one that was formed after the previous GE.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
Oct 1974, though that's also questionable as it was basically a re-run of Feb 1974 rather than a judgement on Wilson's third term.
1992. Yes, it was trying to recover but the original quote was 'in the doldrums' and that was probably an accurate description, even if there'd just been a couple of unexpected (and, as it turned out, rather isolated) gusts of wind.0 -
Unemployment is also a state of inactivitySpeedy said:
An economic boom is not a doldrum, even if unemployment was high the vast majority of the voters was very happy with the economy.Anorak said:
I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.Speedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
And here's the definition of doldrums from Thesaurus:
doldrums - a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation" 0 -
Quick question. What odds would be people give on the third largest parliamentary party after the next GE - LD / UKIP / SNP / Other?
I only ask out of academic interest - I'm not looking to place a bet.0 -
Sigh. GDP was driven by staggering City growth, it was not seem AT ALL outside the SE for most of the 80s.Speedy said:
An economic boom is not a doldrum, even if unemployment was high the vast majority of the voters was very happy with the economy.Anorak said:
I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.Speedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
And here's the definition of doldrums from Thesaurus:
doldrums - a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"
I'd say that 75% of the UK would have seen 'doldrums' as the Promised Land from where they were.0 -
@charlotteahenry: Just got ridiculous labour email. Dangerously close to overplaying hand on Freud.0
-
Actually, when I wrote that I thought.. "hmm that probably wouldn't make much difference as it happens" so I worked out the last 12 years Prem tables using two points for a win... and the Champs would've been the same every time!OblitusSumMe said:
That's a really good example, but not in the way you intend. The League tables really don't look that different with 2 points for a win. Arsenal would move up three places above West Ham, Swansea and Tottenham. Sunderland would move up two places above Leicester and Hull. And, um, that would be it.isam said:
People on here doing forecasts using models from 2010 and before might as well be using the old "2 points for a win" scoring system in football to work out League tablesItajai said:Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.
So using "2 points for a win" is actually a really good approximation for the actual league table using 3 points for a win.
Everyone knows that all the election forecasting models are simply approximations which won't get the details right, but in a chamber of 650 seats, 532 of which are in England, the approximation is good enough to be useful. Obviously not good enough to predict the number of UKIP seats, but only trolls pretend otherwise now.
So I agree, it is quite a good system, particularly for working out the big two... the electoral calculus just doesn't work for UKIP
0 -
Thank you Mr @Bond_James_Bond I've attempted to watch 2001 twice and gave in both times - I got lost at the monolith and the baby and well, all of it really.
At least now I get the HAL references. I really ought to get myself a copy of Movie Plots For Dummies for all those I was too perplexed to finish.
I think my view of Inception couldn't be more different to Mr Loony's. IIRC he thinks its FAB. I thought it was terrible and switched it off at about 2hrs in and wrote a very rude review of it instead.Bond_James_Bond said:TheWatcher said:
Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:Godwin's law alert Klaxon
Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.
He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html
Well, quite.Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.0 -
Eh?logical_song said:
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Plus, you've put your money where your mouth is, so good luck. Mind you if it's 10th most winnable for UKIP, do you think they will win > 10?isam said:logical_song said:
OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind.isam said:
What? Where do you get that from?logical_song said:
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?isam said:logical_song said:
.isam said:logical_song said:
.Socrates said:
.Richard_Nabavi said:isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
I didn't say it was the 10th most winnable0 -
The Liberal Democrats seem to add the words "fairer society" into every piece of news / initiative they announce.Plato said:It must feel very good to be a Kipper nowadays. The sun is definitely shinning on your Party right now.
I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.
Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.Sean_F said:Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.
Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove
Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.
Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.
Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.
Sadly, that ship has long since sailed. Why weren't they thinking of a "fairer society" back in 2010 when they so eagerly wanted to get into bed with the toxic Tories?
For that alone, they will suffer at GE 2015.
Labour still on course to form the next Government (even with Ed at the helm!)0 -
Manufacturing was booming too, 5% growth in 1987.Anorak said:
Sigh. GDP was driven by staggering City growth, it was not seem AT ALL outside the SE for most of the 80s.Speedy said:
An economic boom is not a doldrum, even if unemployment was high the vast majority of the voters was very happy with the economy.Anorak said:
I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.Speedy said:
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)Anorak said:
1983, 1987.Speedy said:
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?RobD said:
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?Speedy said:Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
And here's the definition of doldrums from Thesaurus:
doldrums - a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"
I'd say that 75% of the UK would have seen 'doldrums' as the Promised Land from where they were.
