politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the first Labour MP to resign the whip
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the first Labour MP to resign the whip
With the forthcoming House of Commons vote on Trident’s replacement, you can see that turning into an epic omnishambles for Labour and CND’s newest Vice-President, Jeremy Corbyn. Given John Woodcock’s past pronouncements on what he were to do were Labour not to back a replacement for Trident, you can understand why he is the favourite in this market.
Comments
-
First!0
-
Kate Hoey looks reasonable: Unlike the previous post. I fear that the first to jump will be an unexpected member: If so expect Dr Sven to sniff around the rotting carcass of Neue-Arbeiter looking for a pension boost...!0
-
Second!
I'm currently re-reading Lance Price's diaries of his time as a spin doctor at No. 10. I've just completed the bit where Shaun Woodward moves over to Labour.
The character of the individual MP seems to be massively important: Price indicates that Woodward thought he could have been Conservative leader and PM for the party, but that was not going to happen if Hague continued taking the party to the right. Add in his displeasure over Tory support for Clause 28 and Europe, and it seems he felt the Conservative party had left him, rather than vice versa.
So you're probably looking at someone ambitious who has not yet had a bite of a serious ministerial or shadow brief, and who will not get a chance under Corbyn's Labour. Someone who could have seen him- or herself as potential party leader under a Blairite party, but not under a Corbynite one. Someone who has very firm beliefs on issues where the Labour party is moving away from - e.g. Trident, the economy, general sanity.
It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
Edit: I was second when I started writing the post. Damn you Fluffy!
0 -
Usual arrangements for each way bets? What happens if it’s a dead heat?0
-
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
0 -
A silly market - the likelihood is that a group will go together.OldKingCole said:Usual arrangements for each way bets? What happens if it’s a dead heat?
0 -
I wonder if anyone will learn the lessons of James Purnell and David Miliband?Innocent_Abroad said:A silly market - the likelihood is that a group will go together.
"I am announcing my resignation, and my good friend has also said he will be resigning..."0 -
Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?tlg86 said:
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
I'm finding Price's book to be very interesting - I think I first read it shortly after release ten or do years ago. Time has cast a very different light on it.
For instance: "The problem is there is no evidence that Gordon is willing to find the money for health and education. I'm told by people who used to work for him that he's never been very interested in public services, believing them to be inefficient and a drain on resources." (p. 195)0 -
Unwise to resign the whip IMHO, much better to be in the tent causing trouble, you are powerless once you have made the "gesture". They just need to be as loyal to Corbyn as he was he was to every other Labour leader ...0
-
Good morning, everyone.
Surprised that the French got quite so thoroughly slaughtered.
But for one stupid decision by South Africa, the 10 points bet would still be on. Or, to rephrase, if I were better at betting, my bets would turn out better
Labour had a golden opportunity to kick Corbyn in the goolies and flunked it. A handful of abstentions. Ooh. Terrifying.
Mr. P, perhaps. But they didn't learn the lessons of trying to defenestrate Brown when they wanted to do it to Miliband.0 -
Gisela Stuart at 25-1 looks value in that field....0
-
I see the bishops want us to take more refugees. I do wonder if this is almost a class issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34564894
Last line: "One retired judge said the UK could cope with taking in 75,000 a year."
That retired judge won't be competing for a job with the migrants or pushed down the waiting list for a house. He or she won't be dealing with the social enclaves and integration issues that might arise.
There's also the humanitarian aspect. Money goes a hell of a lot further in aid camps than it does in the UK. We can, for the same money [and we're ahead of everyone in Europe and everyone in the world, except the US], help far more people in camps than we can by bringing them here.0 -
I see. Your idea of humanitarianism is minimising the cost to the UK taxpayer without actually starving any children. People like you make me feel ashamed to be English - until I recollect that I probably have the same effect on you.Morris_Dancer said:I see the bishops want us to take more refugees. I do wonder if this is almost a class issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34564894
.
There's also the humanitarian aspect. Money goes a hell of a lot further in aid camps than it does in the UK. We can, for the same money [and we're ahead of everyone in Europe and everyone in the world, except the US], help far more people in camps than we can by bringing them here.
