Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn will mean for British p

13

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    ydoethur said:



    As an aside, isn't May the longest-serving home secretary in yonks?

    Edit: on a quick check, at the end of the year she'll have overtaken R.A.Butler who served from 1957 to 1962, since when there have been 21 other home secretaries.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary

    Quite impressive staying power in what is one of the more treacherous jobs in government.

    I wonder how many home secretaries have gone on to become PM in the modern era, compared to the other great offices of state?

    James Callaghan was one, but off hand I think he was the only one since Churchill. Neither went direct from the Home Office though.

    May will be the longest-serving home secretary since Ede if she lasts until next year, and I think I'm right in saying he holds the record for consecutive years in office behind the Duke of Portland under rather different circumstances in the eighteenth century. Certainly he was the longest serving of the twentieth century, ahead of Ede, Morrison, Butler and Joynson-Hicks (whom May has already surpassed, as he didn't quite last five years) although Richard Cross I think holds the overall record for years at the office (1874-80 and 1885-86).
    On a careful check, only two men have ever gone straight from the Home Office to Downing Street - Palmerston in 1855 and Melbourne in 1834.

    Several other holders have gone on to be PM but not directly: Asquith, Russell, Peel, Portland, Hawkesbury, Grenville and Shelburne. Several others have been party leaders after a lapse, most recently Howard.

    And in terms of length of tenure, how could I have forgotten Lord Sidmouth of 'riding on a crocodile' fame, who was in office for a remarkable 10 years from 1812 to 1822?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Yes

    Some of the other answers were correct too, but this is what I was getting at

    Not saying its 100% the cause, but worth keeping an eye on whenever one of these grotesque attacks occur
    Did you see the Trevor Kavanagh column today,very good read.

    If you didn't see it,I'll let you know his headline 'We're at the mercy of lefties who think having any borders at all is racism'

    We have some on here with that sort of extremist thinking.
    We do.. and quite a few of those lefties are "Conservatives"
    Agree.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,723
    antifrank said:

    Thanks for the feedback all - I shall try to curb my logorrhoea in future.

    Offer Eagles 1/10 on the Labour Leadership announcement bet and all is forgiven
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MP_SE said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I've pulled the trigger on a hundred GSK today ! 6+% divi, accounts look healthy enough, people living longer and needing more drugs etc...

    My daughter is considering the same trade. Question is how sustainable the dividend is post 2017. I view the firm as an interesting play on vaccines and cosumer products rather than a pharmaceutical company though.
    Patent expirations are an issue. I have been looking at generic companies such as Teva.
    Gx is a tough tough business. Everyone want out if they can, or to bulk up (teva) if they can't
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    For some reason the headlines are not reading "FTSE100 at same level as 8 months ago!!!!"

    I see the frothers on here are loth to mention the great Tory stock disaster
    Thought that was *about* you, Malc, then I read the byline !
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited August 2015
    >“Bhòid is Bute but Bod is penis. You would need the accent over the “O”.

    It all becomes clear.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bod_(TV_series)


  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Ydeothur

    "Merely cocking up enormously on a key plank of policy is not, so far as can be judged, a hanging offence under Cameron"

    Says it all rally, Doctor. Well maybe not quite all, Cameron is quite capable fo sacking ministers who are actually doing quite a good job but who are unpopular with the vested interests.

    @Sunil
    "Rab Butler - Indian!"

    It is perhaps not so surprising that a fair percentage of the great and good of yesteryear were also Indian. We were for example talking on here the other day about Admiral Jackie Fisher, 1st Sea Lord and founder of the modern Royal Navy (when it was a navy as opposed to the current coastal defence force). Fisher was Indian, well actually Ceylonese but let's not split hairs.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    kle4 said:

    I'm sure this was discussed on previous pages here but...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34042587

    "IDS blames own staff for fake stories" (Was the BBC quick link title, not the long title.)

    Pfffffffft.

    As if anyone thought he handwrote them himself. FFS. Oh, except

    Stephen Timms, Labour's acting shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "You couldn't make it up - but it seems Iain Duncan Smith can. The only way he can find backers for his sanctions regime is by inventing them."
    The stories were utterly stupid - nobody would say how happy they were to be sanctioned... but the idea it's the Head Man's fault, as if he personally oversaw the episode, is an exercise in social-media-storm-meets-silly-season. And the concept of using illustrative examples, rather than real-life ones, is not exactly a breakthrough in PR.
    It's really not an issue at all, if the damn things had been clearly marked as illustrative (as apparently they were not). Even though they were not, it's not really shocking, as you say.

    That said, I think Isam is correct that had Ed M's team done it, there would have been more outrage


    I hope I would have been failed to be outraged either way.

    I do hope no civil servant is going to have a ton of bricks come down on them over this just to satisfy the twitterati. A mistake, yes, and some sort of disciplinary action might be reasonable, but I don't think there's any point IDS performing some sort of blood sacrifice over it. Particularly just to assuage a bunch of social justice warriors who are only interested in his head anyway. (Incidentally, said SJW seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the IQ of a typical unemployed person. Do they really think the unemployed require such urgent protection from the horrific possibility of mistaking an illustrative case-study from a real-life one, since they were too dim to work this out for themselves and avoid the dangerous consequences of being so misled? Or were the SJWs just looking for a stick to beat IDS with? Answers on a postcard addressed to Benefits Street.)
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Jeremy Corbyn's apparently been forced to cancel a rally in Cambridge tonight as too many people wanted to attend ...

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-cancels-1200-capacity-6312126

    ... There was plenty of room, but no-one wanted to stand on the right. :)
  • Jeremy Corbyn's apparently been forced to cancel a rally in Cambridge tonight as too many people wanted to attend ...

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-cancels-1200-capacity-6312126

    ... There was plenty of room, but no-one wanted to stand on the right. :)

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/632950671420096512
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited August 2015

    @Ydeothur

    "Merely cocking up enormously on a key plank of policy is not, so far as can be judged, a hanging offence under Cameron"

    Says it all rally, Doctor. Well maybe not quite all, Cameron is quite capable fo sacking ministers who are actually doing quite a good job but who are unpopular with the vested interests.

    @Sunil
    "Rab Butler - Indian!"

    It is perhaps not so surprising that a fair percentage of the great and good of yesteryear were also Indian. We were for example talking on here the other day about Admiral Jackie Fisher, 1st Sea Lord and founder of the modern Royal Navy (when it was a navy as opposed to the current coastal defence force). Fisher was Indian, well actually Ceylonese but let's not split hairs.

    Vivien Leigh and Rudyard Kipling could be included, of course. So was Reginald Dyer, but for some reason I believe the people of India are not so keen on claiming him. Merle Oberon was actually of mixed race, so does she count twice?

    Biggles' backstory had him born in India too.

    EDIT - incidentally, if that was a reference to Gove, I would question whether he was doing 'quite a good job'. He was pushing through very radical changes very quickly, but he was extremely rude and confrontational about it, with the net result that he was causing a huge amount of resistance even among those people (like me) who broadly supported most of his ideas. Don't forget, his ideas were very popular among teachers in 2010, to the extent they voted Conservative in large numbers - but his behaviour quickly disillusioned us. He was a bit like the egregious Mary Creagh - would start a fight, and didn't really care whether or not it was helping his cause. That's nothing to do with vested interests and everything to do with character flaws.

    Removing him and replacing him with an amiable nobody was a very good move indeed by Cameron, even if Gove himself was unwilling to go (which I gather he wasn't).
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Even I could consider voting for a party with such key policies...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:



    As an aside, isn't May the longest-serving home secretary in yonks?