0 -
Maybe SNP, probably LD. Based on 'lumpiness' of votes. That's FPTP folks.david_herdson said:Quick question. What odds would be people give on the third largest parliamentary party after the next GE - LD / UKIP / SNP / Other?
I only ask out of academic interest - I'm not looking to place a bet.0 -
@faisalislam: Lord Freud makes full and unreserved apology... Statement coming0
-
@LogicalSong
Farage is suggesting about six seats at the moment, which is a fairly middle of the road kind of forecast.
I'd definitely number Thurrock amongst that six, and agree with Isam that 5/4 is generous. Naturally I've backed that judgement with hard-earned, but not at the same sexy prices he got!0 -
According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
0 -
What was the other option in 2010?murali_s said:
The Liberal Democrats seem to add the words "fairer society" into every piece of news / initiative they announce.Plato said:It must feel very good to be a Kipper nowadays. The sun is definitely shinning on your Party right now.
I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.
Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.Sean_F said:Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.
Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove
Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.
Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.
Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.
Sadly, that ship has long since sailed. Why weren't they thinking of a "fairer society" back in 2010 when they so eagerly wanted to get into bed with the toxic Tories?
For that alone, they will suffer at GE 2015.
Labour still on course to form the next Government (even with Ed at the helm!)0 -
Plato
Seen Fight Club? That was a weird and weirdly overrated film.0 -
there aren't the usual references at the next PPC and how much the retiring MP will support whoever he will be and the local party ahead of next GE campaignantifrank said:
That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
0 -
1/10 LDdavid_herdson said:Quick question. What odds would be people give on the third largest parliamentary party after the next GE - LD / UKIP / SNP / Other?
I only ask out of academic interest - I'm not looking to place a bet.
20/1 SNP
20/1 UKIP0 -
You're the guru: hadn't he already been reselected to fight the constituency next year?AndreaParma_82 said:there aren't the usual references at the next PPC and how much the retiring MP will support whoever he will be and the local party ahead of next GE campaign
antifrank said:That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
0 -
"I'm sorry I got caught out"Scott_P said:@faisalislam: Lord Freud makes full and unreserved apology... Statement coming
0 -
Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.0 -
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
0 -
Tissue_Price said:
Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.
Oh well, UKIP will go up in the polls a bit more...
0 -
Well, quite
My feeling is the tory response should be pretty robust here. Stick it back up Ed's b*ckside0 -
So why is he apologising.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
You seem to be aiming disgusting at the wrong person
0 -
I can't see a good reason to not bring in a variant to the Personal Independence Payment idea, but related to work rather than care.
The data is probably all captured for PIP applications - I'm pretty sure that covers all mental and physical disabilities. It'd be fairly straightforward to allocate a subsidy to employers based on whatever the PIP score was. PIP IIRC isn't means tested either, if that's the case - it's in the interests of everyone to help those who want to work/but have a significant set of issues that make them less attractive to employers.
I think Lord Freud was just stating the obvious, but used all the wrong language.david_herdson said:
In cases like that, employers shouldn't have to fund the minimum wage. If they do, the inevitable result is that the people won't be employed and they'll be left to rot without work that they're willing to do.Scrapheap_as_was said:Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html
A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.
The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.0 -
Because if he didn't apologise, he'd be asked why he wasn't apologizing for an eon.bigjohnowls said:
So why is he apologising.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
You seem to be aiming disgusting at the wrong person0 -
Lord Freud's language was awful, whatever his underlying point. Government ministers should have more care.
"Let them eat cake" was, on some versions, taken out of context and misinterpreted.0 -
I agree whole heartedlyTissue_Price said:Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.
Anyone with a bit of common sense will understand what he meant
Labour need to be careful here.. hysterical and deliberate over reactions are a bit 1980s lefty
This seems to me to be the equivalent of giving your kid a tenner to take 4 hours cleaning the car even though you could get a much better job done in ten minutes for a fiver down the local Eastern European garage.
0 -
So why is he apologising.
He is apologizing for the offence cause by his very poor phrasing.