0 -
Mr. Abroad, minimising the cost?
We're donating more money than any country in the world, excepting the US.
If we can save, for X amount of pounds, 100,000 children from starvation in camps, or 1,000 in the UK, what would you prefer to do?
Furthermore, the German approach of saying Everyone Come Here has not only increase the flow of migrants, only around 20% of them are actually Syrian.
Helping refugees and dissolving the concept of international borders aren't synonymous.
You don't make me feel ashamed to be English. We disagree. That happens in a free society.0 -
The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?JosiasJessop said:
Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?tlg86 said:
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
I'm finding Price's book to be very interesting - I think I first read it shortly after release ten or do years ago. Time has cast a very different light on it.
For instance: "The problem is there is no evidence that Gordon is willing to find the money for health and education. I'm told by people who used to work for him that he's never been very interested in public services, believing them to be inefficient and a drain on resources." (p. 195)0 -
How wealthy is our current Archbishop of Canterbury.. We don't need any lessons from him or any of the other bishops, I'll bet he is not living on Mothers Pride and cold porridge. Lets not forget they tried to influence people on how they voted in GE 2015.. They can mind their own damned business AFAIAC..Innocent_Abroad said:
I see. Your idea of humanitarianism is minimising the cost to the UK taxpayer without actually starving any children. People like you make me feel ashamed to be English - until I recollect that I probably have the same effect on you.Morris_Dancer said:I see the bishops want us to take more refugees. I do wonder if this is almost a class issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34564894
.
There's also the humanitarian aspect. Money goes a hell of a lot further in aid camps than it does in the UK. We can, for the same money [and we're ahead of everyone in Europe and everyone in the world, except the US], help far more people in camps than we can by bringing them here.0 -
Mr Dancer - the problem is that the millions in the refugee camps are invisible. Other than Cameron's visit a few weeks ago I've seen no coverage of the refugees who can't afford to up sticks and trek across Europe. Very much a case of out of sight out of mind.0
-
I'd imagine the gold in the Vatican would feed Africa for 100 years.SquareRoot said:
How wealth is our current Archbishop of Canterbury.. We don't need any lessons from him or any of the other bishops, I'll bet he is not living on Mothers Pride and cold porridge. Lets not forget they tried to influence people on how they voted in GE 2015.. They can mind their own damned business AFAIAC..Innocent_Abroad said:
I see. Your idea of humanitarianism is minimising the cost to the UK taxpayer without actually starving any children. People like you make me feel ashamed to be English - until I recollect that I probably have the same effect on you.Morris_Dancer said:I see the bishops want us to take more refugees. I do wonder if this is almost a class issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34564894
.
There's also the humanitarian aspect. Money goes a hell of a lot further in aid camps than it does in the UK. We can, for the same money [and we're ahead of everyone in Europe and everyone in the world, except the US], help far more people in camps than we can by bringing them here.
Ignore these so called do-gooders - it's all about them.0 -
I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
That was a direct quote from the book. Of course, Price was a spin doctor, who wrote at the start of the book that as a spin doctor he couldn't lie, and then mentions many times he does lie through the book!OldKingCole said:
The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?JosiasJessop said:
Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?tlg86 said:
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
I'm finding Price's book to be very interesting - I think I first read it shortly after release ten or do years ago. Time has cast a very different light on it.
For instance: "The problem is there is no evidence that Gordon is willing to find the money for health and education. I'm told by people who used to work for him that he's never been very interested in public services, believing them to be inefficient and a drain on resources." (p. 195)
As an example, another direct quote: "Not worth the hassle of telling the truth."0 -
Well, I suppose the issue is whether an unmerited privilege is or ought to be a source of shame. The Victorian imperialists understood perfectly well that being an island race came into that category: they lived with themselves by pretending that it was God's will. Perhaps you think our contemporary hierarchy should do the same?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abroad, minimising the cost?
We're donating more money than any country in the world, excepting the US.
If we can save, for X amount of pounds, 100,000 children from starvation in camps, or 1,000 in the UK, what would you prefer to do?
