Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Whether you believe Cameron will give you a referendum or not, it is still the only way you might get one. The whole concept of a UKIP protest vote in the EU elections is just silly. Everyone already knows there is a lot of pressure for a referendum. All a large UKIP vote for EU will do is damage the process of putting our point of view across in Europe. If Cameron winsvnext year then we will get a referendum. I am sure of that. I also think it is highly likely that the public will vote to stay in. The net result is that we will be in the EU and have a hoard of UKIP MEPs who won't represent us. All in all UKIP are a waste of time for everyone. Their whole proposition is illogical.

Don't forget that Cameron would be forced to have a referendum as his backbenchers would insist on it and disrupt the government if they didn't get it,.

34% an overall majority?
don't be bloody silly!
even with the slanted constituency bias, labour need not less than 38%

as for "storming into the lead", i'm afraid at this stage of the game a paltry 3% lead for the opposition is pretty pathetic and says lots about the public's view of both parties

even when labour had a consistent 7% lead, it was hardly convincing, and clearly this is being slowly whittled away .... if i was a labour mp or even follower, i would be pretty worried about the chances of even being the leading party after the GE

I for one do not think that NuLab or even OldLab will win the GE outright.

The leadership are taking it's members for fools. And lets not forget, it's NoLab's traditional members/supporters who are bearing the brunt of the immigration fiasco.

It aint over yet.

by "win outright" i assume you mean an overall majority = no coalition required ..... thoroughly agree; i just hope there's a "proper" turnout of ~70% but i fear that too is unlikely

Yes c, that's what I mean, an overall majority.

I don't think Millibandus has it in him, he suffers from the same problem that Cameroon has.....very low cred.

Another one for labour........


ComRes/Sunday Indy – CON 29, LAB 33, LD 8, UKIP 19
17 MAY 2014


EAZY PEAZY

Anybody remember reading about this ? it would have been worst then 9/11

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

Huffington Post

Ukip Placed In First And Third Place By Different Polls Ahead Of European Elections

In other words...they don't know whats going to happen.

A reception desk in a sort of office building.

Receptionist: Yes, sir?

Man: I'd like to have an argument please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir, have you been here before...?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Man: Well, what would be the cost?

Receptionist: Yes, it's one pound for a five-minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

Man: Well, I think it's probably best of I start with the one and see how it goes from there. OK?

Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment... Mr. Du-Bakey's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory... Yes, try Mr. Barnard -- Room 12.

Man: Thank you.

[...] The man knocks on the door.

Mr Vibrating:(from within) Come in.

The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Mr Vibrating: I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.

Man: When?

Mr Vibrating: Just now!

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!

Man: You did not!

Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

Man: Oh, just a five minute one.

Mr Vibrating: Fine. (makes a note of it; the man sits down) Thank you. Anyway I did.

Man: You most certainly did not.

Mr Vibrating: Now, let's get one thing quite clear... I most definitely told you!

Man: You did not.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You did not.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: Didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!!

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: It is. You just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.

Man: Ooh, you did!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.

Man: You did, just then.

Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: Not at all.

Man: Now look!

Mr Vibrating:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.

Man: What?

Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.

Man: But I was just getting interested.

Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.

Man: That was never five minutes just now!

Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.

Man: No it wasn't.

Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

Man: What!?

Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on! (Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.

Mr Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: Oh. All right. (pays) There you are.

Mr Vibrating: Thank you.

Man: Well?

Mr Vibrating: Well what?

Man: That was never five minutes just now.

Mr Vibrating: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Man: I've just paid.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.

Man: I did! I did! I did!

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.

Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.

Mr Vibrating: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.

Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!

Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.

Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

Man: I've had enough of this.

Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

I wondered what this thread reminded me of..

I have often walked past the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in Bloomsbury Square and wondered what was happening inside.

This article tells you what you need to know about Cameroon...



David Cameron cools on pledge to cut net migration to tens of thousands by May 2015

David Cameron declines five times in Sky News interview to say that he wanted to achieve this by 2015, preferring to insist that the Conservatives were “working towards” the target.



David Cameron speaks in Glasgow yesterday (PA)


Christopher Hope
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent

4:58PM BST 18 May 2014


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10839268/David-Cameron-cools-on-pledge-to-cut-net-migration-to-tens-of-thousands-by-May-2015.html



David Cameron has apparently cooled on his party’s pledge to cut net migration to tens of thousands of people by next May’s general election.


The Prime Minister was repeatedly asked in a television interview if he was sticking to his commitment to cut the number coming to the UK to fewer than 100,000.


