'I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever. While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit. '
With UKIP's increased vote share in many Labour constituencies I would have thought that Paul Nuttall would be a better choice as leader and performs well on TV.
I agree. Given he's a Scouser and that the North now seems more important to UKIP than the non seasidey bits of the South, he would seem to have more targeted appeal than posh Nigel.
Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.
UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.
UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.
I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.
How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?
I would guess that UKIP are marking time but that is probably due to most people having switched off from politics rather than anything UKIP are doing or not doing.
That said, I detect a distinct lowering of enthusiasm amongst people that were until May quite fervent supporters. Again this may well be due to disinterest in politics generally but there is a feeling of we didn't break through so why bother. Such people are more likely to join the do not vote rather than vote for another party. However, if UKIP are sensible they would get out campaigning on local issues a much to keep their supporters motivated to do things as the need to keep the Party in the public's eye.
For example, supposing a person wearing UKIP badge takes the lead in getting the street lighting on an estate upgraded then come the council elections that person will have a pool of assured supporters and come the GE he/she is a community leader with, perhaps some influence.
Pavement politics is something that any party can do. What are the distinctive UKIP policies that could be implemented by councils?
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
I struggle to understand how people - who must have been knocking on real doors and actually SPEAKING to these real non-voters - can think they can turn these folks round with a strategy based on a quasi-Marxist offering.
These people are strongly committed to the Can't Be Arsed Party.... For the most part, they ain't for turning.
You've answered your own question. Corbynites are primarily £3 dreamers who have never fought an actual election. I genuinely think this may spell the end of the Labour Party. Shame on those long-term members who should know better who are voting for him.
Surely making non-voters a priority is in line with the current Labour mindset - we don't like the result of the general election, it's time to change the electorate.
Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.
UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.
UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.
I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.
Having said that Labour haven't elected Corbyn yet, so most normal people don't know anything about it, and the Tories are still enjoying a post-election honeymoon. I think it's entirely accurate that UKIP bungled the post-election period, and are still failing to get in the news, but it's still very early in the day. I suspect that increased migration and the asylum crisis will naturally cause support to drift to them without them doing anything at all.
I'd say that UKIP's poll rating is okay at the moment (9-15%) but the local by-elections have been very poor. Whether that's because no one's bothering to put in much of an effort right now, I don't know. I'd expect them to improve after Corbyn becomes Labour leader, and the government's honeymoon comes to an end.
Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.
UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.
UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all at the moment. They really, really ought to be making hay with the current migration crisis and Labour crisis and everything else but instead are becoming an irrelevant joke.
I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.
How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?
I would guess that UKIP are marking time but that is probably due to most people having switched off from politics rather than anything UKIP are doing or not doing.
That said, I detect a distinct lowering of enthusiasm amongst people that were until May quite fervent supporters. Again this may well be due to disinterest in politics generally but there is a feeling of we didn't break through so why bother. Such people are more likely to join the do not vote rather than vote for another party. However, if UKIP are sensible they would get out campaigning on local issues a much to keep their supporters motivated to do things as the need to keep the Party in the public's eye.
For example, supposing a person wearing UKIP badge takes the lead in getting the street lighting on an estate upgraded then come the council elections that person will have a pool of assured supporters and come the GE he/she is a community leader with, perhaps some influence.
Pavement politics is something that any party can do. What are the distinctive UKIP policies that could be implemented by councils?
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
You are correct , of course, Doc, any party can do pavement politics. Just in most areas the major parties don't bother. So I don't think that at pavement level UKIP do have a USP and policies at that level do not matter. What pavement politics can offer UKIP is the chance to implant the idea that "it is the party that speaks for people like me" with a lot of people who are ignored by the big parties (including the LIb Dems). Of course, in the process there would even be substantial benefits at local level for the people the big parties would prefer not to acknowledge even exist.
We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.
Bigger fools than all the fools (including yours truly) who predicted a hung Parliament which at one point was trading around 1.05 just before the general election?
A good reminder that it doesn't always work out as expected.
What's most surprising is that the odds haven't collapsed down to something 1.05 or 1.1, given that virtually everyone is behaving as though it's a done deal.
I think everyone on both sides of the wishful thinking fence has a mindset of "it couldn't really happen, could it?" It's okay to be bold when it's not your cash involved
I remain convinced it will still be Cooper after all the sound and fury. Maybe I need medical help?
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
Would this land value tax also apply to agricultural land? I only ask because I wonder what the plan would be to maintain the uplands in areas like the Lake District and Yorkshire moors once all the farmers have been driven out of business.
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Err. Its not a bank holiday in Scotland!
They truly are very different from the rest of us, all the stuff about cultural difference was not just talk after all!
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Err. Its not a bank holiday in Scotland!
They truly are very different from the rest of us, all the stuff about cultural difference was not just talk after all!
I think they have one earlier in the summer, seeing as winter has set in by end of August.
