politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What the latest private LAB polling has done to the betting
Comments
-
The only long term solution is a harmonised system between France and Britain on the processing of asylum seekers/economic migrants. Either we match the French system (no benefits or assistance until you've been processed) or they match ours (assistance on arrival).ydoethur said:
In the case of Caen, it's a longer crossing as well - sensible migrants might well think twice before being trapped in an airless, foodless, waterless container for 6-7 hours on board ship. Hop on a lorry, half an hour by train and then jump off again sounds a lot more attractive.Financier said:
No tunnel, less lorries to access?watford30 said:
There are plenty of other continental ports that don't have a problem, so it's hardly 'isolationism'.edmundintokyo said:
Continent isolated etc etc etcwatford30 said:
Tell... the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Why aren't there similar issues at Dunkirk, Caen or Boulogne?
I don't know why its taking this long for people to figure that out?0 -
Talk about playing to the Dead Seagull Gallery.Financier said:
"Ms Cooper’s plan includes a wholesale review to ensure economic growth does not increase carbon emissions; encouraging local action to decarbonise in cities and towns; building more “ecotowns” and developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to create up to 30,000 jobs by 2030."SimonStClare said:@Plato - I haven't heard Cooper say A SINGLE THING.
You may have missed this begging letter in the Independent yesterday.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-our-choice-is-years-of-tory-rule-under-jeremy-corbyn-or-a-return-to-a-labour-government-10422279.html
Just how will this be achieved? CCS can be subject to the same technological problem arguments as fracking. How will it be financed - and if the answer is higher energy prices, then you can shut down a lot of the remaining bits of our industries.
She also says, "We have got to change the world." Just how? Is this easier than changing the EU?0 -
The 'Corbyn will stand down' meme is interesting.ydoethur said:
Which is the point, really. There are more votes on the moderate left than on the far left. And if Corbyn were to become leader and drag the party off in pursuit of these mystical left-wing votes, it would do the Labour party no good because every moderate voter would desert them in a panic. At that point, even his mutterings about only staying for a couple of years become irrelevant - by then, the damage might well be irreversible.rottenborough said:
Morning all,
Under what fantastical model would Corbyn win every LibDem vote. I think it far, far more likely that his election would revive the LibDems from the depths in an afternoon.
That is why, again, Tom Watson might not be a bad bet as the leader to take Labour into the next election. God help British politics.
Has he grown into the spirit and excitement of the campaign?
Is there a history of leaders who are committed to their beliefs and speak with an authentic voice on the values they hold quitting? Is there a history of these people saying that was fun, now I'll leave for someone else?
Once elected leaders have a very strong tendency to imitate a Limpet. I would not bet on the honorable Mr Corbyn initiating a self instigated defenestration. Leadership, politics and power make that very unlikely, especially when you know you are doing the right thing.0 -
Its all looking very wishy-washy at the moment, Dave appears to be killing himself not to offend our "continental partners".Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3178202/Theresa-hold-emergency-Cobra-meeting-Calais-crisis.htmlDavid Cameron has refused to 'point fingers of blame' at the French authorities after another 1,500 illegal immigrants last night stormed the Channel Tunnel.
Sounds like a lot of playing for time and hoping the problem goes away. If all he can offer is tea and warm words while this fiasco develops, he is going to be in for a bigger fright on the EU ref than is probably currently the case after Greece.
A Sudanese man in his 20s or early 30s was crushed to death by a lorry as he tried to get underneath a train inside the high-security zone surrounding the undersea link.
Despite the another night of chaos at the terminal, the Prime Minister insisted the government was doing everything possible to get a grip on the crisis and offered 'sympathy' to thousands of British families whose holidays face being hit by delays and cancellations.
Home Secretary Theresa May will this morning convene the emergency Cobra committee to secure assurances from police, border staff and security advisers that the problem can be contained.0 -
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).Barnesian said:
I've just done my own calculation for all seats in England and Labour transferring all LibDem and Green votes to Labour, constituency by constituency. Labour gain 49 seats. I haven't had time to do Wales and ScotlandSean_F said:
I think the original analysis suggest Labour just pile up votes in seats they already hold if they take Green and Lib Dem votes.Barnesian said:
If Labour won every single Green and LibDem voter they would be on a share of 43.1%.ydoethur said:
Possibly. There was however an interesting analysis in yesterday's Independent, which I was reading on the train - Corbyn could win every single Green and Liberal Democrat voter from last time around, and would still only gain 26 seats. To actually win an election, he needs to win over EITHER large numbers of UKIP voters OR - perhaps more importantly - large numbers of Tory voters. It's almost impossible to see that happening given his political views.Monksfield said:
There are only two people in the race I'd consider voting for: Kendall and Corbyn. They're the only two offering any sort of change. Kendall has interesting stuff to say, but part of me thinks Corbyn will be the one who opposes better and it may surprise the Tories. Not that I have a vote anyway.Financier said:
In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.JEO said:
Hardly anyone in the party likes her, however.edmundintokyo said:Kendall could still win this thing. She needs about 3% of first preferences net from each of the other contenders, which is pretty much a single positive media cycle. She should have a private poll done showing her surging to second and leak it about 5 days before the race.
(This is the best link I can find for it: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-independent/20150728/281487865051159/TextView)
According to Electoral Calculus, they would gain 59 seats and the Tories would lose 46.
Labour would have 291 seats to the Tories 285.
This assumes Labour take no votes from the SNP.
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...0 -
Thats an odd conclusion to the assessment. If we want to return to just an economic relationship then the focus should be getting out of all the political stuff.Financier said:Britain's relationship with the EU should return to the concept of a “single market of free trade” following the renegotiation of the country’s membership, George Osborne has pledged.
In his first major interview since the general election, the Chancellor said that the “central attraction” of European Union membership is economic and this should be at the heart of the renegotiation.
He said that “fixing” the economic aspects of our relationship is the key to “convincing ourselves that it is right for Britain to remain in the EU”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11768231/0 -
I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.0 -
Er... No. Campaigning for a better system for all is not precluded by failing to make effectively meaningless gestures under the current system, which is what you are saying. The likes of Jones and Church are doing their cause much more benefit by being rare spokespeople for it in a sea of corporate media prostitutes (there's always money in saying things rich people want to hear, less so the converse) than they would by making a pointless voluntary contribution to hmrc which would make no effective difference to anyone except reducing their own ability to be effective opponents of the system. Typical asinine nonsense as usual.CD13 said:Mr Wiseman,
'Virtue signalling' is a polite description.
Jezza wants a 70% tax rate for the rich. A good idea, and it would be nice if the rich were happy to pay it. Charlotte Church and Owen Jones agree, so being rich, you'd expect them to be sending cheques to HMRC on regular basis.
But what do we find? They are not just 'virtue signalling', they are being hypocrites. The 'somebody must do something' becomes 'somebody else must do something'.
Once again, if you have a vision for a better world and you aren't rich, it's politics of envy, if you have a vision for a better world and you are its champagne socialism, virtue signalling or hypocrisy. Lays bare the paucity of imagination and naked mendacity of the right wing psyche, a fascinating thing.0 -
That is because he is trying to look like a eurosceptic, without being one. The subtext to that statement is along the lines of "maybe if we can fix a few things wrong with the economic issues so we don't become the next Greece, people will lose interest and we can keep passing all those inconvenient EU laws, and carry on going to those nice banquets in Brussels and feeling like we matter on the world stage".JEO said:
Thats an odd conclusion to the assessment. If we want to return to just an economic relationship then the focus should be getting out of all the political stuff.Financier said:Britain's relationship with the EU should return to the concept of a “single market of free trade” following the renegotiation of the country’s membership, George Osborne has pledged.