Furthermore, the German approach of saying Everyone Come Here has not only increase the flow of migrants, only around 20% of them are actually Syrian.
Helping refugees and dissolving the concept of international borders aren't synonymous.
You don't make me feel ashamed to be English. We disagree. That happens in a free society.
0 -
0
-
Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.0
-
Mr. Abroad, you think I/we should be ashamed of being born British?0
-
If you want to discourage others then some sort of internment camp in Greenland followed by forced repatriation or immigrated to a country looking for inhabitants - Ukraine perhaps.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
Oops - too many tweets http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tom-watson/11938306/Tom-Watson-attacks-child-abuse-victim-in-online-rant.html
The Telegraph understands that when McFadyen repeatedly complained to Mr Watson that politicians were taking control of the supposedly independent inquiry into institutionalised sex abuse, Mr Watson finally snapped and posted the Twitter message. Mr Watson then deleted it.
A source close to Mr McFadyen told The Telegraph: “He has nothing to do with survivors. This is all to do with Tom Watson and Tom Watson’s ego. Tom Watson has used this as a party political football.”0 -
MD I agree that the UK policy on migrants is the right one...for the UK....which is a welcome change0
-
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
Where are you repatriating them to?TGOHF said:
If you want to discourage others then some sort of internment camp in Greenland followed by forced repatriation or immigrated to a country looking for inhabitants - Ukraine perhaps.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, the Balkans are a source of economic migrants who, like many others, are seeking to take advantage of Merkel's lunacy.
As for the others, I have some sympathy, but they signed up the Schengen, we're providing more funds to camps than most of the EU combined and we're providing naval assistance in the Mediterranean.
The problem here is not the UK's response. It's the German response.0 -
Just catching up with the last thread and @glw mentioned the similarities with the satanic abuse nonsense from the 80s/90s. Funnily enough, I saw a prog about witch-hunting hysteria in Scotland/England yesterday and the same behaviour was on display.
The latest claims that it's now also connected to *recovered memories* just makes me wince. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1621055.ece0 -
Yes it is. Once people are resident in Germany, they can come to the UK. We have delegated to other countries the ability to set our immigration and naturalization policies.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
I see. So it's someone else's problem. And we wonder why Britain gets so little warmth from EU partners.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, the Balkans are a source of economic migrants who, like many others, are seeking to take advantage of Merkel's lunacy.
As for the others, I have some sympathy, but they signed up the Schengen, we're providing more funds to camps than most of the EU combined and we're providing naval assistance in the Mediterranean.
The problem here is not the UK's response. It's the German response.0 -
I'm not sure the bishops do sincerely believe what they say; or if they do, that they've thought very deeply about the issue aside from instinctive reaction.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
So what would I do?
Firstly, try to discourage others from risking their lives in the journey by improving conditions in the refugee camps. The more that come, the harder it is to help them, and those already in Europe.
Then be much more rigorous in sorting out genuine refugees from economic migrants. Give the former more help, and send the latter back to their countries of origin.
Like every other solution to this problem, this is easy to say, and much harder to do. Which is the exact problem we face: there is no good answer, and only a series of choices that are poor in either (or both) the short and log term.
Also: perhaps send the bishops out to live in the camps, where they can do some real good. 0 -
Miss Plato, watched a film at school, based on real events [which surprised me], of a whole family who 'confessed' to some sort of Satanic abuse. Which never happened. I think that was due to the recovered memory nonsense.
It's even worse than considering the polygraph a lie detector.
Mr. Lilburne, indeed. Although if we left the EU...