'I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever. While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit. '
With UKIP's increased vote share in many Labour constituencies I would have thought that Paul Nuttall would be a better choice as leader and performs well on TV.
I agree. Given he's a Scouser and that the North now seems more important to UKIP than the non seasidey bits of the South, he would seem to have more targeted appeal than posh Nigel.
I would be much more worried about a Nuttall or Evans led UKIP than a Farage led one.
It is also possible that for every voter Corbyn recruits to his cause, from the LDs, Greens, Nats, and non-voterate, three more will be scared by Corbyn's lunacy into switching to the Tories, to make sure Corbyn has no chance of seizing power.
If Jihadi Jez leads Labour into 2020, the Tories could score 45% of the votes.
Fear is certainly a big motivator for a big chunk of the electorate. However, I am not sure the Conservatives will scale the dizzy heights of 45% based on that alone. For a start they would need to hold onto all their 2015 voters and if Cameron plays false on the EU negotiations and/or immigration that just will not happen. Voters put off by Cameron's duplicity probably won't switch to Labour but they won't vote for the Conservatives either.
Perhaps 45% is optimistic. But certainly over 40% should be achievable for Tories, with the Jezbollah on the march.
Shall we make absurd predix which will almost certainly never come true?
If Corbyn the Commie leads Labour against, say, Osborne's Tories, I OFFICIALLY predict a GE outcome of:
Cons: 41 Lab: 26 LDs: 12 UKIP: 13 SNP: 5
Which, Baxtered, gives
Cons: 364 Lab: 195 LD: 8 UKIP: 1 SNP: 35
Not quite annihilation.
The doomsday result for Labour is Tories getting more than 45% as everyone is scared of Jezlamism.
Baxtered, that gives:
Cons: 429 Lab: 129
*dreams*
It's remarkable how low Labour could fall and yet the Tory majority would not be that large on a 15% gap. A nice comfort barrier to have, but could be complacent as a result.
Osborne vs Corbyn though - some people would really struggle with that choice.
Yes, Labour can fall to 25% and still look respectable in seat numbers - defeated but not destroyed. It's when they go below 25%, or Tories head to 45%, that suddenly it all collapses.
This "cliff edge" nature of FPTP in terms of votes gained vs seats won seems the unfairest aspect by far of FPTP but I cannot see any prospect of it changing. SNP benefited hugely from this "cliff edge" effect (both regionally and nationally) and it disadvantaged UKIP most. Understandably neither of the major parties is convinced that changing FPTP is in its long term interest. However Labour now has food for thought given its new position in Scotland, although it needs Scottish MPs to effect change which will then presumably prompt them to rethink whether changing FPTP suits it. The LibDems couldn't do it last time because Labour still had Scotland. I hope that makes sense.
Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.
UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.
UKIP have been dealt a number of Aces since the election but can't play their cards at all
I can't imagine a better scenario for UKIP than the one that exists at the moment but following Farage's unresignation farce they're not making any progress.
How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?
I would guess that UKIP are marking time but that is probably due to most people having switched off from politics rather than anything UKIP are doing or not doing.
That said, I detect a distinct lowering of enthusiasm amongst people that were until May quite fervent supporters.
For example, supposing a person wearing UKIP badge takes the lead in getting the street lighting on an estate upgraded then come the council elections that person will have a pool of assured supporters and come the GE he/she is a community leader with, perhaps some influence.
Pavement politics is something that any party can do. What are the distinctive UKIP policies that could be implemented by councils?
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
You are correct , of course, Doc, any party can do pavement politics. Just in most areas the major parties don't bother. So I don't think that at pavement level UKIP do have a USP and policies at that level do not matter. What pavement politics can offer UKIP is the chance to implant the idea that "it is the party that speaks for people like me" with a lot of people who are ignored by the big parties (including the LIb Dems). Of course, in the process there would even be substantial benefits at local level for the people the big parties would prefer not to acknowledge even exist.
Pavement politics has been a LD strength for years. Most LD MPs built a local base as councillors, and it is certainly where Tim Farron sees the LD fightback coming from. I cannot see Farage tackling it with the same enthusiasm. His is a more top down approach, grandstanding ineffectually at the European parliament.
The Kippers best chance is to attack Camerons Tories for being too timid over Europe and immigration. It is the thing that motivates their base.
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Err. Its not a bank holiday in Scotland!
They truly are very different from the rest of us, all the stuff about cultural difference was not just talk after all!
Miss Vance, the problem, from Labour's perspective, is that for every communist and socialist, there are many more normal people who don't want that sort of nonsense.
UKIP and the Lib Dems could have a purple patch if they play their cards right.
How would you measure whether UKIP are making hay or making no progress? 14% turnout Barnsley by elections?
I would guess that UKIP are marking time but that is probably due to most people having switched off from politics rather than anything UKIP are doing or not doing.