The fact remains that it is society, and not Lord Freud, that will not pay the minimum wage to employ severely disabled people.
0 -
I'm really not.bigjohnowls said:
So why is he apologising.
You seem to be aiming disgusting at the wrong person
Have you actually read the exchange, or are you so cynical that you really, really don't care?
Yes, Lord Freud should have chosen his words more carefully, like a full-time professional politician. But the central point - whether the benefits/minimum wage system prevents the most severely disabled from taking a small step towards self-esteem and independence - is a serious one.0 -
The problem I have with it is not that it isn't sincere, or that his personal experience isn't valuable but that it's used as a form of immunisation against criticism in a debate on certain topics. It's a fallacious appeal to emotion while setting up a straw man: "How dare you question my motivation (the arguer may not be, instead pointing out perceived problems with your actions), due to my own personal experience (Heart rending, but of little relevance to the merits of policy A orSimonStClare said:
One would have thought that speaking from a position of personnel experience, eminently qualifies any MP to speak out on such matters – wealth doesn’t come into it.hucks67 said:Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.
I know better than anyone else how to understand/preserve/save/improve x" (fallacious conclusion).
Around NHS provision it's forgivable. The notion that Cameron's own heartbreaking experience means that we should automatically trust him to have the right policies to protect the NHS is patently ludicrous, however politicians love to carve their own personal narrative and I can understand how some of his anger about the more vituperative attacks is likely to be absolutely genuine.
When over used with anger though it begins to look a little defensive - as it did today, as it was in response to a question about working rights for the disabled and the integrity of the minimum wage where Cameron's own experience is fairly irrelevant. "How dare you question my motives", doesn't really work when you're being confronted with an at best clumsily offensive quote from a minister about disabled people, a broad group who let's be honest feel that whatever your motivations, they've got a distinctly raw deal out of this government with the way some cuts have fallen and the way that some of those have been handled.
0 -
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
0 -
Isn't Ash now the pathologist in CSI NY? I'm sure that's where I recognised from?Bond_James_Bond said:
No I'm not!Ishmael_X said:
You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.Bond_James_Bond said:TheWatcher said:
Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:Godwin's law alert Klaxon
Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.
He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html
Well, quite.Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
snip
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
HAL was told of the mission's purpose but the crew were not, until after he wigged out and the one survivor switched him off.
In Alien MUTHR just ran the ship. The science officer, Ash the android, was the one in receipt of Special Order 937, which said Gather specimen, crew expendable.
HAL's goals were to be reliable but also to lie, hence paranoid fugue. Ash's goal was to protect the alien, "all other priorities rescinded", so there was never any conflict of objectives. Bummer for everyone else of course.0 -
Spot on, Bond.Bond_James_Bond said:
No I'm not!Ishmael_X said:
You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.Bond_James_Bond said:TheWatcher said:
Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:Godwin's law alert Klaxon
Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.
He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html
Well, quite.Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
HAL was told of the mission's purpose but the crew were not, until after he wigged out and the one survivor switched him off.
In Alien MUTHR just ran the ship. The science officer, Ash the android, was the one in receipt of Special Order 937, which said Gather specimen, crew expendable.
HAL's goals were to be reliable but also to lie, hence paranoid fugue. Ash's goal was to protect the alien, "all other priorities rescinded", so there was never any conflict of objectives. Bummer for everyone else of course.
It's actually a lot clearer in the book.0 -
£6!!! £4 or £5 up here in the North East!isam said:
I agree whole heartedlyTissue_Price said:Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.
