One development I am against is the new one that is often talked about on the airport/Marshalls site. It's the wrong place, and the road links to the city centre are already chock-a-block.
Hi Josias
I'm not sure that PB is the right forum for detailed discussions of Cambridge's housing needs. Building in flood plains is now technically feasible, though that does not make it sensible. Trumpington 'water meadows' and 'Waterbeach' are what they sound; they provide 'elbow room'. Building on them will make both flooding and droughts more likely. UKIP know that immigrants make a huge and positive contribution to the country. That is not at issue. The problem is one of scale. The high level of net immigration has put huge stresses on infrastrucure---such as the housing we are discussing. UKIP would like a sign on our borders that says to potential immigrants,'Sorry, country full up'.
For SME lending, I would have thought that VCTs, EISs, etc. would be a better funding provider than regional banks as they provide better technical and professional support and can be targeted to specific sectors. Do we really think that the local bank manager will be able to determine the likely success of every micro business that comes their way when the business can range from biotech to high precision machining?
What is the question that Labour think Regional Banks are answering?
You actually think old-style bank managers who know their clients is still the norm ?
'• A Jobs Bill to put in place a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee. (WORKFARE)
After being unemployed for two years you get a fake job paid by the state.
• A Consumers Bill to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares. (BILLS RISE)
Maybe Labour can explain why,when their leader was SoS for Energy he did nothing about rip-off energy bills and deliberately increased energy bills.
• A Housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords and extortionate fees in the private rented sector. (STATE RUN HOUSING)
Council house building plans already binned.
- An Immigration Bill with economic measures that put an end to workers having their wages undercut illegally by employers exploiting migrant labour. (STATE SPENDING ON LAWYERS AT THE EU COURTS)
Labour had 13 years to do this & failed why would anyone believe them.
Three years of the blank piece of paper malarkey and they come up with this. You couldn't make it up,political comedy at it's best
I'm sure I remember Roger posting a few months ago about the awfulness of Romanian criminals on the streets of Paris. But of course that was a noble and principled comment.
I'd imagine they are not the norm but I'm curious as to whether getting back to that idea is what Regional Banks are about and if so whether there is actually any evidence that a bank manager knowing your name but not knowing much about the business you work in leads to better outcomes.
I'm sure I remember Roger posting a few months ago about the awfulness of Romanian criminals on the streets of Paris. But of course that was a noble and principled comment.
Anybody see the Beeb's efforts on Murdoch last night (battle with Britain)??
I thought it was a pretty decent attempt. They even allowed Andrew Neil to say he was absolutely convinced Blair and Brown were much closer to Rupert than Mrs T.
There was even a smirk at the printers leader 'now Baroness' Dean, another example of a Union leader of the 80s whose militancy cost those she represented their jobs, whilst she prospered mightily.
South Shields By Election Singles Only. Applies to the outright winner (party named on ballot) of the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request. Labour 1/33 UKIP 14/1 Conservatives 50/1 Liberal Democrats 100/1 Green 100/1
Winner Without Labour Thursday 2nd May 2013, 12:00 South Shields By Election Hide Singles Only. Applies to the second placed (party named on ballot) in the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request. UKIP 1/5 Conservatives 11/4 Liberal Democrats 20/1 Green 80/1
Ukip South Shields price collapsing on Betfair. Last trade on Betfair has LAB at a 99% implied probability.
In 2012 local elections, there were 6,751 votes cast in person and 14,570 by post. 2 wards had a turnout of 28-29%, 2 of 37%. The rest was around 32-34%
2010 turnout was 57.7%. I suppose turnout on Thursday will be a bit higher....35-40%?
Anyway, the great majority of votes should come by post....and so probably already cast...
if it's close, it will be obviously depend on the voting on Thursday turnout. But if it's not close, it is basically all decided by now regardless on what happens on Thursday
@Andrea - Labour will have a huge advantage in postal votes, for organisational reasons. I really can't see Labour getting less than 55%, and I'd be surprised if they get less than 60%.
I'm not sure though that tim is right about second place - UKIP have no hope of winning, but I think they should easily come second.
