Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the first Labour MP to resign the whip

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 743
    First!
  • 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...!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    edited October 2015
    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! ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    Usual arrangements for each way bets? What happens if it’s a dead heat?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
  • Usual arrangements for each way bets? What happens if it’s a dead heat?

    A silly market - the likelihood is that a group will go together.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517

    A silly market - the likelihood is that a group will go together.

    I wonder if anyone will learn the lessons of James Purnell and David Miliband?

    "I am announcing my resignation, and my good friend has also said he will be resigning..."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    tlg86 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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
    Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?

    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)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    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 ...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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 :p

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Gisela Stuart at 25-1 looks value in that field....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • 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.

    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_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267

    tlg86 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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
    Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?

    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)
    The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    edited October 2015

    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.

    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.

    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..
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    edited October 2015
    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815

    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.

    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.

    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..
    I'd imagine the gold in the Vatican would feed Africa for 100 years.

    Ignore these so called do-gooders - it's all about them.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    tlg86 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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
    Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?

    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)
    The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?
    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!

    As an example, another direct quote: "Not worth the hassle of telling the truth."
  • 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.

    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?

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    On topic, Simon Danczuk is doing his best to justify his short price:

    http://dailym.ai/1GbPIFu
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Abroad, you think I/we should be ashamed of being born British?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    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.

    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.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    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.”
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    MD I agree that the UK policy on migrants is the right one...for the UK....which is a welcome change
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    TGOHF said:

    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.

    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.
    Where are you repatriating them to?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    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.ece
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 2,662

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    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.

    I see. So it's someone else's problem. And we wonder why Britain gets so little warmth from EU partners.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    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'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.

    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. ;)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.

    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.
    Where are you repatriating them to?
    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    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!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    TGOHF said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.

    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.
    Where are you repatriating them to?
    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.
    I believe Madagascar has been proposed for unwelcome races. But forgive me if I file that idea under impracticable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    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.

    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.
    Where are you repatriating them to?
    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.
    I believe Madagascar has been proposed for unwelcome races. But forgive me if I file that idea under impracticable.
    Does have the downside of ensuring the near destruction of the indigenous peoples but it's happened before.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    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?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    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.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    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....

    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>
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    edited October 2015

    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.

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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).
    It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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.

    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    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.

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    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...

    The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've turned the bishops off - I really don't care what they think.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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).
    It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    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.

    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Wouldn't it be wonderful if Liam Byrne was to resign his whip ? Better if he joined the Tories.
  • Gutted that no one has mentioned my Brian Blessed analogy.
  • tlg86 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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
    Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?

    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)
    The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?
    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.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    edited October 2015

    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...

    The most vacuous Bishop in Christendom has just been on Sky TV...where do these nutters come from.. sheesh..

    Its at times like this you need the former Bishop of Durham David Jenkins. (for comedy value)
  • Mr. Abroad, you think I/we should be ashamed of being born British?

    I didn't say that and you know I didn't.

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    edited October 2015
    antifrank 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.

    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.
    You appear to be suggesting that Britain barter refugees in return for favours from the EU. How inhuman!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    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.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited October 2015
    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    surbiton said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.
    Don't put words into other peoples mouths.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    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 ?
  • felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    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).

    You might as well say that education should be paid for by an extra tax on heterosexuals - the logic's the same :(

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    JEO said:

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    surbiton said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    So, you are saying as a Christian country we should not take in Muslims.
    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    tlg86 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've wondered about that - delicious irony that would not have been lost on Woodward!
    Yep. I wonder if they know, and like, each other?

    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)
    The “son of the manse” believed public sertvices are inefficient and a drain on resources? Really?
    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.
    Targets started with Blair.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    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.

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    antifrank said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    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.
    I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbynite :)
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    antifrank said:

    JEO said:

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
    Several people have answered that point although you choose to ignore it and then resort to abuse.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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).
    It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
    You highlight the problem excellently.

    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?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited October 2015
    John_M said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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 ?
  • 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.

    Please explain why you think that Labour voted for Corbyn. If you have a clue.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    surbiton said:

    John_M said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    How about a policy which refuses any migrants who've paid traffickers and arrived illegally?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    edited October 2015
    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857
    antifrank said:

    On topic, Simon Danczuk is doing his best to justify his short price:

    http://dailym.ai/1GbPIFu

    WEF is wrong with Rochdale PLP putting up with this bufoon.
  • antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act. Forget the rhetoric: the Conservatives have always made the pace on Europe.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    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.
    I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbynite :)
    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    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.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    JEO said:

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    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.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Royale, when's the election take place?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    Mr. Antifrank, Germany isn't our back yard.

    So we don't help Greece, Italy, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria or the Balkan countries either?
    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?
    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.
    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).
    It's an extra 6,000 a year in a country that got 600,000 immigrants last year.
    You highlight the problem excellently.

    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?
    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    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.

    In fact, regarding CAP, it is Britain who is the stumbling block. Britain wants to retain the subsidies for large farmers.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    JEO said:

    antifrank said:

    JEO said:

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
    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.
    The Turks have no legal obligation to accept refugees from Syria. So that idea doesn't work.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act. Forget the rhetoric: the Conservatives have always made the pace on Europe.
    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.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited October 2015
    JEO said:

    antifrank said:

    JEO said:

    antifrank 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.

    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.
    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.
    Again, there are huge numbers of migrants already in Europe. What do you think should be done about them?
    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.
    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.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    antifrank said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    felix said:

    antifrank said:

    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.

    THanks Antifrank. Do you go to church?
    Personally? No.

    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.
    How many will you personally house, employ and otherwise support to ensure they are a minimal burden on the rest of society?
    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.
    I see when you lose the argument you resort to personal abuse - how very corbynite :)
    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.
    I note the repeated abuse from someone who should know better. Note also it is not returned.
    I think your irritation suggests that your willingness to contribute to your favoured solution is really quite limited to paying your taxes.
Sign In or Register to comment.