In his first major interview since the general election, the Chancellor said that the “central attraction” of European Union membership is economic and this should be at the heart of the renegotiation.
He said that “fixing” the economic aspects of our relationship is the key to “convincing ourselves that it is right for Britain to remain in the EU”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11768231/0 -
To be honest, I can't think of one. Howard maybe would be the nearest, but not very close. Jo Grimond in his second spell as Liberal leader perhaps, but that was officially temporary. Lansbury and Duncan Smith had to be forced out. Even Campbell-Bannerman, elected as a temporary measure, refused to hand over to Asquith as expected when the Liberals returned to power (even an attempted coup failed to shift him).philiph said:
The 'Corbyn will stand down' meme is interesting.ydoethur said:
Which is the point, really. There are more votes on the moderate left than on the far left. And if Corbyn were to become leader and drag the party off in pursuit of these mystical left-wing votes, it would do the Labour party no good because every moderate voter would desert them in a panic. At that point, even his mutterings about only staying for a couple of years become irrelevant - by then, the damage might well be irreversible.rottenborough said:
Morning all,
Under what fantastical model would Corbyn win every LibDem vote. I think it far, far more likely that his election would revive the LibDems from the depths in an afternoon.
That is why, again, Tom Watson might not be a bad bet as the leader to take Labour into the next election. God help British politics.
Has he grown into the spirit and excitement of the campaign?
Is there a history of leaders who are committed to their beliefs and speak with an authentic voice on the values they hold quitting? Is there a history of these people saying that was fun, now I'll leave for someone else?
Once elected leaders have a very strong tendency to imitate a Limpet. I would not bet on the honorable Mr Corbyn initiating a self instigated defenestration. Leadership, politics and power make that very unlikely, especially when you know you are doing the right thing.
Across the pond of course, there is always the example of George Washington (although his admirers forget he was dying at the time) and in France, there is the official example of Robespierre's self-denying ordinance (leaving aside the small matter that on the second occasion he had to be guillotined).
Of course, whether Corbyn would survive as long as two years or whether an Ernest Bevin would emerge earlier than that is a different question!0 -
Agreed. Much as the people of GB (or, let's face it, mostly England) have a degree of sympathy, the current measures are insufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
With May chairing COBRA, is the 2Para option a possibility? Wouldn't half make the French stand back and think....
0 -
Sounds like a lot of playing for time and hoping the problem goes away. If all he can offer is tea and warm words while this fiasco develops, he is going to be in for a bigger fright on the EU ref than is probably currently the case after Greece.Indigo said:
snip for spaceCasino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.0 -
Because that would involve giving up national sovereignty to the hated rival and being helpful to each other? Something the French won't do because they know how badly that would play with the Frente Nationale, and we certainly won't do as it would be a gift for UKIP.AllyPally_Rob said:
The only long term solution is a harmonised system between France and Britain on the processing of asylum seekers/economic migrants. Either we match the French system (no benefits or assistance until you've been processed) or they match ours (assistance on arrival).ydoethur said:
In the case of Caen, it's a longer crossing as well - sensible migrants might well think twice before being trapped in an airless, foodless, waterless container for 6-7 hours on board ship. Hop on a lorry, half an hour by train and then jump off again sounds a lot more attractive.Financier said:
No tunnel, less lorries to access?watford30 said:
There are plenty of other continental ports that don't have a problem, so it's hardly 'isolationism'.edmundintokyo said:
Continent isolated etc etc etcwatford30 said:
Tell... the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Why aren't there similar issues at Dunkirk, Caen or Boulogne?
I don't know why its taking this long for people to figure that out?
If we do harmonise, it will be purely by accident.0 -
I just think it's totally illogical to think that people which voted for Clegg/Lib Dems in 2010 would now somehow vote for Corbyn.
If you stuck with the Lib Dems in 2010, you didn't vote with them because they were more left wing than the Labour offer.0 -
Having seen the 'new' fence in place, it's not much of a deterrent, nor does it look to be very effective in the face of a concerted attack by the numbers of immigrants attempting entry. I'm sure it proved highly effective at the NATO conference with many hundreds of security personnel patrolling it around the clock, but it's purely window dressing in Coquelles.Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
HMG is terrified of upsetting the French. The shit will only hit the fan when 1000 illegal entrants emerge en masse blinking into the sunlight at Folkestone, or there are pitched battles, major damage and serious loss of life within the tunnel itself.0 -
Sounds like a lot of playing for time and hoping the problem goes away. If all he can offer is tea and warm words while this fiasco develops, he is going to be in for a bigger fright on the EU ref than is probably currently the case after Greece.Indigo said:Its all looking very wishy-washy at the moment, Dave appears to be killing himself not to offend our "continental partners".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3178202/Theresa-hold-emergency-Cobra-meeting-Calais-crisis.htmlDavid Cameron has refused to 'point fingers of blame' at the French authorities after another 1,500 illegal immigrants last night stormed the Channel Tunnel.
A Sudanese man in his 20s or early 30s was crushed to death by a lorry as he tried to get underneath a train inside the high-security zone surrounding the undersea link.
Despite the another night of chaos at the terminal, the Prime Minister insisted the government was doing everything possible to get a grip on the crisis and offered 'sympathy' to thousands of British families whose holidays face being hit by delays and cancellations.
Home Secretary Theresa May will this morning convene the emergency Cobra committee to secure assurances from police, border staff and security advisers that the problem can be contained.
Serious question: why should he offend the French?
Unfortunately there is a lot of realpolitk involved here. I crossed from Dover to Dunkirk by ferry and back recently (was booked to Calais but got diverted due to the issues at Calais). Its noteworthy that there was a serious British-led security operation in France doing all the security vetting etc before you get on board. I was stopped as was every other vehicle and asked to open my boot so they could inspect it.
In contrast in Dover on the British side the French security at border control was someone in a booth who didn't even take or look at our passports and just asked "British?" and then waved us to move on without even glancing at our passports.
To continue our quite effective [but by no means perfect] border operations in France requires the co-operation of the French. If the French decided they no longer wanted to co-operate with us they could act like every other border control and shift the problem to our side of the Channel. Just take over border control in their land and wave through anybody and everybody and leave it to us to sort out the mess in Dover.
Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.0 -
Because visions for a better world that involve socialism have always involved running out of other people's money. Visions for a better world reliant on capitalism tend to pull people out of poverty.JWisemann said:
Er... No. Campaigning for a better system for all is not precluded by failing to make effectively meaningless gestures under the current system, which is what you are saying. The likes of Jones and Church are doing their cause much more benefit by being rare spokespeople for it in a sea of corporate media prostitutes (there's always money in saying things rich people want to hear, less so the converse) than they would by making a pointless voluntary contribution to hmrc which would make no effective difference to anyone except reducing their own ability to be effective opponents of the system. Typical asinine nonsense as usual.CD13 said:Mr Wiseman,
'Virtue signalling' is a polite description.
Jezza wants a 70% tax rate for the rich. A good idea, and it would be nice if the rich were happy to pay it. Charlotte Church and Owen Jones agree, so being rich, you'd expect them to be sending cheques to HMRC on regular basis.
But what do we find? They are not just 'virtue signalling', they are being hypocrites. The 'somebody must do something' becomes 'somebody else must do something'.
Once again, if you have a vision for a better world and you aren't rich, it's politics of envy, if you have a vision for a better world and you are its champagne socialism, virtue signalling or hypocrisy. Lays bare the paucity of imagination and naked mendacity of the right wing psyche, a fascinating thing.