South Shields By Election Singles Only. Applies to the outright winner (party named on ballot) of the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request. Labour 1/33 UKIP 14/1 Conservatives 50/1 Liberal Democrats 100/1 Green 100/1
Winner Without Labour Thursday 2nd May 2013, 12:00 South Shields By Election Hide Singles Only. Applies to the second placed (party named on ballot) in the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request. UKIP 1/5 Conservatives 11/4 Liberal Democrats 20/1 Green 80/1
Value on CON 2nd there, I've acted accordingly and reduced my liabilities slightly should they finish 2nd..
Ukip South Shields price collapsing on Betfair. Last trade on Betfair has LAB at a 99% implied probability.
In 2012 local elections, there were 6,751 votes cast in person and 14,570 by post. 2 wards had a turnout of 28-29%, 2 of 37%. The rest was around 32-34%
2010 turnout was 57.7%. I suppose turnout on Thursday will be a bit higher....35-40%?
Anyway, the great majority of votes should come by post....and so probably already cast...
if it's close, it will be obviously depend on the voting on Thursday turnout. But if it's not close, it is basically all decided by now regardless on what happens on Thursday
But Andrea, we are always being told that postal votes falling for Labour is a PB Tory myth.
Ukip South Shields price collapsing on Betfair. Last trade on Betfair has LAB at a 99% implied probability.
In 2012 local elections, there were 6,751 votes cast in person and 14,570 by post. 2 wards had a turnout of 28-29%, 2 of 37%. The rest was around 32-34%
2010 turnout was 57.7%. I suppose turnout on Thursday will be a bit higher....35-40%?
Anyway, the great majority of votes should come by post....and so probably already cast...
if it's close, it will be obviously depend on the voting on Thursday turnout. But if it's not close, it is basically all decided by now regardless on what happens on Thursday
But Andrea, we are always being told that postal votes falling for Labour is a PB Tory myth.
Anybody see the Beeb's efforts on Murdoch last night (battle with Britain)??
I thought it was a pretty decent attempt. They even allowed Andrew Neil to say he was absolutely convinced Blair and Brown were much closer to Rupert than Mrs T.
There was even a smirk at the printers leader 'now Baroness' Dean, another example of a Union leader of the 80s whose militancy cost those she represented their jobs, whilst she prospered mightily.
As I remember it, Brenda Dean was pretty moderate. When it came to Wapping, the union members basically forced her hand - as did Murdoch to be fair. The Fleet Street print union members were an absolute disgrace. Any pain they got they caused themselves.
German imposed austerity continues in peripheral Eurozone nations.
The Greek Parliament has passed a bill to lay off 15,000 public workers through the end of 2014.
The move is the latest step taken by Prime Minister Antonis Samaras in order to secure the country's bailout with international creditors. Greece is expected to meet with Troika (representatives from the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank) on Monday in order to approve the next tranche valued at €2.8bn.
A total of 168 parliament members voted in favor of the bill versus 123 that voted against it, according to statements by Parliament spokesperson Yannis Tragakis to state-run broadcaster Vouli TV. During the vote, an estimated thousand protestors had gathered outside the building.
But just how long more will the peoples of Southern Europe be prepared to walk through the valley of the shadow of death?
Better news, though, for Italy. The bond markets have rewarded the formation of a new government under Letta:
The Italian government managed to meet its target in Monday's sovereign debt sale while paying the lowest financing costs since October 2010.
Italy sold a total of €6.0bn in long-term debt, compared to the previously announced target of €4-6bn.
The Italian Treasury sold €3.0bn in five-year bonds with an average yield of 2.84%. This is down from the prior 3.65% and is the lowest yield since October 2010. Demand also increased as shown by the rise in the bid-to-cover ratio to 1.36 compared to the previous 1.22.
The striking thing about when you play with the new toy, is how in tune the 2010 Lib Dems are in with the rest of the country/all and how far out UKIP are from the rest of the country/all.
Now whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your viewpoint.
I was greatly amused to see Ken Clarke out there, kicking UKIP.
If there's one politician that will enrage the Kippers, it will be him.
But he's popular with non Tories, so his attacks will have some resonance.