Anyone with a bit of common sense will understand what he meant
Labour need to be careful here.. hysterical and deliberate over reactions are a bit 1980s lefty
This seems to me to be the equivalent of giving your kid a tenner to clean the car even though you could get a much better job done for a fiver down the local Eastern European garage.0 -
Reselected in November 2013
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10835746.Jeremy_Browne_MP_re_selected_to_contest_Taunton_Deane_for_Lib_Dems/antifrank said:
You're the guru: hadn't he already been reselected to fight the constituency next year?AndreaParma_82 said:there aren't the usual references at the next PPC and how much the retiring MP will support whoever he will be and the local party ahead of next GE campaign
antifrank said:That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
0 -
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.0 -
You are the oracle.AndreaParma_82 said:Reselected in November 2013
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10835746.Jeremy_Browne_MP_re_selected_to_contest_Taunton_Deane_for_Lib_Dems/antifrank said:
You're the guru: hadn't he already been reselected to fight the constituency next year?AndreaParma_82 said:there aren't the usual references at the next PPC and how much the retiring MP will support whoever he will be and the local party ahead of next GE campaign
antifrank said:That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
It's all rather strange.0 -
We may believe that, some may even hope that, but no one knows that. Do UKIP not trust the British people to exercise their judgement in the ballot box in 2017? Are they so comtemptuous of their fellow citizens that they will make the 'wrong' decision? The answer, sadly, that in some cases and certainly in Nigel Farage's, is yes, they do and they are.Sean_F said:
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?0 -
What do you think was disgusting, out of interest? The choice of words? Or the proposal to come up with a system where companies are subsidised so that the disabled can get more jobs at the same level of overall income?bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.0 -
Does Roger Helmer's masseuse get minimum wage?MarkHopkins said:Tissue_Price said:Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.
Oh well, UKIP will go up in the polls a bit more...0 -
UKIP support a referendum in 2015, let alone 2017. The people that do not trust the British public are the parties that never support a referendum during a period when they are likely to be in power. That's all of the big three. Cameron was the one with enough contempt that he wouldn't have one this parliament.JohnO said:
We may believe that, some may even hope that, but no one knows that. Do UKIP not trust the British people to exercise their judgement in the ballot box in 2017? Are they so comtemptuous of their fellow citizens? The answer, sadly, that in some cases and certainly in Nigel Farage's, is yes, they do and they are.Sean_F said:
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?0 -
Now it's of course 10 lost deposits from 18 by-elections on the GB mainland since 2010Plato said:LOL - that Lost Deposit icon could've been a Winning Here diamond - just the wrong sort of winning...
Casino_Royale said:My favourite Sunil tweet:
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/474874525629558784
0 -
I'll do what I like, I certainly don't need advice from youbigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.
If you honestly think he was being mean deliberately then there's no point debating this with you... he obviously meant that the work these people do isn't worth the minimum hourly rate under normal circumstances, and if you would put your sensitive skin protection on, financially speaking he is correct.
What you are doing is demonizing, via feigned outrage, someone who is looking for a way of giving an earner to a mentally disabled person for doing work that he could do himself, or get someone else to do better, for political propaganda purposes
0 -
Yes, I'd really like to know too. Is it disgust that a business wont cough up for a disabled person producing 2 widgets an hour, when an able-bodied worker can turn out 4?Socrates said:
What do you think was disgusting, out of interest? The choice of words? Or the proposal to come up with a system where companies are subsidised so that the disabled can get more jobs at the same level of overall income?bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.0 -
I found this in Twitter:
BREAKING NEWS: An investigation has begun into why this tweet was posted and then removed from twitter this morning. pic.twitter.com/L6u0VaaxBq
— Sly News Newsdesk (@SlyNewsBreak) October 15, 2014
True or false: A new guessing game.0 -
Just wrong. Listen to, and try to understand, what Freud says. You have to be very, very obtuse - deliberately or not - not to see what labour have done here.bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.
0 -
TheWatcher said:
Does Roger Helmer's masseuse get minimum wage?MarkHopkins said:Tissue_Price said:Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins 3m3 minutes ago
Lord Freud: full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question
OK, let's just wish the premise of the question away, rather than trying to have a grown-up discussion along the lines of David Herdson's excellent post downthread.
A thoroughly depressing episode in the modern politics/news-cycle nexus.
Oh well, UKIP will go up in the polls a bit more...
No idea. The question is too hard for me to answer.
0 -
I thought the EU-Canada deal had substantial provisions re freedom of labour. But I could be wrong.Socrates said:Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
0 -
Very curious dominance of a Tory atmosphere on PB these days - somehow a cross between a UKIP pub, a right-leaning economics thinktank, and a few more entertaining and occasional pipesmoke and elbowpatch whiffs of the 1980s Carlton club.0
-
We need an update on the graph though!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Now it's of course 10 lost deposits from 18 by-elections on the GB mainland since 2010Plato said:LOL - that Lost Deposit icon could've been a Winning Here diamond - just the wrong sort of winning...