However he declined five times specifically to say that he wanted to achieve this by 2015, preferring to insist that the Conservatives were “working towards” the target.


Interviewed on Sky News’ Murnaghan programme, Mr Cameron said: “We are working towards it, we are doing everything we can to deliver on it and we should continue to do that.”


Asked again if the figure was still a target for the general election, Mr Cameron said: “I want to see net migration down to the tens of thousands not only because it is right for the British economy because we should be training our own people for these jobs.


“But also if you look back to the 1980s when net migration was in the tens of thousands, we were an open economy then.

“But do you know what, immigration wasn’t a big political issue because it was properly under control and that’s what I want to achieve again.”

The pledge to cut net migration to fewer than 100,000 was made in the Conservative manifesto in May 2010.

However the Liberal Democrats resisted including the specific target in the Government’s Coalition agreement which set out what ministers would do.

The comments represent an apparent shift from last week when Mr Cameron told MPs in the Commons that the May 2015 target was “perfectly feasible”.

He continued: “We have brought net migration into the UK down by a fifth under this Government – not as much as I’d like.”

Net migration - the number coming to the UK for at least a year, less the numbers leaving - rose 58,000 to 212,000 in the year to September 2013.

Mr Cameron said that Britain had taken in people from the stricken Eurozone.

Speaking a day after Mr Cameron, Anna Soubry, a Government minister, admitted that the target looked set to be missed. Miss Soubry – a defence minister – said: “At the moment we don’t seem to be on course.”

a somewhat slithery politician's answer! :-)

i don't think it would have opened any pit if he had said that <100k remained the target, though it's obvious that this is taking far longer then hoped

more importantly, a couple of days ago, i think i heard him upholding the rights of all eu citizens to transmigrate
whether that means eu citizens would have an automatic and immediate right to uk's generous benefit and health system is another matter, but even that seems to be a difficult leak to plug

The Grocer

Despite the current furore over halal, the vast majority of UK shoppers are not prepared to pay more to ensure they do not eat religiously slaughtered meat, exclusive research for The Grocer has shown.

Recent media reports about supermarkets and foodservice chains ‘secretly’ selling halal meat - including lamb from New Zealand - have prompted calls for better labelling, but industry experts have warned this could add significant costs to the supply chain and drive up prices.

A survey of 1,977 UK consumers, conducted for The Grocer by YouGov, suggests few shoppers would be prepared to pay extra: 68% of meat eaters said they would not pay more to guarantee meat had not been religiously slaughtered, with just 17% willing to pay extra; 15% said ‘don’t know’.

Asked about retailer labelling policies on halal meat, 40% said they were not particularly concerned about their supermarket’s policy on labelling halal meat. Twenty nine percent said they have or intend to find out more about their supermarket’s policy on labelling, while 11% said they were already aware of halal labelling policies.

Overall, the survey found just over 50% of consumers were prepared to buy religiously slaughtered meat in some form - 21% said they would buy it provided the animal was stunned before being killed, and 32% said they did not care about slaughter methods at all, citing price or the quality of the meat as more important.

A quarter of British consumers said they would not buy or eat any type of religiously slaughtered meat, regardless of whether the animal was stunned or not.

Younger consumers were generally more relaxed about religious slaughter than older demographics.

i'ld far rather see crated-veal production banned ....

that most assuredly has to be a truly inhumane way of raising young calves, and is probably why, at least in uk, we are seeing more and more "rose veal" for sale as opposed to the white version imported from holland

In my view it's all about the Islamification if there's such a word, things get accepted then become the norm ,in a few years before you know it we're half Islamic. This is Britain and we are Christian. I feel we are being brainwashed slowly.

victim - total rubbish! .....

because it's useful in promoting further islam-demonisation, the press chooses to focus on halal slaughter, which is truthfully done for "good" religious reasons - i won't bore you as to why the procedure - but jewish kosher butchering, which is effectively the same, has been pushed to the far rear

in fact, when done in a properly controlled environment, it is questionable that it is any more stressful for the cattle and poultry than in many or perhaps most of "normal" abattoirs

===============

by the way, from where did you glean the illusion that britain is a christian nation?
how often do you and your neighbours go to church?

I prefer to think we are a secular country. Certainly Christianity has done more harm over the years than Islam.

depends how you define christianity of course, but equally don't forget the very bloody and brutal wars and crusades in the middle-ages between christians and islam

christians of course don't have too hot a reputation for tolerance of other religions and beliefs, despite that the Good Book tells them .... the inquisition comes to mind