    Edit: on a quick check, at the end of the year she'll have overtaken R.A.Butler who served from 1957 to 1962, since when there have been 21 other home secretaries.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary

    Quite impressive staying power in what is one of the more treacherous jobs in government.

    I wonder how many home secretaries have gone on to become PM in the modern era, compared to the other great offices of state?

    James Callaghan was one, but off hand I think he was the only one since Churchill. Neither went direct from the Home Office though.

    May will be the longest-serving home secretary since Ede if she lasts until next year, and I think I'm right in saying he holds the record for consecutive years in office behind the Duke of Portland under rather different circumstances in the eighteenth century. Certainly he was the longest serving of the twentieth century, ahead of Ede, Morrison, Butler and Joynson-Hicks (whom May has already surpassed, as he didn't quite last five years) although Richard Cross I think holds the overall record for years at the office (1874-80 and 1885-86).
    On a careful check, only two men have ever gone straight from the Home Office to Downing Street - Palmerston in 1855 and Melbourne in 1834.

    Several other holders have gone on to be PM but not directly: Asquith, Russell, Peel, Portland, Hawkesbury, Grenville and Shelburne. Several others have been party leaders after a lapse, most recently Howard.

    And in terms of length of tenure, how could I have forgotten Lord Sidmouth of 'riding on a crocodile' fame, who was in office for a remarkable 10 years from 1812 to 1822?
    Thanks. As ever the range of knowledge on PB is amazing.

    (And thanks to Sunil too)
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015
    isam said:

    "..the culprits of the 2011 Tucson massacre,at which Congreswoman Gabrielle Giffords was terribly wounded and six people died, the culprits of the beheading of Jennifer Mills Westley in Tenerife, of the beheading of Mrs Palmira Silva in London, of the grotesque murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, of the Charlie Hebdo and related killings in Paris, of the killings of two Canadian soldiers in the past year, of the bludgeoning to death of Sheffield church organist Alan Greaves, not to mention a large number of other notably violent and deranged, irrational crimes ( see: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/07/high-and-violent.html ) have all been revealed to be cannabis users.

    So, am I saying that everyone who smokes cannabis is a mass killer? Of course not, though, again, the cannabis comment warriors will be quick to suggest that this is my case, in the hope of fooling as many people as they can. "

    This is a highly spurious attempt at a correlation. Something like 40% of people in Western nations have used cannabis. Unless you can show that substantially above 40% of murderers took the drug, then there's not even a case here at all. Noting that 10 out of several hundred million cannabis users have committed violent crimes as some sort of evidence doesn't pass any test for statistical validity.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    @Ydeothur

    "Merely cocking up enormously on a key plank of policy is not, so far as can be judged, a hanging offence under Cameron"

    Says it all rally, Doctor. Well maybe not quite all, Cameron is quite capable fo sacking ministers who are actually doing quite a good job but who are unpopular with the vested interests.

    @Sunil
    "Rab Butler - Indian!"

    It is perhaps not so surprising that a fair percentage of the great and good of yesteryear were also Indian. We were for example talking on here the other day about Admiral Jackie Fisher, 1st Sea Lord and founder of the modern Royal Navy (when it was a navy as opposed to the current coastal defence force). Fisher was Indian, well actually Ceylonese but let's not split hairs.

    Vivien Leigh and Rudyard Kipling could be included, of course. So was Reginald Dyer, but for some reason I believe the people of India are not so keen on claiming him. Merle Oberon was actually of mixed race, so does she count twice?

    Biggles' backstory had him born in India too.
    Spike Milligan
    Sir Cliff
    Joanna Lumley

    and
    Sunil Prasannan

    :lol:
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Danny565 said:

    I've said it before: Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South, is the one to get on as the Corbyn successor. He's left-wing, but younger (and thus more "prime-ministerial"). Most crucially of all, he served in the Army Reserves, which insulates him from any of the criticisms about being anti-British that Corbyn might get.

    Don't forget the TV background too. He's one to watch alright.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,723

    kle4 said:

    I'm sure this was discussed on previous pages here but...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34042587

    "IDS blames own staff for fake stories" (Was the BBC quick link title, not the long title.)

    Pfffffffft.

    As if anyone thought he handwrote them himself. FFS. Oh, except

    Stephen Timms, Labour's acting shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "You couldn't make it up - but it seems Iain Duncan Smith can. The only way he can find backers for his sanctions regime is by inventing them."
    The stories were utterly stupid - nobody would say how happy they were to be sanctioned... but the idea it's the Head Man's fault, as if he personally oversaw the episode, is an exercise in social-media-storm-meets-silly-season. And the concept of using illustrative examples, rather than real-life ones, is not exactly a breakthrough in PR.
    It's really not an issue at all, if the damn things had been clearly marked as illustrative (as apparently they were not). Even though they were not, it's not really shocking, as you say.

    That said, I think Isam is correct that had Ed M's team done it, there would have been more outrage
    I hope I would have been failed to be outraged either way.

    I do hope no civil servant is going to have a ton of bricks come down on them over this just to satisfy the twitterati. A mistake, yes, and some sort of disciplinary action might be reasonable, but I don't think there's any point IDS performing some sort of blood sacrifice over it. Particularly just to assuage a bunch of social justice warriors who are only interested in his head anyway. (Incidentally, said SJW seem to have an incredibly low opinion of the IQ of a typical unemployed person. Do they really think the unemployed require such urgent protection from the horrific possibility of mistaking an illustrative case-study from a real-life one, since they were too dim to work this out for themselves and avoid the dangerous consequences of being so misled? Or were the SJWs just looking for a stick to beat IDS with? Answers on a postcard addressed to Benefits Street.)

    I am not a social justice warrior, and I think we should go further on cutting benefits than
    IDS in all likelihood. But the principle remains that Governments should not invent stories and use propaganda to push policies, whether right or wrong
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    How would you recommend you deal with the current housing crisis then?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    The trouble is that Labour electorate are paying too much attention to the victory over them by the SNP, and nowhere enough to their far more important defeat to the Conservatives.

    They'd much rather engage with the euphoria of the former than the hard thinking and tough lessons of the latter.
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,723
    Tonight 7.30pm BBC1 The Schools Scandal:Playing Ths System

    People pretending to live where they dont/Pew Jumping to get into good schools...all the way from my hometown of Upminster.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    How would you recommend you deal with the current housing crisis then?
    <
    It depends which parts of the broken housing system we have in this country that you think count towards the crisis.

    But basically: there is not a solution that will be politically acceptable. So what we get are proposals from people to fix 'their' issues with the system, even when those fixes further break the system for others.

    We can build more: the green belt (limited as it is) is not the answer. And we need to build communities, not houses.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited August 2015
    antifrank said:

    Thanks for the feedback all - I shall try to curb my logorrhoea in future.

    I thought this was good stuff but would probably have made two headers, rather than one, if it had been possible to find an appropriate thematic split.

    We've had some excellent headers in recent weeks and antifrank's have been up there with the best this site has ever had. I know some of us below the line have posed that it'd be a shoo-in for POTY, but I'd actually be looking for external comparisons with professional pundits. This is as good material as we've been getting in the newspapers - certainly more thoughtful. The downside, I suppose, is the lack of personal acquaintance with the actors, but that may help with the analytical objectivity.

    For those with long memories on this site, Morus (Greg Callus) was nominated for the Orwell prize, in part for his headers here, and I reckon antifrank's are at least as good. (Morus clearly had stylistic flair, which presumably explains his success outside PB, but personally I like more meat, and much prefer antifrank's substantive content. His pieces are constructed with great analytical rigour and I find that strangely refreshing given the diet the rest of the media feeds us.)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    isam said:

    Tonight 7.30pm BBC1 The Schools Scandal:Playing Ths System

    People pretending to live where they dont/Pew Jumping to get into good schools...all the way from my hometown of Upminster.

    isam said:

    Tonight 7.30pm BBC1 The Schools Scandal:Playing Ths System

    People pretending to live where they dont/Pew Jumping to get into good schools...all the way from my hometown of Upminster.