The unwelcome ceding of some sovereignty/self-control to Brussels/Germany is not a reason to enthusiastically throw away more, or do the bidding of Merkel. Her short-sighted and foolish approach has deepened the crisis substantially.0 -
If they are economic migrants then whence they came. But as an alternative we need a new Australia or USA - a country for these travelling pioneers to populate and colonise just like ambitious and persecuted people's did in the past. We've run out of undiscovered countries so we should recycle a brownfield site. Ukraine, Siberia - somewhere in Africa etc.antifrank said:
Where are you repatriating them to?TGOHF said:
If you want to discourage others then some sort of internment camp in Greenland followed by forced repatriation or immigrated to a country looking for inhabitants - Ukraine perhaps.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
0 -
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
Somewhat off-topic, but in the hope of lightening what seems a rather bad-tempered thread, I've just come across this list of suggested slogans for the 2016 candidates:
http://christthetao.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/timely-slogans-for-every-candidate.html
Well worth a read for a good laugh to start the day. Strictly non-partisan - it mocks all of them!0 -
I believe Madagascar has been proposed for unwelcome races. But forgive me if I file that idea under impracticable.TGOHF said:
If they are economic migrants then whence they came. But as an alternative we need a new Australia or USA - a country for these travelling pioneers to populate and colonise just like ambitious and persecuted people's did in the past. We've run out of undiscovered countries so we should recycle a brownfield site. Ukraine, Siberia - somewhere in Africa etc.antifrank said:
Where are you repatriating them to?TGOHF said:
If you want to discourage others then some sort of internment camp in Greenland followed by forced repatriation or immigrated to a country looking for inhabitants - Ukraine perhaps.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
Does have the downside of ensuring the near destruction of the indigenous peoples but it's happened before.antifrank said:
I believe Madagascar has been proposed for unwelcome races. But forgive me if I file that idea under impracticable.TGOHF said:
If they are economic migrants then whence they came. But as an alternative we need a new Australia or USA - a country for these travelling pioneers to populate and colonise just like ambitious and persecuted people's did in the past. We've run out of undiscovered countries so we should recycle a brownfield site. Ukraine, Siberia - somewhere in Africa etc.antifrank said:
Where are you repatriating them to?TGOHF said:
If you want to discourage others then some sort of internment camp in Greenland followed by forced repatriation or immigrated to a country looking for inhabitants - Ukraine perhaps.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
Is it just me, or is there a pattern of the people on here most in favour of letting in vast number of migrants are the same people who spend vast amounts of time in continental Europe, and even own properties there?
I.e. the relatively rich pro-Europeans. The people who are possibly least connected with the everyday man and woman on the UK streets?0 -
Dash of common sense here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11938476/150m-legal-bill-for-troops-just-doing-their-duty.html
Taxpayers are facing a bill of almost £150 million to defend British soldiers who are being sued by enemy fighters for breaching their “human rights”.
More than 2,000 separate compensation claims and judicial review cases have been prepared by lawyers in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Suspected Taliban bomb-makers and insurgents captured by British troops on the battlefield are among those who have begun legal action against the government...
Now ministers have ordered a fight-back to end the compensation claims that they say stop the Armed Forces doing their jobs.0 -
The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..0
-
If you experienced church regularly, you might begin to think that the Church of England ought to look after its "flock" at home a bit better than it does. There has been an alarming fall off in attendances....antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
When bishops interfere in political decisions , it always ends badly. As I said their letter at GE 2015 was AFAIWC all but telling people to vote Labour. What business was it of theirs to get involved in the first place. They should MTOB>0 -
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.JosiasJessop said:
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
Good morning all. There are 10 million displaced Iraqis and Syrians. There are another 30 million displaced people in Africa. There are likely to be even more once the stats for 2015 are assembled. 2016 doesn't bode well. Gestures (as advocated by the bishops) will not suffice.antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
Nearly everyone on here (including me) who pronounces on immigration is completely unaffected by the consequences of mass immigration. They are generally wealthy and/or retired and/or expatriates. If anything, they benefit. It makes me deeply uneasy.
Saying '50,000 is not massive"...that's (say) 12,000 homes. It's 55% of the population of my home county. It would require around 150 additional doctors. That's on top of the current net migration of 320k.0 -
They certainly won't end up in the bishop's back yard. The unpalatable truth is that about probably 70+ % of the migrants are economic and should be returned whence they came. Those who are genuine refugees - they should be housed in safe camps near their own countries where this is practicable. None should be allowed to jump they queue for settlement in any european country ahead of those in refugee camps. To do so is to legitimize the traffickers and potentially sentence some who make the unsafe crossings to death.antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.0 -
Margaret Thatcher was our last leader to get anything out of the EU. And she wasn't overly concerned about superficial popularity, but she was respected.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
He really didn't do himself any favours - stood outside rose covered abode, looking all smug and smooth - then wibbling when asked about how many refugees the CoE had taken in... err, umm well my grandparents took in Jews from Germany in WW2 for a bit.., err...richardDodd said:
The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..