0 -
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
0 -
I can't see a reason why Corbyn would stand down before he'd extracted maximum publicity/impetus for his ideas.
That seems to be winning the leadership election, creating a Shadow Cabinet and opposing the Tories with great vigor.
In what universe would he and his fellow travelers want to relinquish the limelight after waiting 32yrs for it?
These people really do believe in their ideals and that the world would continue to turn if they won/could convince enough to vote for them.
So, I'm very sceptical of any hopeful thinking from sensible Labourites that he'll *do the decent thing* da-de-da - why would he? What possible motivation could he have to do so?ydoethur said:
To be honest, I can't think of one. Howard maybe would be the nearest, but not very close. Jo Grimond in his second spell as Liberal leader perhaps, but that was officially temporary. Lansbury and Duncan Smith had to be forced out. Even Campbell-Bannerman, elected as a temporary measure, refused to hand over to Asquith as expected when the Liberals returned to power (even an attempted coup failed to shift him).philiph said:
The 'Corbyn will stand down' meme is interesting.ydoethur said:
Which is the point, really. There are more votes on the moderate left than on the far left. And if Corbyn were to become leader and drag the party off in pursuit of these mystical left-wing votes, it would do the Labour party no good because every moderate voter would desert them in a panic. At that point, even his mutterings about only staying for a couple of years become irrelevant - by then, the damage might well be irreversible.rottenborough said:
Morning all,
snip
That is why, again, Tom Watson might not be a bad bet as the leader to take Labour into the next election. God help British politics.
Has he grown into the spirit and excitement of the campaign?
Is there a history of leaders who are committed to their beliefs and speak with an authentic voice on the values they hold quitting? Is there a history of these people saying that was fun, now I'll leave for someone else?
Once elected leaders have a very strong tendency to imitate a Limpet. I would not bet on the honorable Mr Corbyn initiating a self instigated defenestration. Leadership, politics and power make that very unlikely, especially when you know you are doing the right thing.
Across the pond of course, there is always the example of George Washington (although his admirers forget he was dying at the time) and in France, there is the official example of Robespierre's self-denying ordinance (leaving aside the small matter that on the second occasion he had to be guillotined).
Of course, whether Corbyn would survive as long as two years or whether an Ernest Bevin would emerge earlier than that is a different question!0 -
Martin McCauley, Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-91:Mortimer said:
Because visions for a better world that involve socialism have always involved running out of other people's money. Visions for a better world reliant on capitalism tend to pull people out of poverty.
'Marxism in theory has been one of the great ideologies of the twentieth century. Marxism in practice has failed everywhere. It has failed to replace capitalism, which has indeed benefitted from the competition. Other ideas must be developed to soften capitalism's harsh edges.'
Can't guarantee 100% accuracy (my copy's at school) but it always struck me as apt.
0 -
Quite. Mr Hollande, enforce that border. Mr Hollande, start helping these people. (Or else we'll have to start showing you up by deploying....).Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
0 -
Isn't Folkestone a container port? There aren't any ferries running are there?watford30 said:
Having seen the 'new' fence in place, it's not much of a deterrent, nor does it look to be very effective in the face of a concerted attack by the numbers of immigrants attempting entry. I'm sure it proved highly effective at the NATO conference with many hundreds of security personnel patrolling it around the clock, but it's purely window dressing in Coquelles.Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
HMG is terrified of upsetting the French. The shit will only hit the fan when 1000 illegal entrants emerge en masse blinking into the sunlight at Folkestone, or there are pitched battles, major damage and serious loss of life within the tunnel itself.0 -
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
0 -
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
0 -
Folkestone's the UK end of the tunnel and railhead.Plato said:Isn't Folkestone a container port? There aren't any ferries running are there?
watford30 said:
Having seen the 'new' fence in place, it's not much of a deterrent, nor does it look to be very effective in the face of a concerted attack by the numbers of immigrants attempting entry. I'm sure it proved highly effective at the NATO conference with many hundreds of security personnel patrolling it around the clock, but it's purely window dressing in Coquelles.Casino_Royale said:
I wouldn't rule out further measures.watford30 said:
Riot police? It's an international border FFS. Having travelled through at the weekend, they need rolls of razor wire, power fences and soldiers.Casino_Royale said:
Riot police should be permanently deployed now IMHO. This has gone beyond fences.Moses_ said:Sky breaking news
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
HMG is terrified of upsetting the French. The shit will only hit the fan when 1000 illegal entrants emerge en masse blinking into the sunlight at Folkestone, or there are pitched battles, major damage and serious loss of life within the tunnel itself.0 -
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.ydoethur said:
Martin McCauley, Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-91:Mortimer said:
Because visions for a better world that involve socialism have always involved running out of other people's money. Visions for a better world reliant on capitalism tend to pull people out of poverty.
'Marxism in theory has been one of the great ideologies of the twentieth century. Marxism in practice has failed everywhere. It has failed to replace capitalism, which has indeed benefitted from the competition. Other ideas must be developed to soften capitalism's harsh edges.'
Can't guarantee 100% accuracy (my copy's at school) but it always struck me as apt.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).0 -
Sigh, I hate all these memes. Virtue signalling isn't a new phenomenon, people have always done this sort of thing to make themselves feel better about not actually doing anything about that which they complain about, or to self-promote. After all wasn't cathedral building in medieval times just a grand form of virtue signalling?RobD said:
Another PB meme is born. Joy of joys.JWisemann said:
Stop virtue signalling.Financier said:
No idea/policy is any good if it is carried out just because it is right wing, centre or left wing. Each idea/policy has to stand alone on its merits and be good for all its people/society it serves.JWisemann said:
I'm not saying some 'centrist' ideas mixed with some genuine left wing ones wouldn't be a decent idea, but that's not what Kendall is offering.kle4 said:
You seem to assume everyone who voted Tory this time agrees with everything they want to do and is a committed Tory. Several million of them are probably able to be tempted away by someone credible who makes some policy concessions to win them over. I don't think that person is Kendall, but winning over people who voted Tory this time but might not next time is surely easier than requiring non voters to vote and to massively boost the popularity of the ieft wing vote.JWisemann said:
Unsurprisingly, a person with Tory ideas is more popular with Tories than Labour supporters. The quarter of the population that vote Tory already have a party.Financier said:
In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.JEO said:
Hardly anyone in the party likes her, however.edmundintokyo said:Kendall could still win this thing. She needs about 3% of first preferences net from each of the other contenders, which is pretty much a single positive media cycle. She should have a private poll done showing her surging to second and leak it about 5 days before the race.
The meme that really grinds my gears at the moment is "check your privilege"0 -
Corbyn would have to drop out of politics altogether if he dropped out of the race. He'd be essentially announcing that he knows what he says is rubbish and should be ignored.Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race0 -
Two problems with that. A lot of the labour party membership are now activitly rebelling aaginst the notion of anyone/thing connected with New Labour, look at the reception which Blair got.Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Secondly, the 'tory press' are being very quiet about Corbyn. They certainly aren't being overtly hostile to him. Better to wait until/if he wins, then go for him later.0 -
I see independent thinker Jeremy Corbyn, after offering hints of independent thought, has now fallen into line on the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/28/jeremy-corbyn-backs-british-membership-of-eu
0 -
He's not fools gold to those that backed at 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5/1. ...Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
0 -
It isn't defeatism, it is reality. Denying reality is not optimism it is foolishness.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
Calais is not British land. The mayor of Calais is not British, the President of Calais is not British. This is a French problem which we can try to help but it is happening in French land under French sovereignty.
Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party advocated the invasion of France in our 2015 manifesto. With both ends of the Channel Tunnel in British hands, this problem would simply not have arisen.0 -
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
Absolute tosh. Technology has sped up progress caused by the spread of available capital. If unaffordable, the technology in isolation would help no-one.JWisemann said:
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.ydoethur said:
Martin McCauley, Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-91:Mortimer said:
Because visions for a better world that involve socialism have always involved running out of other people's money. Visions for a better world reliant on capitalism tend to pull people out of poverty.
'Marxism in theory has been one of the great ideologies of the twentieth century. Marxism in practice has failed everywhere. It has failed to replace capitalism, which has indeed benefitted from the competition. Other ideas must be developed to soften capitalism's harsh edges.'
Can't guarantee 100% accuracy (my copy's at school) but it always struck me as apt.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).0 -
The Mail and the Times have reported on Corbyn's success so far, and made a few low key mentions of his *friends*, but have kept their powder totally dry otherwise. If anything, the comments under stories relating to him have contained more whithering opinions.
It's been very noticeable. The Labour leadership election is providing more popcorn than they could ever wish for. And then a Labour peer falls into their lap, or that of a call-girl to be precise.Slackbladder said:
Two problems with that. A lot of the labour party membership are now activitly rebelling aaginst the notion of anyone/thing connected with New Labour, look at the reception which Blair got.Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race
Secondly, the 'tory press' are being very quiet about Corbyn. They certainly aren't being overtly hostile to him. Better to wait until/if he wins, then go for him later.0 -
He's not carrying himself. He's carrying the hopes and dreams of the entire loony left.Philip_Thompson said:
Corbyn would have to drop out of politics altogether if he dropped out of the race. He'd be essentially announcing that he knows what he says is rubbish and should be ignored.Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race0 -
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
Exactly. And if he was to pull out he'd be announcing to the world that even he views the loony left as unelectable loons.Slackbladder said:
He's not carrying himself. He's carrying the hopes and dreams of the entire loony left.Philip_Thompson said:
Corbyn would have to drop out of politics altogether if he dropped out of the race. He'd be essentially announcing that he knows what he says is rubbish and should be ignored.Cromwell said:
===============TGOHF said:I agree with Mike - this election is too difficult to call.
Corbyn's army could storm the election or be a figment of the imagination.
On balance - his odds are probably worth a punt - certainly better tan AB at evens.
Corbyn is fools gold ....the LP are not going to commit political suicide by electing a political anachronism from the 1970s
A week is indeed a long time in politics ....the LP regulars are going to gang up against him and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him ...Corbyn never wanted to be leader and Im certain the mere thought of it would give him nightmares ...I expect Corbyn to drop out of the race0 -
This has got to be the most depressing Manifesto ever. Not least because she is supposed to be more intelligent than Corbyn. 'we have got to change the world' is just the sort of weedy hand wringing rubbish that her image portrays. Quite pathetic. Several Labour party enthusiasts on here have at last worked out how inept and useless Burnham is but are too bigoted to vote for Kendall, the real challenging candidate for change. Now its really clear that Cooper could not lead her way out of a paper bag.Financier said:
"Ms Cooper’s plan includes a wholesale review to ensure economic growth does not increase carbon emissions; encouraging local action to decarbonise in cities and towns; building more “ecotowns” and developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to create up to 30,000 jobs by 2030."SimonStClare said:@Plato - I haven't heard Cooper say A SINGLE THING.
You may have missed this begging letter in the Independent yesterday.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-our-choice-is-years-of-tory-rule-under-jeremy-corbyn-or-a-return-to-a-labour-government-10422279.html
Just how will this be achieved? CCS can be subject to the same technological problem arguments as fracking. How will it be financed - and if the answer is higher energy prices, then you can shut down a lot of the remaining bits of our industries.She also says, "We have got to change the world." Just how? Is this easier than changing the EU?
What a totally moronic useless bunch the Labour Party are.0 -
Given we have a net trade and certainly a tourist surplus with France, Cam should give em a week to sort it out or the chunnel gets closed for safety reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
Then hire a decrepit cruise ship and give them a free choice of a ferry to Tripoli or jail time for vagrancy.
0 -
Morning all! With five days of cloud but little rain forecast, are we laying the draw at 4/1 and backing England at about the same odds?0
-
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
No doubt about it. The "Virtue Signalling Meme" is a winner - hitting all the right buttons.0
-
Old Soviet joke:JWisemann said:
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).
An old woman asks her grand-daughter 'Do they teach you at school about Communism?'
'Yes Granny,' the girl replies. 'They explain that when we achieve full Communism, we will have meat and bread in all the shops, and we will live in nice houses, and have good clothes to wear.'
The old woman sighed ecstatically. 'Ah that will be lovely - just like it was under the Tsar!'
OK, so that's a slight over-simplification. But the most damning indictment imaginable of Communism is that in 1940 people worked longer hours, for lower pay, ate less food and had worse housing than they did in 1913, when they were not exactly living in luxury. Strangely, it wasn't until market based elements were brought in under Khrushchev that this began to improve, and they were improving much more slowly than in the capitalist west.
One of the reasons the Soviet Union experienced mass unrest in the 1980s is that they showed an ITV programme without editing out the adverts. One of them was an advert for dog food. It contained more meat (for one dog meal) than the average Soviet citizen ate in a month.
Of course, in recent years things have got worse - but that's due to the corruption of the political elite subverting market forces, not due to their operation.
One final thought, often overlooked - the US economy grew more in the 1930s than the Soviet economy. So central planning was such a great success that it achieved less than a capitalist economy widely thought to be on the brink of total collapse.
Further reading:
Raymond Pearson, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire.
Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR
Martin McCauley (as above)
There's also a very good book called 'The Soviet Household Under Brezhnev' which goes into this in more detail, but I can't remember who the editor was.0 -
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
0 -
The chunnel doesn't just take trade from Britain to France but to all of Europe. There will be trade going to the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain etc that shows up in our national accounts but not the French accounts as its just driving through France.TGOHF said:
Given we have a net trade and certainly a tourist surplus with France, Cam should give em a week to sort it out or the chunnel gets closed for safety reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
Then hire a decrepit cruise ship and give them a free choice of a ferry to Tripoli or jail time for vagrancy.
The French would still have open borders with the rest of Europe if the Chunnel closed, we'd not be. We have more to lose than France (as shown by the French disdain).
0 -
It also assumes that the 13% of UKIP voters stay put, and don't vote to prevent Prime Minister Corbyn. Having spoken to a fair few during the campaign, I think a large proportion of Kippers would be truly appalled at the notion of a sharp move to the left.ydoethur said:
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...0 -
The least we could do is reinstate the Staple Port.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party advocated the invasion of France in our 2015 manifesto. With both ends of the Channel Tunnel in British hands, this problem would simply not have arisen.0 -
Just like the GBrown promise to end Boom and Bust and "we saved the World". Utter nonsense.Financier said:
She (Cooper) also says, "We have got to change the world." Just how? Is this easier than changing the EU?SimonStClare said:@Plato - I haven't heard Cooper say A SINGLE THING.
You may have missed this begging letter in the Independent yesterday.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-our-choice-is-years-of-tory-rule-under-jeremy-corbyn-or-a-return-to-a-labour-government-10422279.html
0 -
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.0 -
David Herdson got to the heart of the matter earlier in the thread when he noted: "The race itself seems straightforward to call; it's just that the evidence seems so counter-intuitive. Corbyn is on course to win comfortably."
