threegee

Well, well, if anyone was in any doubt that Ukip with its (so far) one MP wasn't calling the agenda now, then read up on yesterday's debate and Commons vote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11169431/Britain-is-lighting-a-fire-under-the-European-Union-says-Philip-Hammond.html 293 votes to zero and Miliband frozen in the headlights with, on one side europhile Cameron threatening the parliament act if Labour tries to block a referendum using Tony's Cronies in the Lords, and on the other Miliband's own senior MPs telling him he's out-of-touch, undemocratic and wrong, and shouldn't try the Labour blocking stunt a second time. Plus Tory MPs telling Cameron to defy the LDs and just do it anyway. Whatever happened to the excuse that a referendum was impossible because of the coalition agreement? So where are the LD's in all of this? After all we've been told ad infinitum how important the EU is, but it seems Cleggy and the entire LD front bench had more important things to do than to advance their own position. The single LD who attended the debate either didn't vote or voted against core LD policy. You simply couldn't make this up! Together with Carswell pinning Cameron on the MP recall bill earlier, it's looking like something resembling a real democracy is in the offing. If Ukip can achieve this with just one MP, imagine the shake up 100 Ukip MPs would bring! .

The problem is to think about the issues that underly those underlying issues. If you don't do that then you don't appreciate how you are being manipulated. It's a game of chess, and if you don't see at least as many moves in advance as your opponent you are screwed right from the very first move. My guess is that with rising educational standards (though people don't actually have much more knowledge than their parents, and in some cases have lost valuable knowledge) they can at least think one more move in advance, because life is now demanding that. That extra move is what will do for the liberal elites, because they really haven't seen as far as they think they have. What do you mean by extreme? Could that simply mean thinking outside the box (an expression I'd normally cringe at)?

I will have half of Russell Brand and half of Johnny Rotten then, but the opposite halves from the terminally stupid Polly Toynbee. You really have got to get out more than reading Guardian drivel Sym! BTW Johnny hadn't even heard of UKIP until Toynbee advised him they were a party that didn't have a red rosette on the package. He has no idea about policies either way - just a typical dumb tribal Labour voter really.

If you'd suggested that memories could be inherited a short while back you'd have likely have been ridiculed, but it seems there's hard evidence for this now. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html I think a lot of "science" these days is actually pseudo-science, because you can't separate it from politics without really hard evidence. Without that evidence science follows as much of a political agenda as everything else. This becomes especially damning when a group really wants to believe something, and has an emotional or ideological inclination and/or economic incentive to do so. Then emphasising what suits that belief-set and de-emphasising, or trying to explain away, what doesn't suit becomes the name of the game. But that game isn't science as it was previously represented to us; science is simply being used as a cloak. Most politicians aren't bright enough to see this. As a result we get into crazy behaviour like building windmills all over the landscape to provide part-time power, and not getting on with further developing what we know provides reliable power compactly and economically. Is this group-think behaviour much different from the ancients building stone circles and pyramids?

We name this fine vessel Mandleson because the name is now synonymous with: Hidden agendas.The EU Project.The original "spin doctor"."Actively encouraging" immigration. He says he's regretful - but!Elitism and barely concealed contempt for the British public.Belief that we will join the Euro quite soon - but he can't be made to actually say this.Having no visible means of support, yet somehow more wealth by the year."the post-democratic society" (did he coin the term himself?).Belief that if you keep hitting your head on the wall then one day it won't hurt.Membership of several secretive clubs that promote, well.. we plebs aren't allowed to know what.Pulling the levers of power from behind the curtains.When actually in power displays of mind-numbing incompetence.(PC Waiver: At no time were ethnic origins even hinted at! Some of my best friends are..)But... we could have just as easily have called her one of a dozen other appropriate fine names. No matter! She is the flagship of The LEL (The Liberal Elite Line). =================================== Entering a new chapter I have to report that the cracks previously mentioned below the waterline are quite evident now. This has allowed the entry of the first Looney Fruitcake. I know we said it would never happen - even laughed at the absurdity - but everything is under control, and this vessel is totally unsinkable. We'll have him out at the General Election and the hull will be patched as good as new - you have Captain Cameron's cast iron guarantee on this!

OK, so I sort of misunderstood you. You are simply pointing at past performance. I will borrow a few words from present day financial boilerplate text: http://distractionproofadvisor.com/2012/07/past-performance-is-not-an-indicator-of-future-results/.