That said, I detect a distinct lowering of enthusiasm amongst people that were until May quite fervent supporters. Again this may well be due to disinterest in politics generally but there is a feeling of we didn't break through so why bother. Such people are more likely to join the do not vote rather than vote for another party. However, if UKIP are sensible they would get out campaigning on local issues a much to keep their supporters motivated to do things as the need to keep the Party in the public's eye.
For example, supposing a person wearing UKIP badge takes the lead in getting the street lighting on an estate upgraded then come the council elections that person will have a pool of assured supporters and come the GE he/she is a community leader with, perhaps some influence.
Pavement politics is something that any party can do. What are the distinctive UKIP policies that could be implemented by councils?
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
You are correct , of course, Doc, any party can do pavement politics. Just in most areas the major parties don't bother. So I don't think that at pavement level UKIP do have a USP and policies at that level do not matter. What pavement politics can offer UKIP is the chance to implant the idea that "it is the party that speaks for people like me" with a lot of people who are ignored by the big parties (including the LIb Dems). Of course, in the process there would even be substantial benefits at local level for the people the big parties would prefer not to acknowledge even exist.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
"We must make sure that this city remains affordable to all those who want to live here”
There's probably about 15 million people in Britain, and 750 million around the world, who would quite fancy living in London, especially the posh bits in the middle.
And he is going to make sure London is affordable for them all? Presumably by building huge dormitories under the royal parks, extending deep unto the earth's molten core, where people will sleep in special podules, like the human drones in the Matrix.
I'd like to live in a castle in Yorkshire with a butler called Carson and Phyllis Logan as housekeeper. Please.
I struggle to understand how people - who must have been knocking on real doors and actually SPEAKING to these real non-voters - can think they can turn these folks round with a strategy based on a quasi-Marxist offering.
These people are strongly committed to the Can't Be Arsed Party.... For the most part, they ain't for turning.
Is this linked in someone's mind to the "community organiser" thing that Lab is still pursuing?
'I have a sinking feeling that it will take a long time for UKIP to recover from May 7th, if ever. While a good and charismatic leader is a plus; a one man band isn't. Farage must build a good team around him and let them fly a bit. '
With UKIP's increased vote share in many Labour constituencies I would have thought that Paul Nuttall would be a better choice as leader and performs well on TV.
I agree. Given he's a Scouser and that the North now seems more important to UKIP than the non seasidey bits of the South, he would seem to have more targeted appeal than posh Nigel.
I would be much more worried about a Nuttall or Evans led UKIP than a Farage led one.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
The people that "import" migrants to do low paid work aren't the ones that "whinge", that's the key point
We need to go much much further. I tweeted earlier that what is required is European *colonies* in Africa and the mid East. Safe mini-countries run by Europeans, for the benefit of all, where Africans and Arabs can find shelter and prosperity without invading the EU.
I also tweeted that of course such a proposal would never be made seriously, more's the pity. But then someone said that these very ideas were being mooted:
I saw that tweet and make you right. Seems like a good idea... the people want somewhere to go, they don't feel the belong where they came from, the sensible thing is to find them somewhere to go
"We must make sure that this city remains affordable to all those who want to live here”
There's probably about 15 million people in Britain, and 750 million around the world, who would quite fancy living in London, especially the posh bits in the middle.
And he is going to make sure London is affordable for them all? Presumably by building huge dormitories under the royal parks, extending deep unto the earth's molten core, where people will sleep in special podules, like the human drones in the Matrix.
I'd like to live in a castle in Yorkshire with a butler called Carson and Phyllis Logan as housekeeper. Please.
I'd engage MalcolmG as a Houseboy. He's used to taking orders.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
Yeah quite a wide ranging rant, bet you feel better for it though. Yes you are right our society has developed this way, we do like our all night petrol/mini markets,cheap mini cabs at 2 am, Indian take aways etc, but are reluctant to accept more immigrants to do the work. Not sure of any solution though to balance both sides.
We're nearly all going to look prize fools if that 23%-probable scenario (as implied by the Betfair odds) of JC not becoming leader materalises. As will the entire gallery of Labour grandees, Polly Toynbee, Dan Hodges, and virtually all of the rest of the commentariat.
Bigger fools than all the fools (including yours truly) who predicted a hung Parliament which at one point was trading around 1.05 just before the general election?
A good reminder that it doesn't always work out as expected.
What's most surprising is that the odds haven't collapsed down to something 1.05 or 1.1, given that virtually everyone is behaving as though it's a done deal.
I think everyone on both sides of the wishful thinking fence has a mindset of "it couldn't really happen, could it?" It's okay to be bold when it's not your cash involved
I remain convinced it will still be Cooper after all the sound and fury. Maybe I need medical help?
I'm afraid that was my big play early on, but I've written it off now. Does that make my need greater then yours?
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
Wimps! I'm the most peaceful of neighbours: they want to have late night parties, cook smelly food, keep a rottweiler, all OK with me, go with the flow etc. However, if my neighbour arranged for a BNP councillor to visit me, I should become the most awkward neighbour that he could possibly imagine - Abba at maximum volume 17 hours a day would be the least of it.