We now have quite a lot of evidence and contrary to my early and indeed quite late expectations, all of it is pointing to one winner. Jeremy Corbyn should be favourite now, probably somewhere around evens. I'm betting accordingly.
Could things change? Yes of course they could (and things seem a bit tighter than David Herdson suggested). But with such a mismatch in prices, it seems clear to bet on Jeremy Corbyn and against Andy Burnham, who now has no right to be favourite.
I'd originally resolved to take only clearcut positions in this race because Labour party politics are obscure to me. But this seems clearcut at present odds.0 -
I wonder how much Eurotunnel financing is tied up with French banks? They'll be hurting if the Tunnel's shut down.Philip_Thompson said:
The chunnel doesn't just take trade from Britain to France but to all of Europe. There will be trade going to the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain etc that shows up in our national accounts but not the French accounts as its just driving through France.TGOHF said:
Given we have a net trade and certainly a tourist surplus with France, Cam should give em a week to sort it out or the chunnel gets closed for safety reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
Then hire a decrepit cruise ship and give them a free choice of a ferry to Tripoli or jail time for vagrancy.
The French would still have open borders with the rest of Europe if the Chunnel closed, we'd not be. We have more to lose than France (as shown by the French disdain).0 -
Respect to Barnesian for actually looking into the figures behind that
Im really glad you did this Barnesian because the figures seemed extremely suspect to me and I was considering doing my own analysis. I wonder what sleight of hand they used for this agenda-driven nonsense.Barnesian said:
I've just done my own calculation for all seats in England and Labour transferring all LibDem and Green votes to Labour, constituency by constituency. Labour gain 49 seats. I haven't had time to do Wales and ScotlandSean_F said:
I think the original analysis suggest Labour just pile up votes in seats they already hold if they take Green and Lib Dem votes.Barnesian said:
If Labour won every single Green and LibDem voter they would be on a share of 43.1%.ydoethur said:
Possibly. There was however an interesting analysis in yesterday's Independent, which I was reading on the train - Corbyn could win every single Green and Liberal Democrat voter from last time around, and would still only gain 26 seats. To actually win an election, he needs to win over EITHER large numbers of UKIP voters OR - perhaps more importantly - large numbers of Tory voters. It's almost impossible to see that happening given his political views.Monksfield said:
There are only two people in the race I'd consider voting for: Kendall and Corbyn. They're the only two offering any sort of change. Kendall has interesting stuff to say, but part of me thinks Corbyn will be the one who opposes better and it may surprise the Tories. Not that I have a vote anyway.Financier said:
In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.JEO said:
Hardly anyone in the party likes her, however.edmundintokyo said:Kendall could still win this thing. She needs about 3% of first preferences net from each of the other contenders, which is pretty much a single positive media cycle. She should have a private poll done showing her surging to second and leak it about 5 days before the race.
(This is the best link I can find for it: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-independent/20150728/281487865051159/TextView)
According to Electoral Calculus, they would gain 59 seats and the Tories would lose 46.
Labour would have 291 seats to the Tories 285.
This assumes Labour take no votes from the SNP.
0 -
Yes, you forgot the first sentence. They can have their camp, they can let the immigrants across, we can send them back. Everyone is acting within their sovereign rights, and in accordance with international treaties.Philip_Thompson said:
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.0 -
I'd be astonished if many Kippers I met on 7th May fancied PM Corbyn either.
Apart from having a jolly good laugh and suggest stringing him up for treachery.MarqueeMark said:
It also assumes that the 13% of UKIP voters stay put, and don't vote to prevent Prime Minister Corbyn. Having spoken to a fair few during the campaign, I think a large proportion of Kippers would be truly appalled at the notion of a sharp move to the left.ydoethur said:
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...0 -
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
this perfect market which is not affected by political elites, cartels etc does not exist. They are part of the fabric of capitalism, like it or notydoethur said:corruption of the political elite subverting market forces, not due to their operation.
0 -
We'd have to round up and catch all the migrants who had already gotten onto the tunnel and then deport them. Now would that be harder or easier than the current situation?Indigo said:
Yes, you forgot the first sentence. They can have their camp, they can let the immigrants across, we can send them back. Everyone is acting within their sovereign rights, and in accordance with international treaties.Philip_Thompson said:
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.0 -
At airports if the person is rejected by the entry clearance officer the expense of repatriating the person to their country of origin falls on the airline. Consequently airlines look extremely closely at visas and other paperwork before they let people embark.Philip_Thompson said:
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
We need to follow the international rules. So why not register in Calais the biometrics of every migrant that crosses into the tunnel area and hand them back to the French police with the records that these people are now their responsibility under the international rules.Philip_Thompson said:
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.
Of course it would upset the French but does Cameron want to win the referendum or not? The more he looks powerless becuase of the failure of an EC member to follow the rules, the better the chances of Brexit.
BOO supporters can just sit back and watch it all play out.
0 -
One possibility that occurs to me is that they looked at just the 83 most marginal seats, rather than the whole 320. There must be quite a number of the 237 where the Tory/UKIP/BNP/MRLP vote doesn't add up to over 50% so the seat would be mathematically in play.JWisemann said:Respect to Barnesian for actually looking into the figures behind that.
Im really glad you did this Barnesian because the figures seemed extremely suspect to me and I was considering doing my own analysis. I wonder what sleight of hand they used for this agenda-driven nonsense.0 -
Well if the French want to break the Sangatte protocol which they signed in 1991 that's up to them. Likewise we can tell them that they're no longer able to carry out customs and border checks at the UK railhead.Philip_Thompson said:
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
The obvious solution is a temporary suspension all freight movements through the Tunnel, until the situation is resolved. If that affects French investors and investment then so be it. Money talks.0 -
You are right about treatment for obesity. I would argue though that some foods affect people in ways they do not realise and they are victims of the way their body works. However the kind of obesity which leads to being unable to live a life except on benefits must surely be self inflicted. This must surely go way beyond simply bad diet and lack of exercise.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long argued that sickness benefit for obesity, alcoholism and other addictions should be conditional on participation and compliance with a treatment programme. Otherwise we are just subsidising slow suicide.Financier said:The full cost to the economy of obesity, drug addicts and alcoholics will be assessed for the first time, David Cameron is to announce.
Overweight people could have benefits worth around £100 a week reduced or ended altogether if they refuse to lose weight, the Prime Minister will announce on Wednesday.
Under a major review of the sickness benefit system to be conducted by Prof Dame Carol Black, the chair of the Nuffield Trust, drink and drug addicts could be denied benefits if they refuse medical treatment.....
There are around 90,000 people who claim sickness benefits whose illness is primarily due to their drug or alcohol addiction.
It means that 25 per cent of alcoholics, and an estimated 80 per cent of heroin and crack users, claim benefits, according to figures released by Downing Street.
Another 1,800 people are entitled to sickness benefits as a result of conditions primarily caused by obesity. A quarter of adults and 15 per cent of children are thought to be obese.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11769531/
There is however a real problem of accessing effective treatment programmes...
(only since my wife discovered she had an acid reflux problem have I noticed just how much Gavascon type products are sold and she has changed her diet and incidently lost weight)0 -
It should however be pointed out that it is the Fabian Society who produced the analysis - hardly noted for their hard-right views.ydoethur said:
One possibility that occurs to me is that they looked at just the 83 most marginal seats, rather than the whole 320. There must be quite a number of the 237 where the Tory/UKIP/BNP/MRLP vote doesn't add up to over 50% so the seat would be mathematically in play.JWisemann said:Respect to Barnesian for actually looking into the figures behind that.