    Yes but the solution is to have good schools with high standards everywhere - but somehow a combination of LAs, educationalists and teacher training do not support that objective.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited August 2015
    Financier said:

    isam said:

    Tonight 7.30pm BBC1 The Schools Scandal:Playing Ths System

    People pretending to live where they dont/Pew Jumping to get into good schools...all the way from my hometown of Upminster.

    Yes but the solution is to have good schools with high standards everywhere - but somehow a combination of LAs, educationalists and teacher training do not support that objective.
    You forgot to mention OFSTED.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Yes

    Some of the other answers were correct too, but this is what I was getting at

    Not saying its 100% the cause, but worth keeping an eye on whenever one of these grotesque attacks occur
    Not 100% the cause? Er, yeah. Dope causes Islam. Keep smoking.

    FWIW there is plenty of evidence that ISIS hand out drugs - probably amphetamines - to their fighters in Syria and Iraq. Just like many armies through history which have got their warriors hopped up (including the British with the rum ration)

    There is no causal link. The kind of young drop outs attracted to ISIS are very likely to be the kind of kids who will try drugs. Who cares. Kill them all.

    I have just finished reading a history of the early SBS. They were often given 'bennies' to keep them awake for long periods. The same I believe is true for long range bomber pilots. In passing the main character in the book was a Danish aristocrat called Anders Lassen who won three MCs before a posthumous VC as well as Danish and Greek awards. He liberated Salonika with a force of 40 men by persuading the thousands of occupying Germans that he had a full corps of troops. He must rank as one of the finest warriors of all time.
  • slade said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Yes

    Some of the other answers were correct too, but this is what I was getting at

    Not saying its 100% the cause, but worth keeping an eye on whenever one of these grotesque attacks occur
    Not 100% the cause? Er, yeah. Dope causes Islam. Keep smoking.

    FWIW there is plenty of evidence that ISIS hand out drugs - probably amphetamines - to their fighters in Syria and Iraq. Just like many armies through history which have got their warriors hopped up (including the British with the rum ration)

    There is no causal link. The kind of young drop outs attracted to ISIS are very likely to be the kind of kids who will try drugs. Who cares. Kill them all.

    I have just finished reading a history of the early SBS. They were often given 'bennies' to keep them awake for long periods. The same I believe is true for long range bomber pilots. In passing the main character in the book was a Danish aristocrat called Anders Lassen who won three MCs before a posthumous VC as well as Danish and Greek awards. He liberated Salonika with a force of 40 men by persuading the thousands of occupying Germans that he had a full corps of troops. He must rank as one of the finest warriors of all time.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Lassen
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    edited August 2015

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    Green Belt stopped the Northern line reaching Elstree and also caused the abandonment of the Central line extension to Denham, and the Chessington to Leatherhead rail line.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911
    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Chelsea fans?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008

    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    How would you recommend you deal with the current housing crisis then?
    <
    It depends which parts of the broken housing system we have in this country that you think count towards the crisis.

    But basically: there is not a solution that will be politically acceptable. So what we get are proposals from people to fix 'their' issues with the system, even when those fixes further break the system for others.

    We can build more: the green belt (limited as it is) is not the answer. And we need to build communities, not houses.
    Existing homeowners basically need to be squared. It's that problem that lies behind most opposition to housing development of most kinds.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
  • isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Thanks for the feedback all - I shall try to curb my logorrhoea in future.

    Offer Eagles 1/10 on the Labour Leadership announcement bet and all is forgiven
    The odds that Labour leader will be announced as planned on 12 September are now 1/8, out from 1/20, with the converse now in to 9/2: https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/635868300346572800

    I might have had a hand on this, as I tried to put a good-sized chunk on NOT at 8/1 but only a third of my bet was accepted (not that I know anything you don't, was just trying to cover my Betfair position).
  • isamisam Posts: 40,723
    slade said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Yes

    Some of the other answers were correct too, but this is what I was getting at

    Not saying its 100% the cause, but worth keeping an eye on whenever one of these grotesque attacks occur
    Not 100% the cause? Er, yeah. Dope causes Islam. Keep smoking.

    FWIW there is plenty of evidence that ISIS hand out drugs - probably amphetamines - to their fighters in Syria and Iraq. Just like many armies through history which have got their warriors hopped up (including the British with the rum ration)

    There is no causal link. The kind of young drop outs attracted to ISIS are very likely to be the kind of kids who will try drugs. Who cares. Kill them all.

    I have just finished reading a history of the early SBS. They were often given 'bennies' to keep them awake for long periods. The same I believe is true for long range bomber pilots. In passing the main character in the book was a Danish aristocrat called Anders Lassen who won three MCs before a posthumous VC as well as Danish and Greek awards. He liberated Salonika with a force of 40 men by persuading the thousands of occupying Germans that he had a full corps of troops. He must rank as one of the finest warriors of all time.
    Cannabis is different from amphetamines etc though I think... Seems to me the effect lasts for a while after people stop smoking it, and in teenagers (where most people start) it can alter the growing brain forever

    The only way I think it could be legalised is for the over 40s where the damage is done/or not
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    I fail to see why places like Cambridge need Green Belt around it when there is miles of coutryside in all directions.

    Regardless even if there are excellent reasons for the Green Belt that has to be balanced with the needs of the young having somewhere to live. How important are these reasons that it becomes acceptable to price out an entire generation? And what exactly is wrong with using statistics?

    It is easy for people who bought houses cheaply in the past to take the moral high ground on the matter when it doesn't negatively effect them in any way.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    It turns out that the UK banks are the most exposed to China, that's even excluding HSBC and Standard Charted whose China exposures are booked to their HK subsidiaries. Lets hope our banks haven't been lending too much to Chinese business folks using their London premium properties as collateral, or the top end of the property market could be in for a bumpy ride.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    I don't think the concept is outdated, but as others have said, the purpose of the green belt needs to be balanced against making sure there is enough housing stock in the country, especially in the south east, for the population here. That may need some adjustments in areas of the green belt where there is not a danger of towns joining up in urban sprawl, and where the green belt is not particularly attractive currently.

    Of course, for the British public to accept they will lose some of the countryside, they will need to know it is going to longstanding British citizens with roots here, not to host ever growing numbers of foreign residents. That means immigration controls are a needed requisite for this policy to be sellable.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    I fail to see why places like Cambridge need Green Belt around it when there is miles of coutryside in all directions.

    Regardless even if there are excellent reasons for the Green Belt that has to be balanced with the needs of the young having somewhere to live. How important are these reasons that it becomes acceptable to price out an entire generation? And what exactly is wrong with using statistics?

    It is easy for people who bought houses cheaply in the past to take the moral high ground on the matter when it doesn't negatively effect them in any way.
    There is plenty of non green belt land around Cambridge ready for building on. It'd make a difference if they actually got Oakington started. How many years have they been pissing around with that? Ten?

    Then we have Cambourne West next to where I live (in fact, literally a stones' throw), and the old airfield site to the east. I'm in favour of all of them as long as their are sufficient

    So your example of Cambridge is utterly bogus. Get the developers building on the land they can build on first before listening to hysterical screeches about the green belt.