Wow, just suppose our ancestors - who risked and many who lost their lives for this country - could read that cynicism Malc! It's more than likely that future generations will see it though. To them I'd like to say that I don't think it represents the majority of British people at this time, and certainly not me. Is the EU a plot to get by stealth what couldn't (twice) be got by military domination? The answer to that all depends on how you define plot. There's no Bond style cat-stroking villain plotting world domination, and the German bankers aren't saying to themselves which country do we subjugate next. Nor, like many people on the left actually believe to be the case, do I attribute evil intentions to Bilderberg, though the EU links are undeniably there and quite strong. What's there is much more subtle, as likely Maggie detects. It's the expansionism that is in Germanic genes, combined with unenlightened self-interest, further combined with learning the wrong lessons from two world wars. I suspect a couple of other influences too but won't go into those at this time. Whatever, it's no less dangerous for being multi-layered, and not wilful militaristic domination. The Ukraine problem is just a tiny foretaste of what is to come. That, I do believe - and there's lots of evidence out there - was deliberately stoked up by Western influences. By the time the European superstate starts building a military force it's going to be far too late for British, Winston Smith! We must distance ourselves from all this, hold on to what military capability we still have, and not break our ties with the USA. We also need to try to undo some of the damage politicos have done to our links with the Commonwealth; not in order to try to wind the clock back though, but in order to fulfil the original intention; it's in the name! If we can turn the EU back into the Common Market then so much the better, but I don't hold out much hope of that, and we'd be daft to pin anything but the most tenuous hope on meaningful reform. Cameron is the last person we should trust to even attempt this - well no, the other two dummies would be even worse!

...except between those dates there were no elections in Germany. The last one was 1938 - I forget who "won"! It's interesting how people will except huge compromises in some things yet stubbornly dig their heels in on relatively minor matters. The EU is not perfect - bit of an understatement there then? Our membership is based on a lie - we were all told it was an economic union but there would be absolutely no loss of national sovereignty. Since then - and despite more promises to the contrary (Lisbon Treaty etc.) - we've been given no say by the elites who control our country's affairs. All we've seen is creeping federalism. The standard answer is that you get to choose which party policy you support; that's "representative" democracy. Well... it might be democracy but it's not representative of me, and according to opinion surveys it's not representative of the bulk of UK citizens. Hobson's choice is no choice! If the Tory/Labour/LibDem elites thought they could get their way we'd have a referendum on this failing political experiment in a matter of weeks, but there's always a lame excuse. Remember Cameron's "cast iron guarantee" of one? Support for ANY party that consistently won't give the electorate a choice on their own sovereignty is more than bloomin compromise - it's meekly accepting that we don't have a democracy at all, and acceptance of class dictatorship. Our country has been stolen from under our very noses - in more than one way too. We want it back, and by golly we are going to get it back! One of the first things Carswell is doing is helping a former colleague to reintroduce his right-of-recall bill to allow electors to remove MPs they loose faith in. That's a very good start towards something resembling TB's popular democracy.

Wifi operating in the 60GH/z band and offering a 500% improvement in transfer speeds could be available to users as early as next year. This x5 improvement is a theoretical figure, and because present day WiFi comes nowhere near its theoretical speed, the real-world improvement of 60GH/z WiFi will more likely be around x10. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-12/samsung-electronics-says-it-s-developed-faster-wi-fi-technology.html Present WiFi operates at 2.4GH/z with some top-of-the-range devices offering the addition of the 5GH/z band (where there's currently mainly completely unused channels available to users, providing they have all the right gear).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

It baffles me why trade unions want our country in an alliance that was established by ex-nazi industrialists in order to keep wages down. That is basically what the EU "freedom of movement" rules are all about. Surely it's self evident that unlimited immigration drives down wages and causes unemployment amongst indigenous peoples? It's pretty simple supply and demand economics - though in this instance fear (of losing your job) comes into it too. Of course this really bites at the bottom of the job ladder. The top looks after its own. Before New Labour the left was adamantly opposed to the EU, and the EU agenda was driven by Tory people like the appalling Ted Heath to pander to unenlightened Tory industrialists. Then, along came Teflon Tony. How could the unions possibly fall for New Labour's uncontrolled immigration-led agenda at a time the EU was just gearing up to shackle in low wage Eastern European economies? Does not compute! Either the present day unions are run by turkeys voting for Christmas, or there is a hidden agenda. One thing is for sure: they are not looking after low paid worker's interests, always the very essence of trade unionism. Pull the ladder up because I'm all-right Jack! And... you are all venerate the late Tony Ben and his staunch socialist principals: Yet, you vote for a party now going in entirely the opposite direction, simply because there's still a red rosette on the package! I think there is a term for this irrational behaviour in the marketing industry, and it might not be complimentary.

We'd all be broke without the oil revenues, and Gordo wouldn't have been able to pledge the future revenues either. But, they are no longer what they were, and getting less by the month. Not just the production levels, but the oil price is rapidly falling too. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29594761 Salmond is very lucky he lost, because if the price falls go on an independent Scotland would be sunk far earlier than any of the economists predicted even a few weeks ago. Tony, tell me what a government ever started that was economic? They used to be pretty good at (mis)appropriating assets developed by entrepreneurs, but did they ever produce any wealth themselves? I'd agree with you though that council houses were sold too cheaply, and the money from the sales should have been reinvested in replacing a percentage of them. But, don't lay the blame entirely at MT's door; Tony Blair had over a decade to start building council houses, and his council house building fell from a low level to absolutely nothing.