Im really glad you did this Barnesian because the figures seemed extremely suspect to me and I was considering doing my own analysis. I wonder what sleight of hand they used for this agenda-driven nonsense.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, of course, polls have been very wrong before.
In recent history, they've gotten the UK General Election, the Greek referendum and the Israeli election wrong.0 -
It is their sovereign choice. But they are signed up to the she set of rules we are and as long as such they are bound to abide by those rules just like everyone else. Something they are failing to do at the moment.Philip_Thompson said:
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.0 -
And the Danish election and the Scottish referendum.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, of course, polls have been very wrong before.
In recent history, they've gotten the UK General Election, the Greek referendum and the Israeli election wrong.0 -
We're already fining lorries which get caught with a migrant on board and has that solved the problem? The reality is we need to work with France to find a solution to the problem on their land - or face a far worse problem on our own land.Indigo said:
At airports if the person is rejected by the entry clearance officer the expense of repatriating the person to their country of origin falls on the airline. Consequently airlines look extremely closely at visas and other paperwork before they let people embark.Philip_Thompson said:
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
I think Corbyn would also be taking a page out of the SNP's playbook and target the 20 million DNV and not registered to vote. Given his disdain for the MSM, and it for him, he doesn't need to play the Westminster game and can just put out populist policies. He also has a growing army of members who can take the message direct to this segment of the electorate.ydoethur said:
Possibly. There was however an interesting analysis in yesterday's Independent, which I was reading on the train - Corbyn could win every single Green and Liberal Democrat voter from last time around, and would still only gain 26 seats. To actually win an election, he needs to win over EITHER large numbers of UKIP voters OR - perhaps more importantly - large numbers of Tory voters. It's almost impossible to see that happening given his political views.Monksfield said:
There are only two people in the race I'd consider voting for: Kendall and Corbyn. They're the only two offering any sort of change. Kendall has interesting stuff to say, but part of me thinks Corbyn will be the one who opposes better and it may surprise the Tories. Not that I have a vote anyway.Financier said:
In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.JEO said:
Hardly anyone in the party likes her, however.edmundintokyo said:Kendall could still win this thing. She needs about 3% of first preferences net from each of the other contenders, which is pretty much a single positive media cycle. She should have a private poll done showing her surging to second and leak it about 5 days before the race.
(This is the best link I can find for it: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-independent/20150728/281487865051159/TextView)0 -
AB 2.76, JC 3.05, YC 3.7
JC will soon be favourite.0 -
Yes - Of the 49 gains, 6 are from the LibDems and one is Brighton Pavillion.ydoethur said:
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).Barnesian said:
I've just done my own calculation for all seats in England and Labour transferring all LibDem and Green votes to Labour, constituency by constituency. Labour gain 49 seats. I haven't had time to do Wales and ScotlandSean_F said:
I think the original analysis suggest Labour just pile up votes in seats they already hold if they take Green and Lib Dem votes.Barnesian said:
If Labour won every single Green and LibDem voter they would be on a share of 43.1%.ydoethur said:
(This is the best link I can find for it: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-independent/20150728/281487865051159/TextView)Monksfield said:
There are only two people in the race I'd consider voting for: Kendall and Corbyn. They're the only two offering any sort of change. Kendall has interesting stuff to say, but part of me thinks Corbyn will be the one who opposes better and it may surprise the Tories. Not that I have a vote anyway.Financier said:
In reality they are more scared of her ideas - too much of the confessional against all they have been propagating for years, and many still do not realise that a lot of the electorate agree with her.JEO said:
Hardly anyone in the party likes her, however.edmundintokyo said:Kendall could still win this thing. She needs about 3% of first preferences net from each of the other contenders, which is pretty much a single positive media cycle. She should have a private poll done showing her surging to second and leak it about 5 days before the race.
According to Electoral Calculus, they would gain 59 seats and the Tories would lose 46.
Labour would have 291 seats to the Tories 285.
This assumes Labour take no votes from the SNP.
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...
And yes - it does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current voters.
But it isn't a prediction! It is just an interesting thought experiment.0 -
Except that currently migrants aren't making it across. The problem is them trying to get across not that they actually are.TCPoliticalBetting said:
We need to follow the international rules. So why not register in Calais the biometrics of every migrant that crosses into the tunnel area and hand them back to the French police with the records that these people are now their responsibility under the international rules.Philip_Thompson said:
You believe in sovereignty don't you? That's their sovereign choice.Indigo said:
We return all illegal immigrants to France that we catch at the border as is our right under international law since we are not the first safe haven country they will have encountered. The French are not maintaining the camp at Calais out of altruism, they are hoping that the illegal immigrants will get through the tunnel and go away. We are being completely cowardly in not insisting they stand up to their international obligations, and returning people to them that are rightly their problem.Philip_Thompson said:Your solution of pissing off the French and having the French say "OK you deal with it" would mean the French would just wave through all the migrants into the UK. Then what do we do? What's your grand idea? We can only solve a French problem with French co-operation not be annoying them.
Unless you want to stop believing in national sovereignty we can't compel France to do anything they don't want to do. Which is why we need to co-operate and not annoy France. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, full national sovereignty for the UK but we get to write the rules for France - it doesn't work that way.
Of course it would upset the French but does Cameron want to win the referendum or not? The more he looks powerless becuase of the failure of an EC member to follow the rules, the better the chances of Brexit.
BOO supporters can just sit back and watch it all play out.
The notion that we should have Brexit to improve co-operation in French sovereign land for our benefit is laughable. That is completely cutting off your nose to spite your face.0 -
And we gave a massive trade deficit with all of those countries as well. So your point is moot.Philip_Thompson said:
The chunnel doesn't just take trade from Britain to France but to all of Europe. There will be trade going to the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain etc that shows up in our national accounts but not the French accounts as its just driving through France.TGOHF said:
Given we have a net trade and certainly a tourist surplus with France, Cam should give em a week to sort it out or the chunnel gets closed for safety reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
Then hire a decrepit cruise ship and give them a free choice of a ferry to Tripoli or jail time for vagrancy.
The French would still have open borders with the rest of Europe if the Chunnel closed, we'd not be. We have more to lose than France (as shown by the French disdain).0 -
The polls would have to be far more wrong on this one for Jeremy Corbyn not to be at least an evens favourite thoughMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, of course, polls have been very wrong before.
In recent history, they've gotten the UK General Election, the Greek referendum and the Israeli election wrong.
Shadsy's 10-11 last night for Corbyn to win on first prefs was one of the bets of the year.0 -
And if the French are not interested in solving the problem ? We might fine the lorry driver, but we don't put the immigrant back on a bus to France, he is still in the UK and on benefits, so he is where he wants to be. We also have a worse than piss poor record of expelling people that fail our appeals process, so once he is in, he is more than likely in for good.Philip_Thompson said:
We're already fining lorries which get caught with a migrant on board and has that solved the problem? The reality is we need to work with France to find a solution to the problem on their land - or face a far worse problem on our own land.Indigo said:
At airports if the person is rejected by the entry clearance officer the expense of repatriating the person to their country of origin falls on the airline. Consequently airlines look extremely closely at visas and other paperwork before they let people embark.Philip_Thompson said:
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
Not really we'd still have trade it would make our imports more expensive and our exports more expensive. Lose-lose with us losing more than any other nation well done.Richard_Tyndall said:
And we gave a massive trade deficit with all of those countries as well. So your point is Moor.Philip_Thompson said:
The chunnel doesn't just take trade from Britain to France but to all of Europe. There will be trade going to the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain etc that shows up in our national accounts but not the French accounts as its just driving through France.TGOHF said:
Given we have a net trade and certainly a tourist surplus with France, Cam should give em a week to sort it out or the chunnel gets closed for safety reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
But this is happening on the French side of the border, not our side. If this was happening in Dover you'd have a point.Indigo said:
It might be news to you, give your euro-enthusiasm, but Cameron is the leader of a sovereign nation with plenipotentiary powers to order and control our borders as we like.Flightpathl said:Its a foreign country. It may be news to you but no matter how much better it would be for the French, Cameron is not their President.