    Besides, building more houses is pointless when so many just gt bougth up by buy-to-let investors. You see, applying dubious 'fixes' to one part of the problem may not solve anything ...
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    The Oxford Green Belt has not been reassessed in over 50 years. The city is bursting at the seams with house prices that exclude far too many people. A far more flexible approach has to be taken. It has to be.
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    So it's ok for you to live in the countryside, but not anyone else.

    Lucky there were no NIMBYs about when your house was being built eh?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    The Tory right were so angry about Thatcher's downfall because she had won 3 victories, if Corbyn is toppled it will only be because he has failed to perform in opinion polls, local elections and/or by elections as IDS did not, he will not be allowed to carry Labour to another hefty defeat. His replacement would have to be an experienced figure ideally someone like Alan Johnson who is not polarising and can be elected unopposed, as Howard was.

    While Labour may get away with higher taxes on the rich the middle classes will certainly not vote for higher taxes on themselves as 1992 showed and if Corbyn has failed to take a poll lead on an explicitly anti austerity agenda then there may be some scope for Labour to at least return to political reality indeed by 2020 based on Osborne's present plans a surplus should have been restored anyway
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Jeremy Corbyn will 'sack' Bank of England governor if they refuse to print free money

    Richard Murphy, architect of so-called 'Corbynomics', issues warning to Bank of England over Jeremy Corbyn's quantitative easing plans"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11820156/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-sack-Bank-of-England-governor-if-they-refuse-to-print-free-money.html
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    The attached research paper is stunning and an absolute must read for anyone interested in elections. NB, this is not a paper in some fly-by-night vanity journal, but is in the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences.

    Perhaps Google is already messing with our heads and this is the explanation for Trump, Bernie and Jez. :)

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=rc3_4#.VdtaV-u7KfS
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Frank Field 'To inspire young voters the party must ditch Blairism'

    He states Labour needs to accept the political landscape has changed and an agenda based more on that of John Cruddas is the best way forward
    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    To deal with the housing shortage, as well as building more I think ensuring that as many empty properties as possible are occupied is essential.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    So it's ok for you to live in the countryside, but not anyone else.

    Lucky there were no NIMBYs about when your house was being built eh?
    There were. The neighbouring villages player merry hell. Fortunately they were eventually overruled.

    I don't live in the countryside, not really. Cambourne is a town in all but name, but they're still sticking to the illusion that it is actually three distinct villages.

    And note I am in favour of the expansion of the village on both sides, which might well triple it size, as long as we get good facilities to cope with that growth. And that's another issue that people who concentrate on just building more houses forget.

    Protecting the Green Belt is not about NIMBYism. And I don't live in the green belt.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Very good piece. However, the part about the UK public not being 'peaceniks' is notably free of supporting references, and in my opinion it needs them. The public was (rightly) decidedly against Iraq, and (rightly again) against bombing Syria. I'm not sure what the split was on other military exercises, but I would argue that Corbyn's anti-establishment foreign policy agenda is both a significant part of his appeal within left-wing circles, and one of the most likely to 'cross over'. All very well telling people to be prudent with public finances, but doesn't look great when you start firing million pound missiles off right left and centre in other people's wars.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015

    Besides, building more houses is pointless when so many just gt bougth up by buy-to-let investors. You see, applying dubious 'fixes' to one part of the problem may not solve anything ...

    That isn't pointless at all. More rental stock on the market definitely helps people with housing costs. As you increase the housing stock is natural and right that a share of that goes to rental properties.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    I don't think the concept is outdated, but as others have said, the purpose of the green belt needs to be balanced against making sure there is enough housing stock in the country, especially in the south east, for the population here. That may need some adjustments in areas of the green belt where there is not a danger of towns joining up in urban sprawl, and where the green belt is not particularly attractive currently.

    Of course, for the British public to accept they will lose some of the countryside, they will need to know it is going to longstanding British citizens with roots here, not to host ever growing numbers of foreign residents. That means immigration controls are a needed requisite for this policy to be sellable.
    I think that anyone who has lived in the US and seen sprawling suburbs and exurbs would not think that Green Belts are an outdated idea. It has to adapt to the times, but as a concept I believe it is still valuable.
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    I fail to see why places like Cambridge need Green Belt around it when there is miles of coutryside in all directions.

    Regardless even if there are excellent reasons for the Green Belt that has to be balanced with the needs of the young having somewhere to live. How important are these reasons that it becomes acceptable to price out an entire generation? And what exactly is wrong with using statistics?

    It is easy for people who bought houses cheaply in the past to take the moral high ground on the matter when it doesn't negatively effect them in any way.
    There is plenty of non green belt land around Cambridge ready for building on. It'd make a difference if they actually got Oakington started. How many years have they been pissing around with that? Ten?

    Then we have Cambourne West next to where I live (in fact, literally a stones' throw), and the old airfield site to the east. I'm in favour of all of them as long as their are sufficient

    So your example of Cambridge is utterly bogus. Get the developers building on the land they can build on first before listening to hysterical screeches about the green belt.

    Besides, building more houses is pointless when so many just gt bougth up by buy-to-let investors. You see, applying dubious 'fixes' to one part of the problem may not solve anything ...
    They've released little pockets of land to developers who aren't building. The Green Belt prevents anyone else building any houses.

    Trying to say there is enough land released in Cambridge when there are no houses being built is not a convincing argument.
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    I fail to see why places like Cambridge need Green Belt around it when there is miles of coutryside in all directions.

    Regardless even if there are excellent reasons for the Green Belt that has to be balanced with the needs of the young having somewhere to live. How important are these reasons that it becomes acceptable to price out an entire generation? And what exactly is wrong with using statistics?

    It is easy for people who bought houses cheaply in the past to take the moral high ground on the matter when it doesn't negatively effect them in any way.
    ...... Get the developers building on the land they can build on first before listening to hysterical screeches about the green belt...
    .
    Planning restrictions and rules have a massive impact on building. But we first need to remove the daft "affordable housing" percentage rules - 40%! These make any development a more complicated process of getting the finance together. Another rule is the amount of minimum number of units per acre. This makes building bungalows very difficult at a time when there is unmet demand for them - and the cash - which would help senior citizens trade from their two level houses which in turn would help starter families etc etc.
  • JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    So it's ok for you to live in the countryside, but not anyone else.

    Lucky there were no NIMBYs about when your house was being built eh?
    There were. The neighbouring villages player merry hell. Fortunately they were eventually overruled.

    I don't live in the countryside, not really. Cambourne is a town in all but name, but they're still sticking to the illusion that it is actually three distinct villages.

    And note I am in favour of the expansion of the village on both sides, which might well triple it size, as long as we get good facilities to cope with that growth. And that's another issue that people who concentrate on just building more houses forget.

    Protecting the Green Belt is not about NIMBYism. And I don't live in the green belt.
    Fair enough.

    But I don't see how the current solution with the Green Belt is working, when there is clearly not enough building taking place.

    Why exactly does Cambridge need any Green Belt land at all?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    calum said:

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    To deal with the housing shortage, as well as building more I think ensuring that as many empty properties as possible are occupied is essential.
    That might be a move forward. But how do you classify an 'empty' house in a fair and equitable way?

    Let's take another thorny issue that is rarely discussed on here: affordable housing for rural families in picturesque areas. From Derbyshire to Cornwall, the Lakes to the South Downs, people are buying up properties for use as second holiday homes, or for rental. This means that young people find it hard to find properties, leading to a drain of people away from the countryside. Worse, because holiday home are rarely occupied throughout the year, it leads to some villages becoming ghost towns in winter.

    So what to do? Perhaps allow councils to double (or triple) council tax on properties that are unoccupied for three months of the year? It's easy to see the problems with that ...