Mr. Nabavi, do you not think the SNP tide will recede at least a little?
More likely to keep rising MD, they keep doing sensible things that are popular with the voters.
Can you have things that are noth sensible AND popular with the voters?
Tories do seem to manage some of that
Have you been at the "water of life"!
some people have to work for a living so other than a cup of tea NO
Its nearly ten past five on a Friday afternoon, of a bank holiday weekend at that, and you haven't had a single drinkie yet. What have you done with the real MalcolmG, a true Scotsman?
Err. Its not a bank holiday in Scotland!
They truly are very different from the rest of us, all the stuff about cultural difference was not just talk after all!
I think they have one earlier in the summer, seeing as winter has set in by end of August.
I don't think summer ever made an appearance this year.
Pavement politics has been a LD strength for years. Most LD MPs built a local base as councillors, and it is certainly where Tim Farron sees the LD fightback coming from. I cannot see Farage tackling it with the same enthusiasm. His is a more top down approach, grandstanding ineffectually at the European parliament.
The Kippers best chance is to attack Camerons Tories for being too timid over Europe and immigration. It is the thing that motivates their base.
Again I agree, at least with your first paragraph. However, just because the Lib Dems have done it before doesn't mean they have a copyright on the idea. UKIP could borrow the idea with pride and deploy it in the areas where the Lib Dems (and Conservatives and Labour) won't go. However, just to put my response into context, I was trying to answer a question from Mr. Sam, not articulating what I expect UKIP to actually do.
At the national level UKIP can attack Cameron over EU/immigration and, indeed , they are trying to do so. However, I don't think their message is getting though and so they are held as inactive/inward looking etc..
We need to go much much further. I tweeted earlier that what is required is European *colonies* in Africa and the mid East. Safe mini-countries run by Europeans, for the benefit of all, where Africans and Arabs can find shelter and prosperity without invading the EU.
"We must make sure that this city remains affordable to all those who want to live here”
There's probably about 15 million people in Britain, and 750 million around the world, who would quite fancy living in London, especially the posh bits in the middle.
And he is going to make sure London is affordable for them all? Presumably by building huge dormitories under the royal parks, extending deep unto the earth's molten core, where people will sleep in special podules, like the human drones in the Matrix.
JC doesn't have a monopoly on Labour easy promises
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
We also need mass immigration to support mass immigration(example - NHS) another out of touch do-gooder.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
Do you feel better for that rant, Mrs. B.? I hope so because a more hopelessly confused set of stereotypes would be hard to find and as a contribution to sensible debate it is worth as much as a post from the BNP.
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
This is, frankly, ridiculous. Plenty of societies in the world have far lower immigration than we do and still manage to have tables waited on in restaurants and parcels delivered.
As for Indian restaurants, I don't really see some consolidation in that sector as a problem. I have the option of seven different Indian restaurants near me - if that reduced to three, I hardly think British society will collapse at the seems.
Equally, there is some mild subsidy from foreign students, but not much. Our universities set their tuition rates on the global market, and can't afford to whack a big cross-subsidy on that or they would be priced out of things.
The map in my article actually shows it was Tower Hamlets that seems to have the most difference. I found it shocking that right next to the world's leading financial and business centre the majority of children needed free school meals. The difference from neighbouring boroughs was particularly stark. It really suggests there is some sort of cultural problem with the Bangladeshi community there.
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
Wimps! I'm the most peaceful of neighbours: they want to have late night parties, cook smelly food, keep a rottweiler, all OK with me, go with the flow etc. However, if my neighbour arranged for a BNP councillor to visit me, I should become the most awkward neighbour that he could possibly imagine - Abba at maximum volume 17 hours a day would be the least of it.
I think we can widen it to all non-Tory voters. If we can win over Nats, Greens, Kippers, LDs and non-voters, then it is possible to win without Con-Lab switchers.
Basically, we need everyone vaguely left of centre or NOTA to vote Labour.
I think that's the goal for Labour over the next few years under Corbyn, to batter the other opposition parties and make Labour seen as the sole alternative. The Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens are all struggling to be heard at the moment, so there's an opportunity there. Labour can also ape the SNP by stealing their platform.
A lot of Corbyn's big disadvantages like his previous rebellions, mad policies and PM suitability aren't really relevant in opposition.
Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.
Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)
No chance. The SNP are busy promising free money they don't actually have to raise.....Jerry, of Tom & Jerry, might actually have to try to explain where it comes from.....
More lies from you, can you show examples of where this free money has been promised other than in your fevered imagination.
You really don't pay attention, do you?
Alex Salmond said on Wednesday that Scottish households could expect an “independence bonus” of £2,000 by 2030 if they voted Yes in the referendum in September.
I think we can widen it to all non-Tory voters. If we can win over Nats, Greens, Kippers, LDs and non-voters, then it is possible to win without Con-Lab switchers.