Casino_Royale said:My favourite Sunil tweet:
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/4748745256295587840 -
I think he doesn't trust the Tory party. I know that may be hard to believe.JohnO said:
We may believe that, some may even hope that, but no one knows that. Do UKIP not trust the British people to exercise their judgement in the ballot box in 2017? Are they so comtemptuous of their fellow citizens that they will make the 'wrong' decision? The answer, sadly, that in some cases and certainly in Nigel Farage's, is yes, they do and they are.Sean_F said:
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?
0 -
Well i think Cameron agrees with me and you.Ishmael_X said:
Just wrong. Listen to, and try to understand, what Freud says. You have to be very, very obtuse - deliberately or not - not to see what labour have done here.bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.
Lord F comments may well have knocked unemployment figures off the top of the news.
If i were Cameron i would be furious for both the comments and allowing Lab to steal the headlines.0 -
GM Polis blaming targets, if this had come out last week before the polls shut. Labour would have been in serious trouble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29623340
Warning - some cages might be rattled.0 -
You deceive no one, and probably not even yourself, with such self-serving rubbish. The Conservatives never promised an in-out referendum in their 2010 manifesto. They will in 2015, You have been told time and time and time again by those who know infinitely more about the Conservative Party than you, that such a referendum will be held, after re-negotiation, in 2017 by a Cameron-led Government.Socrates said:
UKIP support a referendum in 2015, let alone 2017. The people that do not trust the British public are the parties that never support a referendum during a period when they are likely to be in power. That's all of the big three. Cameron was the one with enough contempt that he wouldn't have one this parliament.JohnO said:
We may believe that, some may even hope that, but no one knows that. Do UKIP not trust the British people to exercise their judgement in the ballot box in 2017? Are they so comtemptuous of their fellow citizens? The answer, sadly, that in some cases and certainly in Nigel Farage's, is yes, they do and they are.Sean_F said:
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?
Those in UKIP like yourself (but by no means anything like a majority of the current supporters) are latter-day revolutionary defeatists, you are petrified of a vote that will likely lose, and will do anything and everything to ensure it does not take place. And that means praying, like you've never prayed before, that Ed Miliband becomes PM.0 -
MikeK said:
I found this in Twitter:
BREAKING NEWS: An investigation has begun into why this tweet was posted and then removed from twitter this morning. pic.twitter.com/L6u0VaaxBq
— Sly News Newsdesk (@SlyNewsBreak) October 15, 2014
True or false: A new guessing game.
Some readers might need new glasses.
0 -
See Lord Fs apology for more info.Socrates said:
What do you think was disgusting, out of interest? The choice of words? Or the proposal to come up with a system where companies are subsidised so that the disabled can get more jobs at the same level of overall income?bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.0 -
"Jeremy Browne has announced that now is the right time to announce he will not stand at the next election and the Liberal Democrats wish him all the best from the future.antifrank said:
You are the oracle.AndreaParma_82 said:Reselected in November 2013
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10835746.Jeremy_Browne_MP_re_selected_to_contest_Taunton_Deane_for_Lib_Dems/antifrank said:
You're the guru: hadn't he already been reselected to fight the constituency next year?AndreaParma_82 said:there aren't the usual references at the next PPC and how much the retiring MP will support whoever he will be and the local party ahead of next GE campaign
antifrank said:That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
It's all rather strange.
"The Deputy Prime Minister regrets the decision that he has taken to leave politics as Jeremy has always had strongly-held views which he has expressed with great skill and conviction.
"Jeremy has been a tireless constituency MP for the people of Taunton and served in two important ministerial roles in the early part of this government."
– LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SPOKESPERSON
http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/update/2014-10-15/clegg-pays-tribute-to-brownes-strongly-held-views/0 -
I thought the thread must have auto loaded. Hope your cat has got through the night ok.MikeSmithson said:
Wishful thinking I'd suggest.
Go look at the Ashcroft marginals polling. The latest batch showed a swing from 2010 of just 2% from the LDs to UKIP and in at least two of the seats that you list there's been a swing from CON to LD since the general election.
Lib Dem incumbency is far stronger than for other parties. Remember as well that voters are not asked to choose party leaders, parties but individuals to be their MP.
I am up at this time of night because our cat, which we have had for 15 years, is very poorly.
I agree that incumbency is a significant factor in the elections, and many libdem MPs have a good reputation as constituency MPs.
If the switch was say from Libdem to Lab or Green I think it would be less significant and would expect a lot of them to come back.