    And so on, for the myriad problems.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    In other "effects of mass immigration" stories, London is now the traffic congestion capital of Europe:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/844ec314-4817-11e5-b3b2-1672f710807b.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Very good piece. However, the part about the UK public not being 'peaceniks' is notably free of supporting references, and in my opinion it needs them. The public was (rightly) decidedly against Iraq, and (rightly again) against bombing Syria. I'm not sure what the split was on other military exercises, but I would argue that Corbyn's anti-establishment foreign policy agenda is both a significant part of his appeal within left-wing circles, and one of the most likely to 'cross over'. All very well telling people to be prudent with public finances, but doesn't look great when you start firing million pound missiles off right left and centre in other people's wars.

    Latest polls however have not only shown public support for bombing ISIS but split down the middle committing groundtroops against them
    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dl5mxnrekm/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Iraq-Syria-and-ISIS-030715.pdf
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903


    ...

    It is perhaps not so surprising that a fair percentage of the great and good of yesteryear were also Indian. We were for example talking on here the other day about Admiral Jackie Fisher, 1st Sea Lord and founder of the modern Royal Navy (when it was a navy as opposed to the current coastal defence force). Fisher was Indian, well actually Ceylonese but let's not split hairs.

    Two 66,000 tonne aircraft carriers are a coastal defence force? Plus destroyers that can detect and track over 1000 aircraft at a range of 400 miles and co-ordinate multiple missiles at the same time.
    Indeed the English cricket team might not it can track a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. (SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function radar)
    I'd like to see more... or possibly alternatives - but we do have new Trident to fund with its new top secret mega powerful corbynite warhead and UNITE tracking system.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?

    On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    Some self-awareness at last...
    http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jewish-communitys-crisis-with-left-wing-politics/
    "We have played the wrong game. We’ve relied on character assassination, but on this he seems impenetrable. He doesn’t personalise his politics. It’s not about his ego or fiery vitriolic speeches for him. It’s about principles, ideals, values, backing the underdog, wanting to encourage dialogue.

    You can’t attack that.

    He presents himself as a brand of wholesome beardy trustworthiness. Whether that is a true reflection remains to be seen. Already evident, however, is that accusing him of failing on anti-Semitism by association has not worked. If that was indeed the mud, it didn’t stick. It may hold some truth, but ultimately, it was seen as just another attempt to smear another politician our community doesn’t like.

    It’s time we stopped shouting and started listening, sensing the public mood a bit better, so that we can make our point before being branded as biased."
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The Govt needs to do something about the M25. Its a joke trying to get round it.. They got rid of the Dartford tolls and one sees almost daily long delays there. 12-21 in both directions a disaster area daily.

    I foresee tolls to keep local traffic off it. its the only way.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015

    Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?

    On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.

    Flats got a bad name in the sixties, but both Yuppies and migrants have come round to the idea. EU migrants do not have the anti-apartment mentality of Brits. Build decent ones with good soundproofing and parking and they would sell pdq in much of London.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    So it's ok for you to live in the countryside, but not anyone else.

    Lucky there were no NIMBYs about when your house was being built eh?
    There were. The neighbouring villages player merry hell. Fortunately they were eventually overruled.

    I don't live in the countryside, not really. Cambourne is a town in all but name, but they're still sticking to the illusion that it is actually three distinct villages.

    And note I am in favour of the expansion of the village on both sides, which might well triple it size, as long as we get good facilities to cope with that growth. And that's another issue that people who concentrate on just building more houses forget.

    Protecting the Green Belt is not about NIMBYism. And I don't live in the green belt.
    Fair enough.

    But I don't see how the current solution with the Green Belt is working, when there is clearly not enough building taking place.

    Why exactly does Cambridge need any Green Belt land at all?
    To stop it becoming (even more) of a dormitory for London, amongst other reasons. Although Cambridge is slightly odd as the university has its mucky mitts in the system.

    But in Cambridge's environs, there are several developments - most notably Northstowe (Oakington) where no progress has been made for years.

    Developers also demand more land, whilst having large land banks.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    AndyJS said:

    "Jeremy Corbyn will 'sack' Bank of England governor if they refuse to print free money

    Richard Murphy, architect of so-called 'Corbynomics', issues warning to Bank of England over Jeremy Corbyn's quantitative easing plans"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11820156/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-sack-Bank-of-England-governor-if-they-refuse-to-print-free-money.html

    Money for nothing, chicks for free.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Good piece of reporting from both sides here - mostly depressing reading though:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/30/ukraine-ceasefire-there-is-shooting-all-the-time
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited August 2015
    RodCrosby said:

    Some self-awareness at last...
    http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jewish-communitys-crisis-with-left-wing-politics/
    "We have played the wrong game. We’ve relied on character assassination, but on this he seems impenetrable. He doesn’t personalise his politics. It’s not about his ego or fiery vitriolic speeches for him. It’s about principles, ideals, values, backing the underdog, wanting to encourage dialogue.

    You can’t attack that.

    He presents himself as a brand of wholesome beardy trustworthiness. Whether that is a true reflection remains to be seen. Already evident, however, is that accusing him of failing on anti-Semitism by association has not worked. If that was indeed the mud, it didn’t stick. It may hold some truth, but ultimately, it was seen as just another attempt to smear another politician our community doesn’t like.

    It’s time we stopped shouting and started listening, sensing the public mood a bit better, so that we can make our point before being branded as biased."

    wrong on several counts, as the earlier, far more perceptive article posted earlier, by Stephen Daisley illustrates.

    No one is saying he is an anti-semite.

    They are saying that he is a willing associate of anti-semites, forgiving their anti-semitism because today's corbynites equate Israel with imperial oppression and then get quite lazy in distinguishing between Israel and the Jews, something the anti-semites have no such cares about, seeing as they are anti-semites.
  • calum said:

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    To deal with the housing shortage, as well as building more I think ensuring that as many empty properties as possible are occupied is essential.
    Let's take another thorny issue that is rarely discussed on here: affordable housing for rural families in picturesque areas. From Derbyshire to Cornwall, the Lakes to the South Downs, people are buying up properties for use as second holiday homes, or for rental. This means that young people find it hard to find properties, leading to a drain of people away from the countryside. Worse, because holiday home are rarely occupied throughout the year, it leads to some villages becoming ghost towns in winter.
    So what to do?
    Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    I've said it before: Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South, is the one to get on as the Corbyn successor. He's left-wing, but younger (and thus more "prime-ministerial"). Most crucially of all, he served in the Army Reserves, which insulates him from any of the criticisms about being anti-British that Corbyn might get.

    Has Corbyn ever done or said anything to indicate he is pro-British?

    I'm intrigued. How does the scenario pan out whereby Corbyn is not leader and another left winger is elected? Corbyn resigns admitting he never wanted to be PM after all?
    Basically, yes. I'm still not convinced he wants to be PM / a long-term leader. I personally expect even if he is "successful", he would want to hand over to an heir(ess) before 2020.
    Mr 565 --- Lewis for leader? Tony Benn was a wartime pilot with the RAF. So what? He was still a bonkers leftie. I can separate the two sides to him out, thank you very much. As Mr Godwin regularly points out Adolf Hitler was a war hero. Its policies not personalities, as Mr Benn would say.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    Yes houses are already covering a grand total of 3% of the country. Imagine that rising to 3.5% and everyone having somewhere decent to live. Madness.
    Perhaps you should read about the Green Belt to work out why it is there, to see why such stupid use of statistics is utterly unhelpful.
    I fail to see why places like Cambridge need Green Belt around it when there is miles of coutryside in all directions.

    Regardless even if there are excellent reasons for the Green Belt that has to be balanced with the needs of the young having somewhere to live. How important are these reasons that it becomes acceptable to price out an entire generation? And what exactly is wrong with using statistics?