Basically, we need everyone vaguely left of centre or NOTA to vote Labour.
One can only hope you're jesting. Otherwise you need serious help.
To be fair, I think @SandyRentool is highlighting the scale of the problem: he's saying it's mathematically possible but very difficult if not impossible
The map in my article actually shows it was Tower Hamlets that seems to have the most difference. I found it shocking that right next to the world's leading financial and business centre the majority of children needed free school meals. The difference from neighbouring boroughs was particularly stark. It really suggests there is some sort of cultural problem with the Bangladeshi community there.
Tower Hamlets is the perfect example of mass immigration resulting in a fractured community, segregation and ghettoization
One half has ISIS flags flying, street names in Bengali and poverty, the other has almost no BAME and ridiculous wealth
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
One reason is that when rich people move into an area, it gives people that don't like the change the chance to sell up at a nice profit and leave.. when immigrants move an area (immigrants usually moving into poorer areas as you said earlier) the people living there don't have that option
There is also more chance of people that already live in an area preferring the change that gentrification (nicer shops, less crime) brings over the that of mass immigration (competition for jobs, lower wages)
Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.
Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)
Not a chance Labour takes anything in Scotland past Edi South if they head back to 25%. And even that could look vulnerable.
The Scots have their left wing party, and whilst alot of new SNP voters may well give a sympathetic ear to Jezza they will vote SNP in the booth !
Corbyn's highest ratings outside of London are in Scotland and C4 news interviewed some young SNP voters who said they would switch to a Corbyn led Labour Party
Yvette seemed to be the top choice (well, least-worst choice) of that group.
Interesting how yet again the "electable" candidate Kendall gets blown a big raspberry by the actual swing voters which she's supposed to be such a hit with:
“None of it came from the heart”
“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”
“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”
“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
One reason is that when rich people move into an area, it gives people that don't like the change the chance to sell up at a nice profit and leave.. when immigrants move an area (immigrants usually moving into poorer areas as you said earlier) the people living there don't have that option
There is also more chance of people that already live in an area preferring the change that gentrification (nicer shops, less crime) brings over the that of mass immigration (competition for jobs, lower wages)
It's still people who have grown up in an area being displaced by incomers - and they are not choosing to go, they are going because they can no longer afford to stay. Those being forced out have to go somewhere - which is presumably why free school meal rates seem to be going up in parts of outer London now. That, of course, has an affect on those places too.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
It shows that free school meal rates are going up in parts of outer London as they are falling in inner London, and as rents and other living costs in inner London are rising. If it is bad for neighbourhoods to change because of immigration, then it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.
Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)
The map in my article actually shows it was Tower Hamlets that seems to have the most difference. I found it shocking that right next to the world's leading financial and business centre the majority of children needed free school meals. The difference from neighbouring boroughs was particularly stark. It really suggests there is some sort of cultural problem with the Bangladeshi community there.
If you read the judgment in the recent Lutfur Rahman case, you will see that there are people living there for decades who speak no or little English. Effectively you have a mini-Bangladesh in London. You should not be surprised to find that such an area will have many of the problems that the original country has. That is why (a) we should not have immigration from such countries; and (b) it should not be possible for people to live in England as if they were still living in their home country i.e. all the societal pressures should be on the immigrants to become British in a meaningful way, which means more than simply having a British passport, starting with learning the language.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
The people that "import" migrants to do low paid work aren't the ones that "whinge", that's the key point
No but even people who oppose migration are quite happy to enjoy (but turn a blind eye) to the advantages of said low paid work. A quite significant proportion of takeaways outside of the large brands (eg not Domino's/Pizza Hut but independents) employ less than legal workers. People are happy to enjoy a cheap pizza or kebab being delivered to them by a cash in hand worker if it means paying less.
The only way most of those non-voters would vote would be if voting was compulsory, and even then it would be doubtful. The number you could enthuse with a big idea is minimal.
RANT COMING
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
The people that "import" migrants to do low paid work aren't the ones that "whinge", that's the key point
No but even people who oppose migration are quite happy to enjoy (but turn a blind eye) to the advantages of said low paid work. A quite significant proportion of takeaways outside of the large brands (eg not Domino's/Pizza Hut but independents) employ less than legal workers. People are happy to enjoy a cheap pizza or kebab being delivered to them by a cash in hand worker if it means paying less.
True, people whose wages are depressed and job security threatened by mass immigration of cheap labour do tend to have to look after the pennies
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
It shows that free school meal rates are going up in parts of outer London as they are falling in inner London, and as rents and other living costs in inner London are rising. If it is bad for neighbourhoods to change because of immigration, then it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
Why is any of this a problem? Neighbourhoods change: people become richer and move or their circumstances change and they move. Gentrification is usually seen as good because rubbishy areas start looking nicer but it is true that this can have downsides e.g. you can get 4000 different types of coffee but can't buy some nails or useful stuff. Similarly, with immigration. The issue with the latter is that people already here feel that the numbers of immigrants let into the country are either too large and/or have come here without our consent. I think people forget that is the latter point which often irks people: that no-one asked people here whether this is what they wanted. It's the dishonesty which often vitiates a policy which people might otherwise support.