No 600MB not 600Mb! Mb means megabits, and MB means megabytes, they are frequently confused, but the distinction is very important. As that small kid will tell you there are 8 bits in a Byte, so 8Mb is 1MB. The M must be upper-case, else you are saying milli (one thousandth) not Mega (one million). You are probably about right for iPlayer on average. I'd guess that the "standard" version of TV programs is 300-400MB an hour and the High Definition version about double that. Average iPlayer radio usage is 20 to 25MB an hour, though you can select different bitrates on most programs that fall outside that range. Otherwise, all good technical advice, and I'm humbled by the depth of knowledge displayed.

Nonsense, you are being very astute! It is about selling though - selling OUR town to the world. One day we might just have a Bedlington.co.uk Charter - do you want to write it?

I concede that she became very out of touch in the final term. I think ten years should be enough for anyone; so maybe a two-term limit wouldn't be a bad thing no matter how popular you are? Looks like the Daily Mail of all rags has finally jumped onto the bandwagon. Might cause Miliband to choke on his bacon in the morning. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2789592/nigel-farage-did-win-don-t-play-fools.html?offset=500&max=100&jumpTo=comment-65964353#comment-65964353 I think Labour are likely to draft in some senior helpers for Miliband to try to make him look a tiny bit more competent. They've employed Obama's spin doctor (Axelrod?) at some huge fee, and he'll be trying to earn it. Maybe he's making them take the bacon sarnie test right now? Where was he when Miliband wrote (and partly delivered) that speech?

What worries me Tony is that I've recently been skimming Karl Marx and finding some of the logic compelling! Particularly the bits about how wages are driven down. My real concern is the neo-Nazis who control the EU (as at core is UKIP's). So, by that token, you've got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick. Tell me how you feel about the EU? Good, bad, don't care? Keith: We are talking history there, and can talk ourselves into a corner. The only reason I get involved in arguments over MT is to illustrate to casual visitors (particularly youngsters who've never been exposed to it) that there's an alternative view. Actually, it remains the view of at least half the country (and probably quite a few other members who are wise enough to keep their mouths shut): remember that MT got some thumping majorities, and only lost power by being deposed by her own cabinet. There is no way I'm going to convince you or anyone else here of her motives. But, as she saw it, they were most certainly for the benefit of the entire country. It's history; we are where we are, and we are talking about the future now. We can easily agree to disagree on the past.

Not a banker Tony, a metals trader - just a glorified scrap yard dealer! He's had a real job, unlike the vast majority of our current MP's. See what BBC anchor Andrew Marr says, even though he has to hedge it around a bit to get it past the thought police at the Beeb: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/520671/Tony-Blair-Number-10-Downing-Street-Andrew-Marr On MT, well... we are British, not followers of some Middle East religion, so we can cheerfully agree to disagree and celebrate the difference. I'm sure we'd both have rather different views if we'd been on the other side of the fence at the time. It's history now, and what matters is the future and our kids future. I think we are all pretty much looking at the future from the same perspective now.

According to the most recent poll 25% of the public disagree with that, and are figuring on actually doing something about it. Old Labour supporters can sit on their backsides and reminisce, or actively do something. My take on this is that we are at one of those major inflection points in history. I believe that both Labour and the Tories have outrun their usefulness to society. They have both morphed into top-down marketing organisations bent on their own advancement. Principles and ideology went out of the window long ago - the whole process is now pure self-serving pretence. They even buy into their own mutual propaganda (about the EU being essential to us, etc.), and are both largely staffed with people with no real world experience. Their job is - and always will be - selling their right to that job. Yes, I know, apart from the inflection point thing there's little there that no one hadn't already worked out for themselves. So... it's time for everyone with a grain of sense to stop moaning and do something. That something is to temporarily bury all differences of opinion and unite to force change. I'd vote for The Arthur Scargill Party if he promised his Stalinist agenda was a thing of the past; promised to preserve democracy; and he had a credible chance of forcing his way into the Westminster hen house. There is now only one way to that change. The LD's shot themselves in the foot, and, as a top-down organisation (utterly wedded to the biggest top-down organisation of them all) was never going to force change anyway. But, many people thought it was worth a try. The present coalition government was just a portent. Have another look at that UKIP link and see if there isn't anything you couldn't temporarily swallow in order to permanently get us out of this straitjacket. Now, you are going to say, yes, I can live with that; yes, I actually support that; that's wrong, but maybe it will change when they see the error of their ways. But but but... the real killer is that you are going to convince yourself that they don't really mean it, are duplicitous, and won't carry out their policies anyway. Well, it simply doesn't matter if they will or wont, because in a few more years the system will have had that long overdue shock, and democracy will be working again! The Oxford PPE courses will be rewritten to de-emphasise focus-group led government, and warn of the "dangers" to the system of communications no longer being the hands of the ruling elites, etc etc. Tory and Labour may not (and probably won't) disappear, because there may be mileage in the brand names (especially if you stick New in front of them - oh, no, that's been done! ) but they will be radically different, and really listen. My answer to your duplicitous point would be that we have a bottom-up organisation that won't tolerate that - something we haven't had for a very long time. And, if that happens, UKIP will factionalise and split - such is real democracy. The message for the average disinterested-in-politics voter is: You now have a once-(well maybe twice, but we can't yet be sure)-in-a-lifetime chance to shock the system into major change - don't waste it! And, even more importantly, don't oppose the change everyone needs by mindless tribal voting for parties that have come to the end of their natural lives. The new world may be uncertain and quite messy, but it will be truly democratic, and, a lot more open and honest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789512/record-poll-surge-gives-ukip-25-survey-hand-farage-astonishing-128-mps-puts-ed-miliband-new-low.html#ixzz3FsumNqIe Only 128 MPs! I'm sure we can do far better than that.