Its the fact that the switch is to the other end of the spectrum to UKIP that would worry me if I were a Libdem MP. It indicates that for many voters, voting Liberal was only done for negative reasons as a protest vote, or more specifically an anti tory vote (which will inevitably be diluted by Libdems being coalition partners however well the coalition went)
Taking Yeovil (as I have strong links with that part of the world). Now South Somerset council dosen't fully align with the parly const but is pretty well aligned. In 2014 Libs were approx 5,000 votes behind both Tories and UKIP. Laws does have a significant personal following (although I gather it's a bit tarnished in the eyes of some local voters by the expenses business), but he needs the mother of all incumbency votes to turn round that Euro 2014 result.
I don't think UKIP will win it, but, as with many other Libdem seats where the tories have always been a good second, former Libdem people voting UKIP (and Green - Green didn't stand in Yeovil in 2010) may do for Laws and let the Tory candidate in.
Were the libs second in the Euros there, I would agree with you, but third, over 5,000 votes behind both tories and UKIP, and only 5,000 votes ahead of the fourth placed Greens is to my mind too much to ask of an incumbency vote. Plus, if activists have to go into Yeovil to try and shore up Laws, where does that leave resources for defence of more vulnerable seats like Somerton and Frome or Chippenham?
Euro Results in South Somerset:
UKIP 16,786
Tories 14,526
Libdems 9,736
Green 4,156
Labour 3,321
An Independence From Europe 741
English Democrats 460
BNP 294
Turnout 39.19%
0 -
Not Lab for pointing it out as some seem to thinkSocrates said:
What do you think was disgusting, out of interest? The choice of words? Or the proposal to come up with a system where companies are subsidised so that the disabled can get more jobs at the same level of overall income?bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.0 -
Meaning "me and not you"?bigjohnowls said:
Well i think Cameron agrees with me and you.Ishmael_X said:
Just wrong. Listen to, and try to understand, what Freud says. You have to be very, very obtuse - deliberately or not - not to see what labour have done here.bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.
Lord F comments may well have knocked unemployment figures off the top of the news.
If i were Cameron i would be furious for both the comments and allowing Lab to steal the headlines.
I didn't say that what Labour has done hasn't worked, at least in the short term.
0 -
"ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation into the death of a Rochdale teenager who alleged she was sexually exploited by a gang of older men.
Victoria Agoglia Byrne, 15, died of a suspected drugs overdose in 2003. She was living in a care home for young people at the time.
In an account written as much as two years before her death, Victoria described her sexual abuse by a gang of older men.
As part of our investigation into failings by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to investigate sexual exploitation, ITV News can reveal that Victoria's account was handed to police in 2004 but was never acted upon.
'I am only 13. I got the rest of my life ahead of me. I have slept with people older than me. Half of them I don't even know there [sic] names'.– victoria "
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-15/itv-news-reveals-how-police-ignored-teenage-victims-written-account-of-sexual-abuse/
0 -
Moronic headline of the year: Why is the US Navy practising for war with China?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-295476210 -
Dunno about the Korean deal but the one with Canada does have provisions to make it easier for Temporary access for purposes to do with trade. Certainly nothing like the freedom of movement provisions of the EU.rcs1000 said:
I thought the EU-Canada deal had substantial provisions re freedom of labour. But I could be wrong.Socrates said:Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
So that rather blows out the idea that the UK would have to accept the current arrangements if it left the EU. It would be a matter for negotiation.0 -
Skybet are doing the same markets as Ladbrokes on R&S
Similar prices too!
https://www.skybet.com/politics/by_-_elections/event/17054097?bsnls=1&bsopen=1&aff_id=80360 -
The state already helps employers with the cost of disabled staff - Access to Work can pay for adaptations in the working environment, transport costs, help with specialist equipment etc.
Freud's comments were ill advised and insulting. No one should ever be expected to work for less than the minimum wage.0 -
Again: Listen to, and try to understand, what Freud actually says.bigjohnowls said:
Not Lab for pointing it out as some seem to thinkSocrates said:
What do you think was disgusting, out of interest? The choice of words? Or the proposal to come up with a system where companies are subsidised so that the disabled can get more jobs at the same level of overall income?bigjohnowls said:
The comments were disgustingisam said:
Yes indeedRichard_Nabavi said:
Well, quite. It's frankly pretty disgusting of Labour to try to make a cheap political point by misquoting from an exchange which was actually about how to help the very severely disabled gain some self-esteem and a little bit of independence.taffys said:According to Guido, Labour’s Anne Begg admitted on Sky News that she had not been told the context of Lord Freud’s comments by party spinners...'