Rebekah Brooks is to make a stunning return to News Corp as chief executive of its UK division, a year after being cleared of all charges related to the phone-hacking scandal, according to people familiar with the matter.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
"Rebekah Brooks is to make a stunning return to News Corp as chief executive of its UK division, a year after being cleared of all charges related to the phone-hacking scandal, according to people familiar with the matter."
That should make David Cameron very happy. At last 'the incestuous collection of louche, affluent, power-hungry and amoral Londoners' known as the Chipping Norton Set can reassemble without a stain on their characters.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Are you sure? So Ed reduced the affordable housing stock when he converted it?
I'm sure the Daily Mail would have dug that out.....
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
My memory didn't entirely fail me:
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Are you sure? So Ed reduced the affordable housing stock when he converted it?
I'm sure the Daily Mail would have dug that out.....
The person before him did, I believe. But the basement was one flat and the rest was another. It was a fairly common arrangement back in the day.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
My memory didn't entirely fail me:
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
Yvette seemed to be the top choice (well, least-worst choice) of that group.
Interesting how yet again the "electable" candidate Kendall gets blown a big raspberry by the actual swing voters which she's supposed to be such a hit with:
“None of it came from the heart”
“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”
“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”
“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”
I think the problem with Kendall is very simple - she doesn't look "senior" enough.
10 or 20 people walk into a room and start talking - whoever is the boss needs to look like a boss and sound like a boss and "feel" like a boss.
Kendall just hasn't got these qualities. People can't imagine her as a PM.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
My memory didn't entirely fail me:
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
Yes - that's the article which points to the previous owner of Ed's house - left to the National Trust (as a single property) after she died in a botched op on the NHS and sold by them to Ed (or Justine, to be precise)....
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
My memory didn't entirely fail me:
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
Yes - that's the article which points to the previous owner of Ed's house - left to the National Trust (as a single property) after she died in a botched op on the NHS and sold by them to Ed (or Justine, to be precise)....
The house in which she took in lodgers. Anyway, it's no big deal. Houses were built in the nineteenth century, in the twentieth century they were turned into flats, they are now turning back into houses again. It's an inner London story.
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
That's his own spin being put on statistics. It's not clear at all that the falling number of children on school meals is due to emigration rather than improving wealth of the city during the economic recovery.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
it is surely just as bad for them to change because of gentrification. In both cases, the original inhabitants are being pushed out.
You mean like Dartmouth Park? ;-)
It sure has changed. Ed's place used to be flats - hence his two kitchens.
Want it owned by a refugee from Nazi Germany who died in a botched NHS op?
My memory didn't entirely fail me:
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
Yes - that's the article which points to the previous owner of Ed's house - left to the National Trust (as a single property) after she died in a botched op on the NHS and sold by them to Ed (or Justine, to be precise)....
Anyway, it's no big deal.
Its touching how you spun to the defence of the future Shadow Climate Change Minister with a (rather dodgy) story about how he had two kitchens.....
About the only sensible thing Corbyn has said. The SNP is not winning because it is an anti-austerity, left-wing party; it is winning because it is a Saltire waving nationalist one.
University of Tennessee tells staff and students to stop using 'he' and 'she' - and switch to 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead
Gay rights official at Knoxville campus wrote new language instructions Tells students and staff to use unusual, gender-neutral pronouns like 'xe' Donna Braquet said that the new regime would make campus 'inclusive' University clarified that guidelines are not compulsory after critics called them 'absurd'
About the only sensible thing Corbyn has said. The SNP is not winning because it is an anti-austerity, left-wing party; it is winning because it is a Saltire waving nationalist one.
But also rather revealing that Corby seems to think there are a wrong sort of voter.......I doubt that was a delusion Blair laboured under......
@Carlotta - "Its touching how you spun to the defence of the future Shadow Climate Change Minister with a (rather dodgy) story about how he had two kitchens....."
How was I defending him? I merely stated that he had two kitchens because there were two kitchens in his house when he moved in and that this was a pretty common thing as most of the ones in Dartmouth Park had been divided up into flats at one time or another. It was ridiculous he sought to pretend he had nothing but a small kitchen, when it was obvious he had a big one down in the basement - just like everyone else does round there.
Why you think I'd make it up is beyond me. But if you do, so be it. As I say, it's no big deal.
About the only sensible thing Corbyn has said. The SNP is not winning because it is an anti-austerity, left-wing party; it is winning because it is a Saltire waving nationalist one.
But also rather revealing that Corby seems to think there are a wrong sort of voter.......I doubt that was a delusion Blair laboured under......
Corbyn will win a lot of sympathy in certain parts of Scotland, but very few votes.