    It is easy for people who bought houses cheaply in the past to take the moral high ground on the matter when it doesn't negatively effect them in any way.
    There is plenty of non green belt land around Cambridge ready for building on. It'd make a difference if they actually got Oakington started. How many years have they been pissing around with that? Ten?

    Then we have Cambourne West next to where I live (in fact, literally a stones' throw), and the old airfield site to the east. I'm in favour of all of them as long as their are sufficient

    So your example of Cambridge is utterly bogus. Get the developers building on the land they can build on first before listening to hysterical screeches about the green belt.

    Besides, building more houses is pointless when so many just gt bougth up by buy-to-let investors. You see, applying dubious 'fixes' to one part of the problem may not solve anything ...
    They've released little pockets of land to developers who aren't building. The Green Belt prevents anyone else building any houses.

    Trying to say there is enough land released in Cambridge when there are no houses being built is not a convincing argument.
    Because you are stupidly playing into the developers' hands.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098


    ...

    It is perhaps not so surprising that a fair percentage of the great and good of yesteryear were also Indian. We were for example talking on here the other day about Admiral Jackie Fisher, 1st Sea Lord and founder of the modern Royal Navy (when it was a navy as opposed to the current coastal defence force). Fisher was Indian, well actually Ceylonese but let's not split hairs.

    Two 66,000 tonne aircraft carriers are a coastal defence force? Plus destroyers that can detect and track over 1000 aircraft at a range of 400 miles and co-ordinate multiple missiles at the same time.
    Indeed the English cricket team might not it can track a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. (SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function radar)
    I'd like to see more... or possibly alternatives - but we do have new Trident to fund with its new top secret mega powerful corbynite warhead and UNITE tracking system.
    The RN does not have two 66,000 tons aircraft carriers. It is building them and may, may, when the RAF decide to join in, eventually have enough aircraft to equip one of them. The ships themselves will have some short-range defensive weapons but other than that will be unarmed and what anti-ship weaponry will the F35s be equipped with?

    The Daring class has a super radar and enough missiles to deal with one attack from a group of Soviet era Backfire bombers, what they are supposed to do if a second attack arrives nobody has yet explained. The offensive might of the Daring class rests on each having a single medium caliber gun and some of them, only some mind, four old Harpoon missiles, which really in any other circumstances would have been declared obsolete. Of course, there are only six of these ships.

    Shall we talk about the T23s all 13 of them which may or may not be replaced in the coming years?

    The RN does have some good kit, and has very good people, it does not have enough of either and cannot in war conditions outside land based air-cover. With the exception of the Submarine service, such as it is, the RN is a coastal defence force and not a navy.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    dr_spyn said:

    Gordon's alive.
    twitter.com/itvnews/status/635855053165883392

    It cannot be a coincidence that that is one of the if not the worst photo of Cooper ever. Well done Jonah.
    Personally I am praying for a Burham win.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042

    Interesting article, and antifrank should resist calls for brevity. How busy can you guys be that you can plough through hundreds of posts but not read a single longer piece?

    On housing, I don't think there's a good solution except encouraging blocks of flats like most other countries with limited land area, but one alternative that looked interesting is the double ring - you keep the Green Belt, but build an outer ring of housing around it, with very good transport lines (e.g. trams) running in spokes from the outer ring through the green belt to the centre. Then people can live either side of the green belt and still have decent access to it.

    Flats got a bad name in the sixties, but both Yuppies and migrants have come round to the idea. EU migrants do not have the anti-apartment mentality of Brits. Build decent ones with good soundproofing and parking and they would sell pdq in much of London.
    I agree. They need to be the homes of the future; they don't have to be ugly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Victorian_tenement_at_Boroughmuirhead,_Edinburgh.jpg

    Edinburgh is full of blocks of flats that look like palaces.

  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    edited August 2015



    To stop it becoming (even more) of a dormitory for London, amongst other reasons. Although Cambridge is slightly odd as the university has its mucky mitts in the system.

    But in Cambridge's environs, there are several developments - most notably Northstowe (Oakington) where no progress has been made for years.

    Developers also demand more land, whilst having large land banks.

    So the reason we need the Green Belt in Cambridge is to stop people commuting into London who have been priced out of there because of the Green Belt around London.

    The government should sell land to self builders rather than developers like they do in Germany. Also land banking should be taxed.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The most depressing programme on BBC1, following the people who have to waste their lives checking on whether people live where they say they live or whether they're pretending to do so in order to get their children into the best schools.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Um, hold on a minute there Tex. This is the kind of argument that Roy Meadow (the man responsible for the premature death of Sally Clark and a man no good statistician can name without pause) used to come out with. You're confusing two things:

    * P(C|S): The probability that somebody who has committed a spree killing is a user of cannabis
    * P(S|C): The probability that somebody who is a user of cannabis will commit a spree killing

    The two things are not the same. OK, quick poll of the audience: who immediately thought "Bayes's Law"? Yes, you the nerdy kid at the front. OK, Bayes' Law states that

    P(S|C) = P(C|S).P(S)/P(C)

    Hitchens may well be right that P(C|S) is large, but P(C) is quite large too and P(S) is quite small: many people use cannabis and very few people become spree killers. So P(S|C) is way smaller than you think, even though P(C|S) is quite large

    Even worse, that's not really what you want either. What you want is something like the probability that a cannabis user will become a spree killer compared to the probability that a non-cannabis user will become a spree killer. So you actually need something like the odds ratio or the risk ratio (it's late and I'm not looking up which one is which)

    (PS: any mistakes in the above I apologise for. Ultimately, you have to do your own math)
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    TOPPING said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Some self-awareness at last...
    http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-jewish-communitys-crisis-with-left-wing-politics/
    "We have played the wrong game. We’ve relied on character assassination, but on this he seems impenetrable. He doesn’t personalise his politics. It’s not about his ego or fiery vitriolic speeches for him. It’s about principles, ideals, values, backing the underdog, wanting to encourage dialogue.

    You can’t attack that.

    He presents himself as a brand of wholesome beardy trustworthiness. Whether that is a true reflection remains to be seen. Already evident, however, is that accusing him of failing on anti-Semitism by association has not worked. If that was indeed the mud, it didn’t stick. It may hold some truth, but ultimately, it was seen as just another attempt to smear another politician our community doesn’t like.

    It’s time we stopped shouting and started listening, sensing the public mood a bit better, so that we can make our point before being branded as biased."

    No one is saying he is an anti-semite.

    Quite. But they are saying, as you concede, that he is an anti-semite by association...

    Which of course, as any schoolboy knows, is an invalid argument.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    There's a jolly good docu on C4 Return of the Black Death - all connected to Crossrail archeology and will records.

    Well worth catching on replay or next showing.
    AndyJS said:

    The most depressing programme on BBC1, following the people who have to waste their lives checking on whether people live where they say they live or whether they're pretending to do so in order to get their children into the best schools.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    viewcode said:

    Cyclefree said:

    isam said:

    What do the killers of Lee Rigby, the pupil who stabbed the teacher in Bradford, the man who beheaded the lady in Edmonton, the Charlie Hebdo attackers, the Tunisian hotel terrorist and the gunman on the Paris bound train have in common?

    Answer is not the first that springs to mind...

    Cannabis use?