-1 -
Mr. Antifrank, ha, whereas Blair's policy of playing nice got such great results?
We're doing more than our share helping police the Mediterranean, and funding the camps. Germany can't down a bottle of whisky then complain we should buy them aspirin.
As I said, I do sympathise with the other countries dragged into this, but that's largely because they opted into Schengen. We were right to avoid that particularly EU madness.0 -
I've turned the bishops off - I really don't care what they think.0
-
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
These numbers are all plucked out the sky. Why not 80,000? Or 160,000? It doesn't matter how many we take. There will be millions we are not taking and the issue will be unresolved, and such people will want us to take more. The reality is that we can help five people in the camps for the same amount of money as one person here. But then to do such an approach would be about maximising the welfare of the largest number of people rather than being able to morally show off how accepting we are.antifrank said:
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.JosiasJessop said:
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
0 -
If you regard matters like this that are affecting large swathes of the EU as not our problem, we cannot complain when other EU countries are disinclined to address points of pressing concern to us.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, ha, whereas Blair's policy of playing nice got such great results?
We're doing more than our share helping police the Mediterranean, and funding the camps. Germany can't down a bottle of whisky then complain we should buy them aspirin.
As I said, I do sympathise with the other countries dragged into this, but that's largely because they opted into Schengen. We were right to avoid that particularly EU madness.0 -
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Liam Byrne was to resign his whip ? Better if he joined the Tories.0
-
Gutted that no one has mentioned my Brian Blessed analogy.0
-
To caricature, neither Blair nor Brown thought much of public services' performance. The Blairite panacea was the private sector; Brownites preferred central control with strict targets.OldKingCole said:
The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?JosiasJessop said:
Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?tlg86 said:
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
I'm finding Price's book to be very interesting - I think I first read it shortly after release ten or do years ago. Time has cast a very different light on it.
For instance: "The problem is there is no evidence that Gordon is willing to find the money for health and education. I'm told by people who used to work for him that he's never been very interested in public services, believing them to be inefficient and a drain on resources." (p. 195)0 -
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
Its at times like this you need the former Bishop of Durham David Jenkins. (for comedy value)Plato_Says said:He really didn't do himself any favours - stood outside rose covered abode, looking all smug and smooth - then wibbling when asked about how many refugees the CoE had taken in... err, umm well my grandparents took in Jews from Germany in WW2 for a bit.., err...
richardDodd said:The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..
0 -
I didn't say that and you know I didn't.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abroad, you think I/we should be ashamed of being born British?
0 -
You appear to be suggesting that Britain barter refugees in return for favours from the EU. How inhuman!antifrank said:
If you regard matters like this that are affecting large swathes of the EU as not our problem, we cannot complain when other EU countries are disinclined to address points of pressing concern to us.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, ha, whereas Blair's policy of playing nice got such great results?
We're doing more than our share helping police the Mediterranean, and funding the camps. Germany can't down a bottle of whisky then complain we should buy them aspirin.
As I said, I do sympathise with the other countries dragged into this, but that's largely because they opted into Schengen. We were right to avoid that particularly EU madness.0 -
So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
If the EU takes the approach that parts of EU integration we have explicitly opted out of are actually our responsibility after all, and we should be blamed if we don't later opt in after all, then any new opt outs they give us are meaningless anyway.antifrank said:
If you regard matters like this that are affecting large swathes of the EU as not our problem, we cannot complain when other EU countries are disinclined to address points of pressing concern to us.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, ha, whereas Blair's policy of playing nice got such great results?
We're doing more than our share helping police the Mediterranean, and funding the camps. Germany can't down a bottle of whisky then complain we should buy them aspirin.