I'm not sure it's such a good thing extrapolating the views of a few councillors and activists and applying it to the whole party.
I'm sure there's people with unpalatable views in all parties.
'• A Jobs Bill to put in place a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee. (WORKFARE)
After being unemployed for two years you get a fake job paid by the state.
• A Consumers Bill to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares. (BILLS RISE)
Maybe Labour can explain why,when their leader was SoS for Energy he did nothing about rip-off energy bills and deliberately increased energy bills.
• A Housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords and extortionate fees in the private rented sector. (STATE RUN HOUSING)
Council house building plans already binned.
- An Immigration Bill with economic measures that put an end to workers having their wages undercut illegally by employers exploiting migrant labour. (STATE SPENDING ON LAWYERS AT THE EU COURTS)
Labour had 13 years to do this & failed why would anyone believe them.
Three years of the blank piece of paper malarkey and they come up with this. You couldn't make it up,political comedy at it's best
3 years for a policy debate - he could have done the same in 3hrs by opening a copy of Michael Foot's biography.
rEd's mantra appears to be there is nothing the state can't do better than the market or individuals.
This looks like being the most left wing Labour offering since 1983 - he's making Kinnock look like a Blairite.
Even as a UKIP supporter, I would love to see, and have a lot of respect for, a party that is as openly positive about EU membership and the free movement of EU citizens as UKIP is negative.
Why isnt there a party telling us that we live in a United States of Europe where we can go and work in Italy/Germany/Bulgaria just as a man from Connecticut can in Wyoming or Oregon?
When I was a leftie who believed in the EU etc I thought it was a great idea
So you have moved 180º from pro EU to anti EU. I am interested to know how long that took, Sam, and why?
Seen this Mike working now so cant write in detail. Basically was v idealistic lefty in youth, felt betrayed by hypocrisy of left wing and realised importance of traditions etc as I got older.. nothing spectacularly original
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 1m Ed Miliband tells the BBC that Labour will "look at" whether rich pensioners should continue to receive perks like winter fuel allowance.
"The attack on pensioners' benefits could destroy social cohesion Ending fuel allowances and free TV and bus passes would save little – and risk turning young against old and rich against poor" by Peter Hain.
I heard (I think Sunday politics show) that UKIP now had 27,000 members. That is only 15,000 behind the Lib Dems ( 42,501 reported in Feb 2013 Liberator). Could UKIP go into GE2015 with more members than the Lib Dems?
If Labour are saying that rich pensioners should not get perks like the winter fuel allowance/free bus passes etc, why wouldn't the same principle apply to child benefit for higher earners?
They must surely see the incoherence - not to mention the political stupidity - of taking benefits away from pensioners while reinstating child benefit for those on £70K p.a.
Or is this all talk and nothing will be done on either proposal?
An interesting example of what I term 'metropolitan bigotry' from Roger earlier.
In his opinion people with his political views care about others and are nice (and doubtless deserve to be rewarded for being so) while people with opposing political views don't care about others and are nasty (and doubtless deserve to be punished for being so).
In reality most people care about other people, but mostly about those similar to themselves and less so about those different to themselves.
I dare say that Roger (or for that matter the PPE crowd who dominate the politcal establishment) doesn't greatly care for the people I work with - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates - or the people I used to work with but lost their jobs during the last decade - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates.
And that's not surprising as after all what do white working class blokes on northern industrial estates have in common with a Millfield educated advert director who lives on the French Riviera (or to the PPE crowd that dominate the political establishment).
But what we're going to see as it becomes apparant that this country isn't as rich as we were told and that the promises which various governments made are not going to be kept is increasingy 'class conflict' between different socioeconomic groups as they fight over a reducing economic 'cake'.
So the likes of Roger will increasingly despise the provincial wwc UKIP crowd and they will increasingly depise the likes of Roger back.
This will noe make for a society at ease with itself.
If Labour are saying that rich pensioners should not get perks like the winter fuel allowance/free bus passes etc, why wouldn't the same principle apply to child benefit for higher earners?
They must surely see the incoherence - not to mention the political stupidity - of taking benefits away from pensioners while reinstating child benefit for those on £70K p.a.