He was found out
He has apologized
The Tory PB habit of trying to blame Lab for finding out and mentioning it and for everything in general is pathetic.
Do as Lord F has done and admit it was wrong.
0 -
So you don't care about the very severely disabled, as long as there's a cheap political point to be scored.bigjohnowls said:
Not Lab for pointing it out as some seem to think
Fair enough, at least you admit it.0 -
Wasn't the idea that the government would subsidise their wage, so more disabled people can be employed?michaelcollins10 said:The state already helps employers with the cost of disabled staff - Access to Work can pay for adaptations in the working environment, transport costs, help with specialist equipment etc.
Freud's comments were ill advised and insulting. No one should ever be expected to work for less than the minimum wage.0 -
This is all I can find:rcs1000 said:
I thought the EU-Canada deal had substantial provisions re freedom of labour. But I could be wrong.Socrates said:Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
Temporary movement of personnel. It will be easier for firms to move staff temporarily between the EU and Canada, and certain categories of professionals will have easier access to temporarily supply services such as consultancy in a variety of sectors like engineering, accounting or architecture.0 -
Certain posters are determined to be blind to the facts as long as it reinforces prejudices about Eeeevil Tories who prefer the taste of disabled babies above all others.RobD said:
Wasn't the idea that the government would subsidise their wage, so more disabled people can be employed?michaelcollins10 said:The state already helps employers with the cost of disabled staff - Access to Work can pay for adaptations in the working environment, transport costs, help with specialist equipment etc.
Freud's comments were ill advised and insulting. No one should ever be expected to work for less than the minimum wage.
It was dumb phrasing, but a sound point on how to best help the disabled work. End of (said in hope not expectation).0 -
New Thread0
-
Ha, it's £1 on the Holloway Road in London. But you do have to do it yourself, for 5 minutes - coin in the slot, grab the hose, go, press buttons alternatively for shampoo/water/air. It's good fun.SandyRentool said:
£6!!! £4 or £5 up here in the North East!
0 -
isam said:
Skybet are doing the same markets as Ladbrokes on R&S
Similar prices too!
https://www.skybet.com/politics/by_-_elections/event/17054097?bsnls=1&bsopen=1&aff_id=8036
Skybet?!!
Do you know anybody that ever got more than 50p on with them?
0 -
So at this point it's not just rape and torture, it's potential murder. And still there's nothing from David Cameron and Nick Clegg in terms of action. They must lack the basic moral compass of normal human beings.isam said:"ITV News has learned that police are to re-open an investigation into the death of a Rochdale teenager who alleged she was sexually exploited by a gang of older men.
Victoria Agoglia Byrne, 15, died of a suspected drugs overdose in 2003. She was living in a care home for young people at the time.
In an account written as much as two years before her death, Victoria described her sexual abuse by a gang of older men.
As part of our investigation into failings by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to investigate sexual exploitation, ITV News can reveal that Victoria's account was handed to police in 2004 but was never acted upon.
'I am only 13. I got the rest of my life ahead of me. I have slept with people older than me. Half of them I don't even know there [sic] names'.– victoria "
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-10-15/itv-news-reveals-how-police-ignored-teenage-victims-written-account-of-sexual-abuse/0 -
In Italy there's a quote of disabled workers (reduction of work ability of at least 45%, 33% if they are disabled after an accident that took place at the workplace) a company should take:
companies with less than 15 workers (permanent contracts or fixed term lasting at least 9 months, part-timers calculated in accordance to their work hours. So for ex 2 part-timers at 50% is considered 1 unit): no requirements
between 15 and 35 workers: 1 disabled at minumum (only if they are hiring new people)
36-50 workers: 2 disabled
more than 50 workers: 7% of the workforce
For companies with 15-35 workers they can pick the disabled person they prefer. For companies with 36-50 workers they can pick one with nominal calling and one with numeric calls (the local employement center or the labour market dapartment of the local government will select the worker or a list of workers to choose from). For 50+ companies, 60% with nominal call and 40% with numeric call.