As I said, I do sympathise with the other countries dragged into this, but that's largely because they opted into Schengen. We were right to avoid that particularly EU madness.0 -
Don't put words into other peoples mouths.surbiton said:
So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
The Rugby yesterday: FRA vs NZ. 10 minutes into the second half I hid behind the settee. I have just come out. What was the score ?0
-
That's the whole point. There are far more of them than there are of us (it's Syria to-day, but it'll be several other places to-morrow).felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
You might as well say that education should be paid for by an extra tax on heterosexuals - the logic's the same
0 -
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?JEO said:
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
No - you are saying that - many of the migrants are not Muslims as it happens but I find it very funny that you should think it.surbiton said:
So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
Targets started with Blair.DecrepitJohnL said:
To caricature, neither Blair nor Brown thought much of public services' performance. The Blairite panacea was the private sector; Brownites preferred central control with strict targets.OldKingCole said:
The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?JosiasJessop said:
Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?tlg86 said:
I've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!JosiasJessop said:It's odd to think that Woodward's successor in his old Conservative seat, Witney, did become PM. If he hadn't resigned, would Cameron be PM now?
I'm finding Price's book to be very interesting - I think I first read it shortly after release ten or do years ago. Time has cast a very different light on it.
For instance: "The problem is there is no evidence that Gordon is willing to find the money for health and education. I'm told by people who used to work for him that he's never been very interested in public services, believing them to be inefficient and a drain on resources." (p. 195)0 -
On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
0 -
I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbyniteantifrank said:
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
0 -
Several people have answered that point although you choose to ignore it and then resort to abuse.antifrank said:
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?JEO said:
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
You highlight the problem excellently.antifrank said:
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.JosiasJessop said:
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
So go on: what would be your solution to the migration problem that faces the UK and wider EU? What would be your platform of policies to fix the issues?0 -
How about an explicit policy to take on no more than 1m immigrants every year ? I have compromised too. My position before was free movement of people anywhere.John_M said:
Good morning all. There are 10 million displaced Iraqis and Syrians. There are another 30 million displaced people in Africa. There are likely to be even more once the stats for 2015 are assembled. 2016 doesn't bode well. Gestures (as advocated by the bishops) will not suffice.antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
Nearly everyone on here (including me) who pronounces on immigration is completely unaffected by the consequences of mass immigration. They are generally wealthy and/or retired and/or expatriates. If anything, they benefit. It makes me deeply uneasy.
Saying '50,000 is not massive"...that's (say) 12,000 homes. It's 55% of the population of my home county. It would require around 150 additional doctors. That's on top of the current net migration of 320k.
Last week another of May's position was discarded. That was to do with Nurses from non EU countries who had already worked 5/6 years and their work permit had expired. After a hue and cry from the hospitals , the government abandoned its policy.
Do Foreign nurses get the same pay and conditions as British or EU nurses ?0 -
Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.DavidL said:On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
0 -
Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.0 -
How about a policy which refuses any migrants who've paid traffickers and arrived illegally?surbiton said:
How about an explicit policy to take on no more than 1m immigrants every year ? I have compromised too. My position before was free movement of people anywhere.John_M said:
Good morning all. There are 10 million displaced Iraqis and Syrians. There are another 30 million displaced people in Africa. There are likely to be even more once the stats for 2015 are assembled. 2016 doesn't bode well. Gestures (as advocated by the bishops) will not suffice.antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
Nearly everyone on here (including me) who pronounces on immigration is completely unaffected by the consequences of mass immigration. They are generally wealthy and/or retired and/or expatriates. If anything, they benefit. It makes me deeply uneasy.
Saying '50,000 is not massive"...that's (say) 12,000 homes. It's 55% of the population of my home county. It would require around 150 additional doctors. That's on top of the current net migration of 320k.0 -
Final election prediction project seats projector has the election neck-and-neck:
Conservative Party: 119
N.D.P. 86
Liberal Party: 120
Bloc Quebecois: 5
Green Party: 2
Too Close To Call: 6
Total: 338
http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php
Yet the Liberals are at 1.04-1.05 on Betfair and the Tories on 7.4-8.0 for most seats.