The establishment dinosaurs aren't going down quietly Willy! A really nasty piece of goods is Grant Shapps. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/tory-whips-threat-possible-defectors-ukip-conference Amazing how in the Tory Party you go from belle of the ball to "serial liar" ugly sister in ten seconds flat. And, great chunks of the media owe allegiance to the system too. You haven't really seen the depths they will go to yet. Heywood and Middleton was over the unburied body of Jim Dobbin, but Labour can still learn many lessons from the present day Tory party. Labour and the Tories will readily do back room deals to try to maintain the status quo.

Seems to me those two girls had more basic common sense than the people who vote tribally for a rosette. They'd at least identified a real common cause. No one now questions that a "mere woman" can handle the highest public office in the land, and by extension any other.

Actually Sym the Tory guy was sort of rational in his responses. Yeah, he did trot out the party line about we need to have a renegotiation of EU treaties first, and a lot of the interview was devoted to off-topic goading him into saying if/when he was going to defect to UKIP (accompanied by cut-away shots to sickly sarcastic smiles from mouthy fat lady in red), but there was nothing that you could pin down to being straight out of the newthink manual. On the medical thing, I think you've been reading the Guardian again. Nigel was at pains to say that all he wants is Australian/Canadian type immigration health checks. It costs £300K for a full course of AIDS treatment; are we intending to write a cheque for everyone who turns up at Dover with a story of how their own government won't treat them? Maggie: I sort of agree with you, but I think the disenchantment with Westminster is particularly severe with traditional left-leaning people like you. It's easy to see why as you feel you've no longer anywhere to go. I'd urge you to talk to some of the local UKIP people. Before you dismiss the suggestion consider that many of them are from the same background as you, and at root have the same sorts of values. It's a bottom-up organisation which can accommodate differences of opinion on how to get there, and it's one where you really can influence your representatives. Over the past couple of years policies definitely have moved leftward, and as more old-labour voters join that can only continue. Even if you only take up common cause to burst the Westminster bubble you will have achieved something worthwhile. I think that many traditional Labour voters are already doing this (some maybe subconsciously), and many ex-Tory voters now don't give a damn if Miliband gets elected or not because there's no real difference, and he will rapidly hang himself anyway. There's also an increasing chance that neither Cameron or Miliband will ever happen, as both parties are receiving the shock they have long deserved.

I knew they would, after all they created most of the problem. Answering questions tonight about concerns, from within her own party, that Labour now needs to offer something to control immigration shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry MP thought for a second then inspirationally offered that the EU should look into - no, I'm not making this up - counting immigrants better! A surprised Newsnight's Emily Maitlis asked the obvious: how on earth... no no, says our budding senior law officer, this will help to better plan for the immigrant flows! Further pressed on what Labour would do she interjected "...no no what they are talking about is their jobs being taken and them being undercut and what I'm saying is that UKIP does not have the answer to that.. ..it seems to me that one of the things we have to do is make sure there is a level playing field and people [immigrants] get proper worker's rights." So, once again the Labour front bench is in total denial about a major problem facing their own electorate. The current interview strategy is to move off any awkward subject by saying ..when talking to people the conversation quickly moves on to [insert diversionary topic].. thus completely avoiding the actual issue. This is championship level chicanery, and the responses are so uniform and predictable that Labour must at least have a manual, if not run a full course, to teach too-hot-to-handle issue avoidance.

So how do you propose to remove them, or is it OK to just moan about it?

Thanks for the heads-up Tony. I've answered you on that thread now.