There's a fine if they don't respect the numbers required. Some companies prefer paying the fine rather than hiring a disabled worker.
0 -
Jeremy Browne was very active and in demand at fringe meetings at conference this year. He has strong views as to the need to have a smaller state from a 360 degree liberal perspective. I also think that he has a new book on liberalism out.0
-
It is completely pointless and ludicrous taking the Euro results and extrapolating them to a GE . Just look at the 2009 Euro results and compare to the 2010 GE . Look at the turnout figures for a start . 39% compared to nearer 70% at a GE .Paul_Mid_Beds said:
I thought the thread must have auto loaded. Hope your cat has got through the night ok.MikeSmithson said:
Wishful thinking I'd suggest.
Go look at the Ashcroft marginals polling. The latest batch showed a swing from 2010 of just 2% from the LDs to UKIP and in at least two of the seats that you list there's been a swing from CON to LD since the general election.
Lib Dem incumbency is far stronger than for other parties. Remember as well that voters are not asked to choose party leaders, parties but individuals to be their MP.
I am up at this time of night because our cat, which we have had for 15 years, is very poorly.
I agree that incumbency is a significant factor in the elections, and many libdem MPs have a good reputation as constituency MPs.
If the switch was say from Libdem to Lab or Green I think it would be less significant and would expect a lot of them to come back.
Its the fact that the switch is to the other end of the spectrum to UKIP that would worry me if I were a Libdem MP. It indicates that for many voters, voting Liberal was only done for negative reasons as a protest vote, or more specifically an anti tory vote (which will inevitably be diluted by Libdems being coalition partners however well the coalition went)
Taking Yeovil (as I have strong links with that part of the world). Now South Somerset council dosen't fully align with the parly const but is pretty well aligned. In 2014 Libs were approx 5,000 votes behind both Tories and UKIP. Laws does have a significant personal following (although I gather it's a bit tarnished in the eyes of some local voters by the expenses business), but he needs the mother of all incumbency votes to turn round that Euro 2014 result.
I don't think UKIP will win it, but, as with many other Libdem seats where the tories have always been a good second, former Libdem people voting UKIP (and Green - Green didn't stand in Yeovil in 2010) may do for Laws and let the Tory candidate in.
Were the libs second in the Euros there, I would agree with you, but third, over 5,000 votes behind both tories and UKIP, and only 5,000 votes ahead of the fourth placed Greens is to my mind too much to ask of an incumbency vote. Plus, if activists have to go into Yeovil to try and shore up Laws, where does that leave resources for defence of more vulnerable seats like Somerton and Frome or Chippenham?
Euro Results in South Somerset:
UKIP 16,786
Tories 14,526
Libdems 9,736
Green 4,156
Labour 3,321
An Independence From Europe 741
English Democrats 460
BNP 294
Turnout 39.19%0 -
Nearly half of all people with disabilities are in work, their employers are not demanding subsidy. For the Minimum Wage to mean anything it must apply to all.RobD said:
Wasn't the idea that the government would subsidise their wage, so more disabled people can be employed?michaelcollins10 said:The state already helps employers with the cost of disabled staff - Access to Work can pay for adaptations in the working environment, transport costs, help with specialist equipment etc.
Freud's comments were ill advised and insulting. No one should ever be expected to work for less than the minimum wage.0 -
Perhaps those individuals have disabilities that do not prevent them from earning the minimum wage. Others do. Are you suggesting that those which do (those with learning disabilities, say), should either rot on benefits, or that they're not trying hard enough?michaelcollins10 said:
Nearly half of all people with disabilities are in work, their employers are not demanding subsidy. For the Minimum Wage to mean anything it must apply to all.RobD said:
Wasn't the idea that the government would subsidise their wage, so more disabled people can be employed?michaelcollins10 said:The state already helps employers with the cost of disabled staff - Access to Work can pay for adaptations in the working environment, transport costs, help with specialist equipment etc.
Freud's comments were ill advised and insulting. No one should ever be expected to work for less than the minimum wage.
It is a scandal that - as you yourself admit - more than half of all disabled people are unemployed. Do you not think something should be done about it?
Yes, the principle of the minimum wage is a sound one. The way to reinforce it is for disability-related subsidies, payable to the individuals' employers.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