0 -
WEF is wrong with Rochdale PLP putting up with this bufoon.antifrank said:On topic, Simon Danczuk is doing his best to justify his short price:
http://dailym.ai/1GbPIFu0 -
Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act. Forget the rhetoric: the Conservatives have always made the pace on Europe.Luckyguy1983 said:
Margaret Thatcher was our last leader to get anything out of the EU. And she wasn't overly concerned about superficial popularity, but she was respected.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
If you believe the question has the remotest relevance to what we should do about the migrant crisis, I'm afraid you are an arsehole. The willingness or otherwise of those arguing we should take in more migrants to house the migrants personally cannot be relevant to what we actually should do.felix said:
I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbyniteantifrank said:
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, the EU has been seeking to damage the City for years, they've ignored our desire for CAP reform, they happily take our billions and then refuse to co-operate. Cameron got a promise on the EFSF[sp] fund not being used to help the Greeks, then it got used anyway.
Then Merkel goes mad and issues a lunatic siren call. Moments later she's demanding other countries take the migrants her stupidity attracted. That's nothing to do with us, thankfully.
Mr. Abroad, what was your ashamed reference about?
Mr. Surbiton, it was something of a bloodbath. 62-13 in the end.
Mr. JEO, precisely.0 -
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.antifrank said:
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?JEO said:
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
Why? - far better to return those who've arrived illegally and much fairer. It has worked for Australia. You're opting for more fudge and muddle which is how Europe has got itself here in the first place.DavidL said:Off topic I think that Antifrank has a point in that the current policy of only taking those in the refugee camps around Syria simply does not help with the hundreds of thousands already in the EU and that we have a duty to help not only those immigrants but the EU countries struggling to deal with them.
I take the point that making rose gardens for those already in Europe encourages more to come, people trafficking and death but it seems to me that it is every bit as legitimate to take appropriate cases from those in camps in Italy and Greece as those in Lebanon and Jordan. I think we need to do both.0 -
Mr. Royale, when's the election take place?0
-
I don't see immigration as a problem but as a symptom of a successful country. The economy is doing well currently, we have record employment and we have a dynamic society. We need to invest in infrastructure, but life in Britain is good.JosiasJessop said:
You highlight the problem excellently.antifrank said:
It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.JosiasJessop said:
It's well over a doubling of the proposed numbers, in a country that's already been put under pressure by unprecedented levels of immigration over the last decade (for the purposes of clarity, something I myself have benefited from).antifrank said:
In the context of the numbers of immigrants Britain already gets, the numbers talked about by the bishops (50,000 instead of 20,000) are not massive.JosiasJessop said:
What do you propose to do to the poor in this country who might well be adversely affected by massive levels of immigration from these countries?antifrank said:
So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
So go on: what would be your solution to the migration problem that faces the UK and wider EU? What would be your platform of policies to fix the issues?0 -
In fact, regarding CAP, it is Britain who is the stumbling block. Britain wants to retain the subsidies for large farmers.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, the EU has been seeking to damage the City for years, they've ignored our desire for CAP reform, they happily take our billions and then refuse to co-operate. Cameron got a promise on the EFSF[sp] fund not being used to help the Greeks, then it got used anyway.
Then Merkel goes mad and issues a lunatic siren call. Moments later she's demanding other countries take the migrants her stupidity attracted. That's nothing to do with us, thankfully.
Mr. Abroad, what was your ashamed reference about?
Mr. Surbiton, it was something of a bloodbath. 62-13 in the end.
Mr. JEO, precisely.
0 -
The Turks have no legal obligation to accept refugees from Syria. So that idea doesn't work.JEO said:
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.antifrank said:
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?JEO said:
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
But there is no leadership. The fact that the extremely arrogant and not over-intelligent Tristram Hunt, a man who to a far greater extent than Osborne owes his position to his family's wealth and connections, is put forward as their biggest hitter demonstrates with painful clarity that for all their ordinariness, Cooper and Kendall were the best the Labour right had to offer. Looking at that list, some of them are a good deal worse. Bradshaw might do better, but he's getting on a bit and seems to have lost interest in leading. Creagh is insane. Byrne is a lightweight. The others most people will never have heard of.DavidL said:On topic I genuinely hope there are no winners in this market. Labour needs its sane MPs to stay inside the Labour party and fight for its continued existence. To do that they need to organise and, frankly, stop being so pathetic. (In fairness this accusation is not really directed at most on this list but the nodding donkeys who followed McDonnell).