Then hire a decrepit cruise ship and give them a free choice of a ferry to Tripoli or jail time for vagrancy.
The French would still have open borders with the rest of Europe if the Chunnel closed, we'd not be. We have more to lose than France (as shown by the French disdain).0 -
Well, yes. But it's not just polls. We have the constituency nominations and the general mood music, and the views of well-informed commentators like Stephen Bush.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, of course, polls have been very wrong before.
In recent history, they've gotten the UK General Election, the Greek referendum and the Israeli election wrong.
And pointing the other way right now, we have what? A feeling of "no, that can't be right".
It's vaguely reminiscent of the period when everyone said that the SNP wouldn't win 30 seats in Scotland at the general election. We know how that panned out.0 -
We could have 2 Para manning the White Cliffs Trebuchet Battalions.RobD said:
The least we could do is reinstate the Staple Port.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party advocated the invasion of France in our 2015 manifesto. With both ends of the Channel Tunnel in British hands, this problem would simply not have arisen.
That is how illegals will be returned to France. Just litter the shanty towns around Calais with leaflets written in Arabic, Somali, Afghan or whatever, informing them of their unhappy fate if they get to England.
And they should count themselves lucky the Death Stars aren't ready to deploy.0 -
What utter nonsense. Ive seen the figures.ydoethur said:
Old Soviet joke:JWisemann said:
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).
An old woman asks her grand-daughter 'Do they teach you at school about Communism?'
'Yes Granny,' the girl replies. 'They explain that when we achieve full Communism, we will have meat and bread in all the shops, and we will live in nice houses, and have good clothes to wear.'
The old woman sighed ecstatically. 'Ah that will be lovely - just like it was under the Tsar!'
OK, so that's a slight over-simplification. But the most damning indictment imaginable of Communism is that in 1940 people worked longer hours, for lower pay, ate less food and had worse housing than they did in 1913, when they were not exactly living in luxury. Strangely, it wasn't until market based elements were brought in under Khrushchev that this began to improve, and they were improving much more slowly than in the capitalist west.
One of the reasons the Soviet Union experienced mass unrest in the 1980s is that they showed an ITV programme without editing out the adverts. One of them was an advert for dog food. It contained more meat (for one dog meal) than the average Soviet citizen ate in a month.
Of course, in recent years things have got worse - but that's due to the corruption of the political elite subverting market forces, not due to their operation.
One final thought, often overlooked - the US economy grew more in the 1930s than the Soviet economy. So central planning was such a great success that it achieved less than a capitalist economy widely thought to be on the brink of total collapse.
Further reading:
Raymond Pearson, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire.
Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR
Martin McCauley (as above)
There's also a very good book called 'The Soviet Household Under Brezhnev' which goes into this in more detail, but I can't remember who the editor was.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, a fair point, although gut feeling (that Miliband was crap) proved a better guide to the General Election than any poll.
However, the Labour electorate is a different animal to the whole UK.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Mark, precisely. And to think people thought the trebuchets were a daft idea.0 -
Interesting insight in one of the Sunday papers. Team Corbyn struggling to cope with its own momentum.
4800 campaign volunteers, never mind voters, sign up in the last couple of weeks. A 100 line phone bank installed in Liverpool to get Labour voters to register and vote for Corbyn...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/26/jeremy-corbyn-team-shocked-momentum0 -
Test match - Oz 2s , Eng 4 , Draw 4.
Pretty much betting on the toss in the short term - not sure the Ozzie price can drop too much if the win the toss - but England could go sub 3.5.
0 -
You've been hanging around with loony-right Shire kippers though. The ones Labour could do with winning over are very different.Plato said:I'd be astonished if many Kippers I met on 7th May fancied PM Corbyn either.
Apart from having a jolly good laugh and suggest stringing him up for treachery.MarqueeMark said:
It also assumes that the 13% of UKIP voters stay put, and don't vote to prevent Prime Minister Corbyn. Having spoken to a fair few during the campaign, I think a large proportion of Kippers would be truly appalled at the notion of a sharp move to the left.ydoethur said:
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...
0 -
The French are interested in solving the problem but nowhere near as interested as we are. Which is why we need to co-operate with them on our land.Indigo said:And if the French are not interested in solving the problem ? We might fine the lorry driver, but we don't put the immigrant back on a bus to France, he is still in the UK and on benefits, so he is where he wants to be. We also have a worse than piss poor record of expelling people that fail our appeals process, so once he is in, he is more than likely in for good.
Your argument seems to have become now that we should get the French to let every migrants in because we realistically don't expel people and you don't want us to co-operate with another sovereign nation inside their sovereign territory. How's that help?
Co-operating with the French on a problem in French sovereign land is obviously necessary. If you can't even admit that then you're in complete reality denial.0 -
In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.Philip_Thompson said:
We're already fining lorries which get caught with a migrant on board and has that solved the problem? The reality is we need to work with France to find a solution to the problem on their land - or face a far worse problem on our own land.Indigo said:
At airports if the person is rejected by the entry clearance officer the expense of repatriating the person to their country of origin falls on the airline. Consequently airlines look extremely closely at visas and other paperwork before they let people embark.Philip_Thompson said:
On whose sovereign land is Coquelles? UKBA are operating with the consent of France. France could tell UKBA to operate in British sovereign land like happens with airports.watford30 said:
Except the French aren't doing any checks. The UK border is effectively within the compound at Coquelles where UKBA are searching vehicles under the juxtaposed controls arrangements.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering all the checks are at British request not French request that's not really a tit for tat. The French tat would be to stop doing the checks that we've requested.watford30 said:
Do want the French would do - impose extra checks for French owned and operated trucks at the UK border. That might focus minds. They'll probably do a tit for tat, but freight movements are buggered up by militant farmers, strikers and slow downs any way, so I doubt it will make much difference.Indigo said:
Utter defeatism. It's exactly the sort of "managed-decline managerialism" that I detest in the recent politics of all major parties. When do we decide to act ? When then half a dozen people get killed in the protests next week ? When that 1500 come steaming down the tunnel and run out at Dover ? When they are protesting in Parliament Square? Its just more kicking the can down the road and hoping the problem goes away, what happens if the word gets around and its 3000 rioting in a couple of days time?Philip_Thompson said:Would that make our situation better or worse? The French aren't being good on this but offending them won't make our situation better it will make it many times worse.
0 -
Do what? - Surely that’s a job for the planks?MarqueeMark said:
We could have 2 Para manning the White Cliffs Trebuchet Battalions.RobD said:
The least we could do is reinstate the Staple Port.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party advocated the invasion of France in our 2015 manifesto. With both ends of the Channel Tunnel in British hands, this problem would simply not have arisen.
http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/23445.aspx
0 -
The problem is that we don't expel people. That is the issue that needs to be fixed.Philip_Thompson said:
The French are interested in solving the problem but nowhere near as interested as we are. Which is why we need to co-operate with them on our land.Indigo said:And if the French are not interested in solving the problem ? We might fine the lorry driver, but we don't put the immigrant back on a bus to France, he is still in the UK and on benefits, so he is where he wants to be. We also have a worse than piss poor record of expelling people that fail our appeals process, so once he is in, he is more than likely in for good.