    Um, hold on a minute there Tex. This is the kind of argument that Roy Meadow (the man responsible for the premature death of Sally Clark and a man no good statistician can name without pause) used to come out with. You're confusing two things:

    * P(C|S): The probability that somebody who has committed a spree killing is a user of cannabis
    * P(S|C): The probability that somebody who is a user of cannabis will commit a spree killing

    The two things are not the same. OK, quick poll of the audience: who immediately thought "Bayes's Law"? Yes, you the nerdy kid at the front. OK, Bayes' Law states that

    P(S|C) = P(C|S).P(S)/P(C)

    Hitchens may well be right that P(C|S) is large, but P(C) is quite large too and P(S) is quite small: many people use cannabis and very few people become spree killers. So P(S|C) is way smaller than you think, even though P(C|S) is quite large

    Even worse, that's not really what you want either. What you want is something like the probability that a cannabis user will become a spree killer compared to the probability that a non-cannabis user will become a spree killer. So you actually need something like the odds ratio or the risk ratio (it's late and I'm not looking up which one is which)

    (PS: any mistakes in the above I apologise for. Ultimately, you have to do your own math)
    Maths.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656



    To stop it becoming (even more) of a dormitory for London, amongst other reasons. Although Cambridge is slightly odd as the university has its mucky mitts in the system.

    But in Cambridge's environs, there are several developments - most notably Northstowe (Oakington) where no progress has been made for years.

    Developers also demand more land, whilst having large land banks.

    So the reason we need the Green Belt in Cambridge is to stop people commuting into London who have been priced out of there because of the Green Belt around London.

    The government should sell land to self builders rather than developers like they do in Germany. Also land banking should be taxed.
    Yes, reduce stamp duty and put up taxes on empty land and empty homes.
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    Corbynite? An obscure mineral from the planet Corbyn, the red stuff is deadly, but the green stuff is OK.
    Yes a misspent youth reading trashy American superhero comics.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Cyclefree said:

    On the cannabis use point, what we don't know is whether this is what has caused them to act in this way or whether, having become radicalised, cannabis is used as a way of overcoming inhibitions against grotesque behaviour or whether the radicalisers pick on people who are already disinhibited/vulnerable through cannabis use.

    I think it was also shown that those involved in the 9/11 attacks used prostitutes and drank alcohol. But given that murder is - we are told - unIslamic, I'm sceptical whether saying that some jihadists are also drug users will stop others inclined to become jihadists. I'd have thought that such people are likely to ignore anything which doesn't fit in with their predetermined view or dismiss it as lies/smears etc.

    It could be that some people predisposed to cannabis use are also predisposed to being radicalised or brainwashed. It may be that the actual use of cannabis makes them more susceptible. There may be other links at play.
    But isam has a point about cannabis use I think.
    I see no surprise in learning that ISIS and their ilk would use all sorts of drugs and stimulus to control and order around their fighters.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    I know it was mentioned yesterday, but I thought people might be interested in the email Matthew Elliot the new CEO of the No campaign sent me this evening:


    As you will know from recent correspondence, the Business for Britain Board and I have been following the progress of the renegotiation very closely. After June's EU Council meeting, where the Prime Minister announced that treaty change was no longer possible, it has sadly become clear that serious change of the type described in the PM's Bloomberg Speech or our own 'Change, or go' report, is no longer on the table. We had hoped the renegotiation might take a different path but at the moment it is fair to say this is not the case.

    It is of course not impossible that a dramatic change will happen. Perhaps the combination of the euro crisis, the migrant crisis, and the EU’s ongoing structural problems will force sudden and major reform to be agreed. Perhaps the Prime Minister will deliver the end of the supremacy of EU law over UK law and regain UK power to make our our own trade deals as a full member of the World Trade Organisation. In such a situation the vast majority of the country would rightly support him. However, we unfortunately have to accept that this is now extremely unlikely and plan accordingly.

    On the basis that there may be only a few weeks between the end of the negotiations and a referendum, proper planning must begin now. It is obviously impossible to create the organisation needed for such an unprecedented campaign in such a short period. Such an organisation will need strong and secure foundations built over many months.

    After extensive consultations, the BfB Board has therefore decided that Business for Britain should affiliate to the new NO campaign, as part of its ongoing 'Change, or go' position.
    I am delighted to advise that I have been appointed as Chief Executive of the NO campaign and other staff members, including Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the successful No Euro campaign, will join me to help build a professional organisation that can grow according to the size of the task.

    We will soon be moving to a new office suitable for a referendum campaign. I want to reassure you that BfB continues as an independent entity - for now throwing its weight behind the NO Campaign - with the aim of, in the Prime Minster's words 'keeping all options on the table'. BfB will maintain an independent voice throughout this process, and I will continue to be closely involved as its Founder, though obviously the NO campaign will grow in prominence over coming months.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    JEO said:

    An absolute cracker of an article from Frank Field, perfectly diagnosing Labour's problem - that neither Blairism or Corbynism is the answer - and laying out a platform for the future.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/frank-field-to-inspire-the-voters-labour-must-ditch-its-faith-in-blairism-a2919786.html

    Main policy recommendations:

    - Increasing the living wage in a sustainable fashion, via a productivity-focused industrial policy and reducing low skill immigration
    - A contributory welfare system, prioritising UK nationals who have paid in and where those longest resident here are front of the queue
    - Reducing housing costs by allowing more building on the green belt and limiting immigration

    Increasing building on the green belt is sheer, absolute madness. Crazy.
    The green belt is an outdated, outmoded concept. It is stifling growth and needs to be reassessed.

    We cannot let NIMBYs dictate planning policy
    It's not about NIMBYism. It's for all our good.


    As I see in my village (first house built 1997), the new homeowners soon become NIMBY's themselves ...
    I hold the exact opposite view to you regarding the importance of the Green Belt. But instead of asking you to change your mind (neither you nor I are likely to do so on this matter), may I ask you to come up with an alternative method that *will* result in the building of more houses? We've had the present problems my entire adult life and all the approaches have failed...:-(
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    edited August 2015
    Excellent article.

    As someone who (very enthusiastically at first, now a little less so) backed Corbyn, and is involved with Corbyn-supporting groups on FB, this article rings very true to me.

    For me, and most of my fellow members of the pro-JC FB group, the policy appeal of JC is built primarily around his opposition to austerity and inequality (by which I mean the gap between the super-rich and the rest). His focus on eliminating destitution and improving the economic situations of the young and of people with disabilities is key to his appeal.

    He's seen as honest, authentic and trustworthy, and very unlike the stereotype of a politician. One item I've seen quite a few times relates to JC's having the lowest expenses of all MPs - though I think that actually relates to a specific month, it's been widely quoted because it fits the narrative.

    Aside from the Iraq War (I'm not aware of a JC supporter who doesn't think that was wrong), foreign policy only really comes into the debate when JC is being defended against some attack or other. Immigration hardly ever enters the discussion.

    .

    It's becoming increasingly clear that JC, and probably some of his fellow left-wingers that could comprise the shadow cabinet if he wins, are going to be portrayed as anti-British and that it won't be without some justification. I sympathise with JC's perspective to a large extent, but I'm finding myself having to reluctantly to concur with those who say that he is probably 'unelectable'.

    I don't think all the lessons of the 1980s are applicable to 2015. I don't think, for instance, that the kind of jingoism that was prevalent at the time of the Falklands War would be replicated today, in the "post-Iraq Britain". However, on the other hand, electing a PM who appears to disdain patriotism and to be unwilling to stand up for Britain's interests, is almost certainly too much for the left to ask of the British public.

    .

    So, as the article sets out, we need an up-and-coming candidate who can carry the anti-austerity torch while being a lot less damnable-by-association and having a generally more moderate foreign policy stance. Ideally, by mid-term JC will be popular within the party, with his economic and domestic policy ideas (rail renationalisation, abolishing tuition fees etc) generally accepted. He'll then resign, and recommend a successor.