That means the Corbyn's whipping operation should be given as much attention as he gave anyone else's. It means getting organised. It means putting a different Labour position forward in the Commons, the media, in PLPs, everywhere it can be. Sane Labour lost an election battle to Corbyn with some very ordinary generals. They do not need to accept that they lost the entire war.
Sooner or later the chaos and disaster that the Corbyn/McDonnell leadership is raining down on the party will impinge on the membership and minds will start to change. This process can be accelerated if there is an alternative being espoused from within the party by serious people.
Surely the real problem for Labour is that viewed with a cold eye, Corbyn wasn't actually as far off the other three in terms of leadership potential as he should have been, and that those four were, with the demise of the Milibands, Balls and to a lesser extent Alexander, the best Labour had to offer. A lot of blame might be placed on Brown for his strangulation or expropriation of talented young politicians for his own ends - but surely no political party could become that devoid of talent just because of the actions of one emotionally stunted and over-ambitious egomaniac?
Labour appears to have become a movement hollowed from the inside out. Now we are seeing that the trunk is collapsing and the branches will drop off and destroy everything near them. What's left will be chopped up for firewood - or if we're lucky, furniture for a new social democratic movement.0 -
I don't disagree, but the fact remains, no-one wanted to give us the rebate, and she got it. I can't remember another major concession since.DecrepitJohnL said:
Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act. Forget the rhetoric: the Conservatives have always made the pace on Europe.Luckyguy1983 said:
Margaret Thatcher was our last leader to get anything out of the EU. And she wasn't overly concerned about superficial popularity, but she was respected.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
Shall we herd them into trains ? And post guards along the route to stop them jumping off the trains ? Better still to identify them, stitch something on to their clothing ? A crescent perhaps.JEO said:
They should be returned to the camps on the Syrian borders, where we process any asylum applications there. The camps should be funded properly and we should ask our EU neighbours to pay their share.antifrank said:
Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?JEO said:
Our approach to the crisis should be about reducing deaths and helping as many refugees as possibly, especially the most marginalised ones, not winning friends. Some people seem more concerned about looking moral than being moral.antifrank said:
Again, huge numbers of migrants are already in Europe. Many are not in Germany. Something needs to be done for them and the countries they are in. Telling every EU country, including many that are as unhappy about Germany's approach as you are, to sod off is not exactly either reasonable or calculated to win friends and influence people.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, if someone's house is on fire, helping to put it out is reasonable. If their house is on fire and they pour petrol on the flames, then ask for help, telling them to sod off is reasonable, especially when we've fitted our house with fire alarms and sprinklers and advised them to do the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite. The journeys are dangerous, and put people at risk of death, modern day slavery and enrich people traffickers. Encouraging more is encouraging more suffering.0 -
I note the repeated abuse from someone who should know better. Note also it is not returned.antifrank said:
If you believe the question has the remotest relevance to what we should do about the migrant crisis, I'm afraid you are an arsehole. The willingness or otherwise of those arguing we should take in more migrants to house the migrants personally cannot be relevant to what we actually should do.felix said:
I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbyniteantifrank said:
I pay my taxes. In case of national emergency, I would accept billeting. Since we are in nothing like a national emergency, it's a question asked by arseholes.felix said:
How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?antifrank said:
Personally? No.SquareRoot said:
THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?antifrank said:I know this is a revolutionary concept for some posters but perhaps they could consider whether the bishops sincerely believe what they say instead of launching into ad hominems?
And I have yet to hear any of the NIMBYs give a coherent explanation of what they think should be done with the migrants that are already in Europe that is actually practicable.
I seem to recall stuff about good Samaritans helping destitutes on the road. So I doubt the founder of Christianity would want us to walk on by on the other side of the road. It seems reasonable for the bishops to follow his principles.
I think your irritation suggests that your willingness to contribute to your favoured solution is really quite limited to paying your taxes.0