University of Tennessee tells staff and students to stop using 'he' and 'she' - and switch to 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead
Gay rights official at Knoxville campus wrote new language instructions Tells students and staff to use unusual, gender-neutral pronouns like 'xe' Donna Braquet said that the new regime would make campus 'inclusive' University clarified that guidelines are not compulsory after critics called them 'absurd'
University of Tennessee tells staff and students to stop using 'he' and 'she' - and switch to 'xe', 'zir' and 'xyr' instead
Gay rights official at Knoxville campus wrote new language instructions Tells students and staff to use unusual, gender-neutral pronouns like 'xe' Donna Braquet said that the new regime would make campus 'inclusive' University clarified that guidelines are not compulsory after critics called them 'absurd'
Yvette seemed to be the top choice (well, least-worst choice) of that group.
Interesting how yet again the "electable" candidate Kendall gets blown a big raspberry by the actual swing voters which she's supposed to be such a hit with:
“None of it came from the heart”
“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”
“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”
“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”
I think the problem with Kendall is very simple - she doesn't look "senior" enough.
10 or 20 people walk into a room and start talking - whoever is the boss needs to look like a boss and sound like a boss and "feel" like a boss.
Kendall just hasn't got these qualities. People can't imagine her as a PM.
There was a wonderful put down - forget where - that said the problem with all 4 candidates is that if they approached you in a shop you'd look for a badge saying "deputy manager".
Not enough SNP seats there, surely? I'd expect 20 more SNP and therefore 20 fewer Labour on those vote shares.
Hmm. Surely Jez the Red would pick up some Central Belt socialist seats from the Nats? But yeah it's likely the calculus is overstating Labour's results a tad (see my prior post)
Not a chance Labour takes anything in Scotland past Edi South if they head back to 25%. And even that could look vulnerable.
The Scots have their left wing party, and whilst alot of new SNP voters may well give a sympathetic ear to Jezza they will vote SNP in the booth !
Corbyn's highest ratings outside of London are in Scotland and C4 news interviewed some young SNP voters who said they would switch to a Corbyn led Labour Party
Wherever they're from, the "something for nothing" crowd will follow JC until it dawns on them that "nothings for nothing".
Except that is not what he is saying, is it? He is saying that families are being forced out of their neighbourhoods as a result of rents and other living costs becoming too expensive for them to afford.
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
One reason is that when rich people move into an area, it gives people that don't like the change the chance to sell up at a nice profit and leave.. when immigrants move an area (immigrants usually moving into poorer areas as you said earlier) the people living there don't have that option
There is also more chance of people that already live in an area preferring the change that gentrification (nicer shops, less crime) brings over the that of mass immigration (competition for jobs, lower wages)
It's still people who have grown up in an area being displaced by incomers - and they are not choosing to go, they are going because they can no longer afford to stay. Those being forced out have to go somewhere - which is presumably why free school meal rates seem to be going up in parts of outer London now. That, of course, has an affect on those places too.
I believe that whilst the inner boroughs pick up the housing tab, that's all. Schools, GPs, hospitals, local services are all paid for by the outer borough. Inner boroughs have to find some cash, outer boroughs have to find cash and get all the social knock ons.
Comments
Not equating the two but in Coalville the BNP gained a Leics council seat some years ago by being tough on troublesome neighbours. After their councillor called on the neighbours apparently they would quieten down a lot!
I genuinely think this may spell the end of the Labour Party.
Shame on those long-term members who should know better who are voting for him.
Surely making non-voters a priority is in line with the current Labour mindset - we don't like the result of the general election, it's time to change the electorate.
The story about the buried Nazi train in Poland is becoming increasingly intriguing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34090165
I would like to point out I have no association with this YPP, although they have some good ideas.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/28/vast-social-cleansing-pushes-tens-of-thousands-of-families-out-of-london
The Kippers best chance is to attack Camerons Tories for being too timid over Europe and immigration. It is the thing that motivates their base.
And I don't think the RSA one is a candidate.
I think.
Confuse the hell out of all the lefty cyclists.
RANT COMING
As for immigration, the NHS, the building trade, agriculture and domiciliary care would grind to a halt without it. No-one's offices would get cleaned, no late night garages would stay open, and there would be an acute shortage of bartenders and waitresses, and Indian restaurants everywhere would close (that one is already starting to happen due to not being able to get British-born chefs prepared to do the work and restrictions on visas for people from the Indian sub-continent). No-one would ever get a parcel delivered. University funding would plummet to the point of unsustainability without foreign students.
In other words, we have constructed a society in which we import people to do low paid work with poor working conditions which we think we are entitled not to have to do, and then we whinge about the fact that those people need somewhere to live/send their children to school/walk about the streets looking different/dare to speak their own language or want some familiar reference points from home around them.
And Ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of Brits live in Spain, Cyprus, France etc etc etc insisting on eating English (not British) food, speaking English, watching English TV, sending their children to "international" (English-speaking) schools and complaining when their winter fuel allowance is under threat.