    One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Disraeli said:
    How much of that is *because* it's the Eurozone and how much because Britain is a more service industry-based economy which is less under threat from China than those with a greater manufacturing base? Also, how do the figures look if based on GDP per capita given the sizable increase in the UK population over the last 10 years?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263


    Let's take another thorny issue that is rarely discussed on here: affordable housing for rural families in picturesque areas. From Derbyshire to Cornwall, the Lakes to the South Downs, people are buying up properties for use as second holiday homes, or for rental. This means that young people find it hard to find properties, leading to a drain of people away from the countryside. Worse, because holiday home are rarely occupied throughout the year, it leads to some villages becoming ghost towns in winter.
    So what to do?

    Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
    What about allowing the local authority to reverse the usual 10% council tax discount on second homes and impose a hefty surcharge? Then local authorities who had a problem could do so, and those that don't (and like having lots of visitors to holiday cottages - they do exist) could disdain the opportunity. Although on the face of it there's an evasion risk, it'd be hard to claim X was your only home if you only lived there for a few months each year.

    I'd heard that Conservative-run Norway, being more dirigiste even than me in my Corbynite moments, actually makes it illegal to own a second home in the country unless you live there for X days a year or it's actually not liveable in during the winter (e.g. no heating). (Not sure this is still true.)
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited August 2015
    SeanT said:

    Talking of vast swathes of abhorrent wilderness, e.g. the Labour party's electoral prospects under Jez Corbyn, have any pb-ers been to Greenland?

    I'm flying there next Monday for a few days. Fulfilling a lifetime ambition. I hear the locals allow gentleman visitors to share their Greenlandic wives, however as the wives are generally smeared with seal-fat, this is a dubious boon.

    All advice welcome.

    You have misheard - the locals allow visiting gentlemen to sleep with their fat seals. Indeed it is obligatory.
    Indeed 'obligatory' or 'obliging' comes from the ancient Greenlandic Norse root -- 'aeblundra', loosely meaning 'test the stupid stranger'.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517



    To stop it becoming (even more) of a dormitory for London, amongst other reasons. Although Cambridge is slightly odd as the university has its mucky mitts in the system.

    But in Cambridge's environs, there are several developments - most notably Northstowe (Oakington) where no progress has been made for years.

    Developers also demand more land, whilst having large land banks.

    So the reason we need the Green Belt in Cambridge is to stop people commuting into London who have been priced out of there because of the Green Belt around London.

    The government should sell land to self builders rather than developers like they do in Germany. Also land banking should be taxed.
    Only idiots would think that the problem of housing in London would be fixed by building more houses, on the green belt or otherwise. There is too much demand, and too many people willing to pay over the odds.

    Now if you could tackle buy-to-let you might get somewhere.

    The problem needs to be looked as a whole, and building willy nilly will do f'all good.

    Nick Palmer is absolutely right that the answer for London - and other big cities - is vertical housing, aka tower blocks. Unfortunately that is not the British model - we are wedded to the idea of a detached house, garage and garden. Even if the garden is postage stamp sized, the garage unusable because you cannot open the car doors once it is in, and the 'detached' is courtesy of two inches of path.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Charles said:

    I know it was mentioned yesterday, but I thought people might be interested in the email Matthew Elliot the new CEO of the No campaign sent me this evening:

    ...the Business for Britain Board and I have been following the progress of the renegotiation very closely...it has sadly become clear that serious change of the type described in the PM's Bloomberg Speech or our own 'Change, or go' report, is no longer on the table. We had hoped the renegotiation might take a different path but at the moment it is fair to say this is not the case....BfB Board has therefore decided that Business for Britain should affiliate to the new NO campaign....I am delighted to advise that I have been appointed as Chief Executive of the NO campaign...I want to reassure you that BfB continues as an independent entity...

    I usually point out here that "Business for Britain" recieves funding from the Telegraph and so is an uncomfortable example of a newspaper promulgating a political stance by a) paying an advocacy organisation to produce reports, then b) publicising those reports in the newspaper. (Is there a word for this? Astroturfing? I'm not up on my jargon)

    However, this was not the point you were making, so let's deal with that.

    I doubt I will convince you as to the virtue of a "Yes" vote but, be honest: are you genuinely surprised that BfB will advocate a "No"? It was obvious from the beginning that that would happen, just as it will be obvious that Daniel Hannan will advocate a "No" and Tony Blair will advocate a "Yes". There may be surprises to be had (Corbyn!) but this avocation by BfB ("We really tried, but what can you do, so we must advocate "No" sadly...") does ring rather false.

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656



    One man stands out for me. He's not mentioned in the article, but has been referred to in comments (I think danny565 was the first to do so). He's already attracted quite a lot of positive attention from JC supporters, and he has many of JC pluses without, as far as I can tell, any of his significant minuses. My recommendation: keep a very close eye on Clive Lewis, the MP for Norwich South.

    That's the second tip of the day on Clive Lewis. Is there a spinning operation going on?

    I note he also supports open doors immigration. That issue is going to destroy Labour.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517


    Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.

    A good question. Leaving aside NIMBYism, there are several aspects of varying validity and dubiousness depending on your viewpoint:

    *) Roads might not be able to cope with the extra traffic. As an aside, this is a long-standing favourite of planners who want to stop developments. In one case, they used this as an excuse to stop a family building a house on a lane two years after they granted planning for thirty or so luxury homes next door. Apparently traffic from that development was okay, but that from a single house was not ... Worse, the people in the new houses campaigned to stop the development next door, despite their houses only having been there for a couple of years. NIMBYism at its worst.

    *) Other facilities. But if they were distributed as you say, that might work (I believe it is an approach some councils are using rather than big-bang approach). But things like drainage do need to be factored in, and rarely are.

    *) How do you stop non-locals buying them and using them as holiday cottages to rent or summer homes, which does not help the problem at all? And how do you stop a local from buying them, and then selling out after a few years to non-locals? If either of these happen, then the problem gets worse.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903


    Let's take another thorny issue that is rarely discussed on here: affordable housing for rural families in picturesque areas. From Derbyshire to Cornwall, the Lakes to the South Downs, people are buying up properties for use as second holiday homes, or for rental. This means that young people find it hard to find properties, leading to a drain of people away from the countryside. Worse, because holiday home are rarely occupied throughout the year, it leads to some villages becoming ghost towns in winter.
    So what to do?

    Why not build 20 homes on average in each of the 1,500 villages and towns of Cornwall? 30,000 over 5 years would have minimal impact on the visual setting of them but would address demand. But remove the affordable housing requirement and let small local builders thrive.
    What about allowing the local authority to reverse the usual 10% council tax discount on second homes and impose a hefty surcharge? Then local authorities who had a problem could do so, and those that don't (and like having lots of visitors to holiday cottages - they do exist) could disdain the opportunity. Although on the face of it there's an evasion risk, it'd be hard to claim X was your only home if you only lived there for a few months each year.

    I'd heard that Conservative-run Norway, being more dirigiste even than me in my Corbynite moments, actually makes it illegal to own a second home in the country unless you live there for X days a year or it's actually not liveable in during the winter (e.g. no heating). (Not sure this is still true.)
    Plausible, but it also depends whats a 'home'. Its quite common to have hyttes and static caravans (with comprehensive insulated extensions) in all the scenic lakeside places which are used as holiday getaways. There is not much need for holiday cottages and similar 'homes' for getaways. I suspect the cottages are not there in the first place (or if they are they are half way up a vertical precipice). Norway is a vast country with a small population. The 'countryside' in Norway in winter is hardly enticing even with a wood burner stove, best left to reindeers.
Sign In or Register to comment.