Or is this all talk and nothing will be done on either proposal?
Bit of an "omnishambles" frankly.
Mad scramble to scribble on the blank sheet of paper.
A Mr Angry interview by Ed M on WATO with the saintly Martha "You don't understand ... its wery wellivant ... " Hard to listen to a chap with a mouthful of marbles.
A Mr Angry interview by Ed M on WATO with the saintly Martha "You don't understand ... its wery wellivant ... " Hard to listen to a chap with a mouthful of marbles.
That biased BBC again
Benedict Brogan @benedictbrogan 1m Martha Kearney killing @Ed_Miliband with how wd you pay for VAT cut question. No answer, flannel, stutter.
It's very sensible of Labour to signal that it's looking at ending benefits for higher rate taxpaying pensioners. They don't vote for Labour, and by and large they've remained loyal to the Tories so there's not much risk of shoring up the Tory vote.
However, it does make their opposition to the cuts in child benefit for higher rate taxpayers look unprincipled and shortsighted.
Is the underlying problem that Ed Milliband has is that he focused on spending his shadow cabinet's effort on opposing everything, rather than the hard grind of working through the policy and strategy? It may have kept Labour's polling higher, but it has some similarities with the 1st years of Kinnock.
Child benefit = universal, Winter fuel is not is no more hypocritical than public sector workers should get 1% max rise but unemployed should get inflation.
Labour all over the place - and rEd flailing wildly on R4 - they need to hide him Gordon Brown style until Friday.
I dare say that Roger (or for that matter the PPE crowd who dominate the politcal establishment) doesn't greatly care for the people I work with - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates - or the people I used to work with but lost their jobs during the last decade - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates.
Don't blame the "PPE crowd" for the failings of our political establishment.
There were excellent PPEists I know well who shied away from public service because they despise our political class. That's the root cause of the problem: a political class who are on the make, either directly or indirectly, with no sense of the honour to be called to serve your country.
Make politics a vocation not a career and things would be much better.
However, it does make their opposition to the cuts in child benefit for higher rate taxpayers look unprincipled and shortsighted.
I think you can construct an internally consistent rationale for both positions. But we dont even know that's what Labour will run with so let's hold off on bothering with that for a while
Re: North Wales abuse. From 2001 to 2009 North Wales police was led by this man. "Throughout his tenure, Brunstrom has courted controversy with his campaign against speeding drivers, and his support for speed cameras" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brunstrom
o/t I cant find any markets on the German election but after the weekend just gone I wouldnt be putting much money on a CDU / Green coalition (the Greens have decided on a left-of-SPD platform and more or less ruled out supporting Merkel as Chancellor).
However, it does make their opposition to the cuts in child benefit for higher rate taxpayers look unprincipled and shortsighted.
I think you can construct an internally consistent rationale for both positions. But we dont even know that's what Labour will run with so let's hold off on bothering with that for a while
It may be possible but at the very least it looks incongruous. It's good news for Labour that it has found a tough decision that it's prepared to take, but it needs to find an easily explicable story to its approach.
Mind you, will this set off a discussion about the importance of universalism? Or has the left now accepted that is an idea whose time has passed?
Imagine 6 weeks of rEd as per wato today - people might even begin to feel sorry for him.
Nonsense!
Why do we still think that Ed is crap? Ed is most certainly not crap! The Labour Party has never had such an inspirational and charismatic leader. The Progressive Tradition in this country has never had such a statesman-like standard bearer. Nay, his performance on The World At One today was arguably the best ever given by a Labour Party leader (or indeed, any party leader!). Ed's oratory and passion are second to none, and he makes a perfect antidote to the smarmy, puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!
An interesting example of what I term 'metropolitan bigotry' from Roger earlier.
In his opinion people with his political views care about others and are nice (and doubtless deserve to be rewarded for being so) while people with opposing political views don't care about others and are nasty (and doubtless deserve to be punished for being so).
In reality most people care about other people, but mostly about those similar to themselves and less so about those different to themselves.