I'm not advocating a complete open door system. I am saying that older people who feel uncomfortable because things are changing around them more rapidly than they can cope with need to be helped to adjust to the reality that foreign people are still people. And something needs to be done to make sure that those areas where there is pressure on services get money to relieve some of that pressure in a timely way.
It would also help if politicians would set a lead occasionally by talking about immigration as if it involved real human beings who are mainly coming to work and for the good of the country, and not some vampiric subspecies coming to leech on us.
RANT OVER
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/richer-boroughs-use-east-london-to-dump-homeless-families-a2923121.html
Not sure of any solution though to balance both sides.
At the national level UKIP can attack Cameron over EU/immigration and, indeed , they are trying to do so. However, I don't think their message is getting though and so they are held as inactive/inward looking etc..
As for Indian restaurants, I don't really see some consolidation in that sector as a problem. I have the option of seven different Indian restaurants near me - if that reduced to three, I hardly think British society will collapse at the seems.
Equally, there is some mild subsidy from foreign students, but not much. Our universities set their tuition rates on the global market, and can't afford to whack a big cross-subsidy on that or they would be priced out of things.
And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:
“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/08/what-do-labours-lost-voters-make-labour-leadership-candidates
I think that's the goal for Labour over the next few years under Corbyn, to batter the other opposition parties and make Labour seen as the sole alternative. The Lib Dems, UKIP and Greens are all struggling to be heard at the moment, so there's an opportunity there. Labour can also ape the SNP by stealing their platform.
A lot of Corbyn's big disadvantages like his previous rebellions, mad policies and PM suitability aren't really relevant in opposition.
Alex Salmond said on Wednesday that Scottish households could expect an “independence bonus” of £2,000 by 2030 if they voted Yes in the referendum in September.
http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/05/28/the-nonsense-of-the-independence-bonus/
One half has ISIS flags flying, street names in Bengali and poverty, the other has almost no BAME and ridiculous wealth
When it is immigrants that change a neighbourhood this is deplored. When it is the rich, it does not seem to be a problem. I am not sure why that should be so.
Also, "above the income level to get free school meals" and "rich" are very different standards. These numbers don't show London has more rich people. It shows London has less poverty. That is a good thing for the city. Poor immigrants coming here and creating more poverty in London is a bad thing for the city.
There is also more chance of people that already live in an area preferring the change that gentrification (nicer shops, less crime) brings over the that of mass immigration (competition for jobs, lower wages)
Interesting how yet again the "electable" candidate Kendall gets blown a big raspberry by the actual swing voters which she's supposed to be such a hit with:
http://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart2.jpg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9fe5216-4d9d-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3k8IQK2ag
How are The Mirror trials going?
What 'inflation' have they adjusted for? And whose?
RPI? GDP deflator? Wages?
"Rebekah Brooks is to make a stunning return to News Corp as chief executive of its UK division, a year after being cleared of all charges related to the phone-hacking scandal, according to people familiar with the matter."
That should make David Cameron very happy. At last 'the incestuous collection of louche, affluent, power-hungry and amoral Londoners' known as the Chipping Norton Set can reassemble without a stain on their characters.
Bravo!
(PS Anyone heard of Curt Engelhorn?)
I'm sure the Daily Mail would have dug that out.....
Mrs Iliff, who was 76, died after an operation at University College Hospital went wrong.
http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/081408/news081408_11.html
Where did SO get the idea that it had been flats before?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/26/my-house-in-the-middle-of-ed-milibands-street
10 or 20 people walk into a room and start talking - whoever is the boss needs to look like a boss and sound like a boss and "feel" like a boss.
Kendall just hasn't got these qualities. People can't imagine her as a PM.
Fixed it for Jerry (of Tom & Jerry)
How was I defending him? I merely stated that he had two kitchens because there were two kitchens in his house when he moved in and that this was a pretty common thing as most of the ones in Dartmouth Park had been divided up into flats at one time or another. It was ridiculous he sought to pretend he had nothing but a small kitchen, when it was obvious he had a big one down in the basement - just like everyone else does round there.
Why you think I'd make it up is beyond me. But if you do, so be it. As I say, it's no big deal.
Left to the National Trust by an elderly lady who died in a botched NHS op.....
One of life's little ironies......
The policy is here:
http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/
They say you can choose.
When referring to me I insist that everyone use the personal pronoun:
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
That is all
The policy is here:
http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/
They say you can choose.
When referring to me I insist that everyone use the personal pronoun:
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
That is all
I choose "Your Excellency"
10 or 20 people walk into a room and start talking - whoever is the boss needs to look like a boss and sound like a boss and "feel" like a boss.
Kendall just hasn't got these qualities. People can't imagine her as a PM.
There was a wonderful put down - forget where - that said the problem with all 4 candidates is that if they approached you in a shop you'd look for a badge saying "deputy manager".
Not "manager". *Deputy* manager. Of a *shop*
Not PM material