Your argument seems to have become now that we should get the French to let every migrants in because we realistically don't expel people and you don't want us to co-operate with another sovereign nation inside their sovereign territory. How's that help?
Co-operating with the French on a problem in French sovereign land is obviously necessary. If you can't even admit that then you're in complete reality denial.0 -
In the time of the Cold War, there were three dogs, an american dog, a polish dog and a russian dog. they’re having a visit to the U.S., and the american dog was telling them how you have to bark long enough and then sombody comes along and gives you some meat.ydoethur said:
Old Soviet joke: An old woman asks her grand-daughter 'Do they teach you at school about Communism?'JWisemann said:
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).
'Yes Granny,' the girl replies. 'They explain that when we achieve full Communism, we will have meat and bread in all the shops, and we will live in nice houses, and have good clothes to wear.'
The old woman sighed ecstatically. 'Ah that will be lovely - just like it was under the Tsar!'
The polish dog said what’s meat.
The russian dog said what’s bark.
(Reagan)
0 -
The ones which labour would want to vote over, with their main concern being immigration?JWisemann said:
You've been hanging around with loony-right Shire kippers though. The ones Labour could do with winning over are very different.Plato said:I'd be astonished if many Kippers I met on 7th May fancied PM Corbyn either.
Apart from having a jolly good laugh and suggest stringing him up for treachery.MarqueeMark said:
It also assumes that the 13% of UKIP voters stay put, and don't vote to prevent Prime Minister Corbyn. Having spoken to a fair few during the campaign, I think a large proportion of Kippers would be truly appalled at the notion of a sharp move to the left.ydoethur said:
I'll bow to your judgement if you have done all the 320 seats Labour don't currently hold (assuming, of course, that they would win Brighton Pavilion and the six Liberal Democrat seats)! I wouldn't bother with Wales or Scotland - Greens there would shift to the Nationalists, not Labour (in fact, in my experience the Welsh greens with rare exceptions tend not to be very left-wing, for some reason).
Of course, such a model does presuppose Labour hanging on to all their current votes too...
Yeah...thats not going to work.0 -
Blimey.RodCrosby said:
Interesting insight in one of the Sunday papers. Team Corbyn struggling to cope with its own momentum.
4800 campaign volunteers, never mind voters, sign up in the last couple of weeks. A 100 line phone bank installed in Liverpool to get Labour voters to register and vote for Corbyn...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/26/jeremy-corbyn-team-shocked-momentum0 -
But you can rely on 2 Para to throw themselves into these sort of jobs...SimonStClare said:
Do what? - Surely that’s a job for the planks?MarqueeMark said:
We could have 2 Para manning the White Cliffs Trebuchet Battalions.RobD said:
The least we could do is reinstate the Staple Port.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Of course, the Morris Dancer Party advocated the invasion of France in our 2015 manifesto. With both ends of the Channel Tunnel in British hands, this problem would simply not have arisen.
http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/23445.aspx0 -
Do tourists still go through Calais by the way ?
If I was heading to the continent, I can't imagine I'd go via Calais now.
Treble the height of the fence, stick another one up inside the existing fence, and place 10,000 volt electric wires between the two fences.0 -
You are the one in denial, the French are only interested in solving the problem to the extent that the illegal immigrants don't end up in France. As a thought experiment, what would happen if we let everyone through the tunnel, they got to the British ECO, "Do you have an EU Passport/ID ? No. Do you have a valid visa ? No. Please wait here, the bus back to France will be leaving in an hour".Philip_Thompson said:
The French are interested in solving the problem but nowhere near as interested as we are. Which is why we need to co-operate with them on our land.Indigo said:And if the French are not interested in solving the problem ? We might fine the lorry driver, but we don't put the immigrant back on a bus to France, he is still in the UK and on benefits, so he is where he wants to be. We also have a worse than piss poor record of expelling people that fail our appeals process, so once he is in, he is more than likely in for good.
Your argument seems to have become now that we should get the French to let every migrants in because we realistically don't expel people and you don't want us to co-operate with another sovereign nation inside their sovereign territory. How's that help?
Co-operating with the French on a problem in French sovereign land is obviously necessary. If you can't even admit that then you're in complete reality denial.0 -
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.Richard_Tyndall said:In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.0 -
Oz win toss
Eng now 4.8 , Oz 1.90 -
So have I. I've taught on them in two schools and one university. They're in the books if you want to double-check.JWisemann said:
What utter nonsense. Ive seen the figures.ydoethur said:
Old Soviet joke:JWisemann said:
Except of course, the Soviet Union, for all of its many faults, did bring a huge leap in development, economic growth and standard of living from what came before, and indeed, on conversion to 'free market' orthodoxy saw a huge drop in living standards.
The rise in living standards over the last few centuries has been the result of scientific advance and the technological advances that have followed from this, which have enabled capitalism, rather than the other way around (though, as a supporter of some moderate aspects of capitalism as long as counterbalanced by strong regulation and redistribution, which was a combination that yielded the highest rises in living standards, I agree the combination has often been symbiotic).
An old woman asks her grand-daughter 'Do they teach you at school about Communism?'
'Yes Granny,' the girl replies. 'They explain that when we achieve full Communism, we will have meat and bread in all the shops, and we will live in nice houses, and have good clothes to wear.'
The old woman sighed ecstatically. 'Ah that will be lovely - just like it was under the Tsar!'
OK, so that's a slight over-simplification. But the most damning indictment imaginable of Communism is that in 1940 people worked longer hours, for lower pay, ate less food and had worse housing than they did in 1913, when they were not exactly living in luxury. Strangely, it wasn't until market based elements were brought in under Khrushchev that this began to improve, and they were improving much more slowly than in the capitalist west.
One of the reasons the Soviet Union experienced mass unrest in the 1980s is that they showed an ITV programme without editing out the adverts. One of them was an advert for dog food. It contained more meat (for one dog meal) than the average Soviet citizen ate in a month.
Of course, in recent years things have got worse - but that's due to the corruption of the political elite subverting market forces, not due to their operation.
One final thought, often overlooked - the US economy grew more in the 1930s than the Soviet economy. So central planning was such a great success that it achieved less than a capitalist economy widely thought to be on the brink of total collapse.
Further reading:
Raymond Pearson, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire.
Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR
Martin McCauley (as above)
There's also a very good book called 'The Soviet Household Under Brezhnev' which goes into this in more detail, but I can't remember who the editor was.
0 -
'We'd be back to hundreds of thousands'Philip_Thompson said:
I'm no Europhile but in case you missed it since we started co-operating with the French we've seen numbers of illegal migrants coming in from this entry point plummet. We'd be back to hundreds of thousands illegally entering this way like we had just over a decade ago if we weren't co-operating.Richard_Tyndall said:In case you missed it in your Europhile dream world, we did try working with the French. The trouble is that the only action they think is acceptable us for us to let all the migrants in. We have been working with the French for years on this and it has got us no where because they refuse to take responsibility for letting all the migrants in to their country in the first place. They just want to pass the problem on to us.
If the French were letting everyone through then this camp in Calais would have no reason to exist, they'd already be in the UK. If the French did start letting everyone through it wouldn't be just those in the camp but hundreds of thousands more (as it was in the past) who presently aren't going there as they won't get through currently.
Really?0 -
Totally offtopc, but I already have a vocal doppleganger for Ed M in my offices, and now someone who is the spitting image of Liz Kendall - is the universe telling me I should be voting Labour?0