I dare say that Roger (or for that matter the PPE crowd who dominate the politcal establishment) doesn't greatly care for the people I work with - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates - or the people I used to work with but lost their jobs during the last decade - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates.
And that's not surprising as after all what do white working class blokes on northern industrial estates have in common with a Millfield educated advert director who lives on the French Riviera (or to the PPE crowd that dominate the political establishment).
But what we're going to see as it becomes apparant that this country isn't as rich as we were told and that the promises which various governments made are not going to be kept is increasingy 'class conflict' between different socioeconomic groups as they fight over a reducing economic 'cake'.
So the likes of Roger will increasingly despise the provincial wwc UKIP crowd and they will increasingly depise the likes of Roger back.
This will noe make for a society at ease with itself.
There is a lack of consideration of other people views by so many people in the modern world. People are so keen to argue their point, self restraint seems to be a thing of the past. I would argue that the modern left in particular are ironically similar to capitalist bullies in their quest for power.
Therefore an Englishman who thinks marriage is for a man and a woman, Class A drugs should be illegal, and has more time for a person from their own town than a person from Bucharest but isnt rabidly against any of these things, is not perhaps a little old fashioned (what an insult that is!) but actually an evil, bigoted racist homophobe
@Tim: 70% marginal tax rates are not great, to put it mildly. But frankly these are people who are already earning well above the average. It's not a priority when there are so many people at the bottom end who need help to make more of themselves and from their efforts.
If welfare benefits are to be distributed according to need (a perfectly rational and commendable basis), there is no coherent case for giving benefits to those who earn enough to pay higher rate tax. If welfare is to be distributed according to contribution, then those who pay the most into the system will get the most out of it - and only those who contribute get anything, which is where Beveridge started. That at least has some element of fairness (you only get out if you contribute) but it conflicts with the "need" principle.
None of the parties has really grappled with this, all preferring to add bits on to please various groups. Hence the current mess with all its conflicting messages to us all about whether work is worthwhile or not.
'If Labour are saying that rich pensioners should not get perks like the winter fuel allowance/free bus passes etc, why wouldn't the same principle apply to child benefit for higher earners?'
Labour has spent the last 3 years opposing cuts to child benefits for millionaires. .
"an Englishman who thinks marriage is for a man and a woman, Class A drugs should be illegal"
"There is a lack of consideration of other people views by so many people in the modern world. "
Quite so.
Very smart, but the point is that I might think those things, but I dont militantly campaign against them, dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
Do you honestly believe that thinking something, but not doing anything about it, is imposing a view on somebody?
"Do you honestly believe that thinking something, but not doing anything about it, is imposing a view on somebody?"
Well, no. If people had only thought about voting Conservative in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and not actually done it, then we'd all be in a better place. But in reality most people do seek to do something about their views, if only by voting, and it does impact upon the lives of others.
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate.
Take gay marriage: I support it personally, but equally don't want to force any religious community that disagrees with me to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm sure there will be some militant gay rights activists who believe that their right to get married overrides the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs
"It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate."
And the way to do it is to allow gay couples to get married if they want to, regardless of whether you approve of it. There is no way to keep gay marriage illegal without being inconsiderate to the views of others.
Ed Miliband morphed into Owen Jones at times during that interview.
And he has a nerve to talk about energy prices. It's odd that none of the Labour supporters on here have ever try to defend Miliband's time at the DECC, especially with respect to energy security.
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate.
Take gay marriage: I support it personally, but equally don't want to force any religious community that disagrees with me to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm sure there will be some militant gay rights activists who believe that their right to get married overrides the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs
I'm not particularly militant, but I do believe that the right for gay people to get married should override the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs and to retain the benefit of the very generous tax breaks that they receive. If it means that much to them and they wish to stay outside the modern social consensus, they should not expect state subsidy.
When the comments of the Guardian, the Guardian for goodness sake, are universally negative it does rather suggest things could have gone better for Ed. This is Mr Sparrow's comment:
"as a stress-testing exercise, an indication of whether Labour could survive the sort of rigorous examination it would face during a general election campaign, it was very revealing - because it showed that the answer was probably no. Miliband had nothing to say about welfare (except arguing that it was an employment issue, which is only partly true) and he was evasive on the economy, refusing to accept that cutting VAT would probably involve a short-term increase in borrowing."
On the plus side very few who are not already committed will even have heard it but if interviewers start to think they can get headlines by taking chunks out of Ed life gets a lot more difficult.
"It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate."
And the way to do it is to allow gay couples to get married if they want to, regardless of whether you approve of it. There is no way to keep gay marriage illegal without being inconsiderate to the views of others.
But would you force someone (a church) to marry gays if they disagreed with it?
I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should be illegal,
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate.
Take gay marriage: I support it personally, but equally don't want to force any religious community that disagrees with me to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm sure there will be some militant gay rights activists who believe that their right to get married overrides the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs
I'm not particularly militant, but I do believe that the right for gay people to get married should override the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs and to retain the benefit of the very generous tax breaks that they receive. If it means that much to them and they wish to stay outside the modern social consensus, they should not expect state subsidy.
That's a coherent position, although it's worth noting that most of the state subsidy for the church arises from the LPoW scheme and is effectively just stops them having to pay VAT on the historical buildings they inherited.
I'd rather take the position that there is a secular aspect to marriage and there is a religious aspect and that in today's society it's unhelpful to conflate the two. By this I mean that everyone should have a civil marriage (to get the tax breaks, etc) and if people want a religious service on top then that's up to them.
The good news keeps coming... People, including youngsters, have been so impressed by recent stories of Margaret Thatcher's achievements that they are calling the local Tory office to join up.
"But would you force someone (a church) to marry gays if they disagreed with it?"
No, but then neither would I legislate to make gay marriage in the Church of England impossible!
"I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should be illegal"
I didn't suggest you were. But the subtext of your comment did appear to be that you agree with Sam that there is a "considerate" way of supporting discrimination against gay couples.
"dont smear the people who disagree, therefore do consider the views of other people"
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
It's possible to disagree with someone without being inconsiderate.
Take gay marriage: I support it personally, but equally don't want to force any religious community that disagrees with me to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm sure there will be some militant gay rights activists who believe that their right to get married overrides the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs
I'm not particularly militant, but I do believe that the right for gay people to get married should override the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs and to retain the benefit of the very generous tax breaks that they receive. If it means that much to them and they wish to stay outside the modern social consensus, they should not expect state subsidy.
That's a coherent position, although it's worth noting that most of the state subsidy for the church arises from the LPoW scheme and is effectively just stops them having to pay VAT on the historical buildings they inherited.
I'd rather take the position that there is a secular aspect to marriage and there is a religious aspect and that in today's society it's unhelpful to conflate the two. By this I mean that everyone should have a civil marriage (to get the tax breaks, etc) and if people want a religious service on top then that's up to them.
Indeed Charles, I suspect the bulk of the subsidy goes to older established churches with infrastructure problems, the very ones that have wishy washy bishops trying to accommodate gays if indeed they aren't actually gay themselves. The newer churches will have a much harder line on gay marriage but will receive very little by way of public funds.
@Antifrank: You said "I'm not particularly militant, but I do believe that the right for gay people to get married should override the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs and to retain the benefit of the very generous tax breaks that they receive. If it means that much to them and they wish to stay outside the modern social consensus, they should not expect state subsidy. "
Religious people do not get any state subsidy for being religious. Charities get certain tax breaks and quite a lot of religious bodies/people are behind charitable activity (though not all charities are religious nor all religious people charitable, of course). We either think that charitable activities - however we define them - are worth subsidising or not. But we should not make a subsidy conditional on what people think ("not making windows into people's souls" and all that), unless the aim of the charity is to do something illegal.
Personally, I think that some of what passes for charitable activity seems to be a bit of a racket - see the S Times article this weekend about trusts claiming to do charitable work but in reality being a money laundering scam, but that is by the by.
"I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should be illegal"
I didn't suggest you were. But the subtext of your comment did appear to be that you agree with Sam that there is a "considerate" way of supporting discrimination against gay couples.
Perhaps I could have expressed myself better.
I'm all in favour of live and let live - I'm not keen on over-riding anyone's rights and freedoms. It's all about finding a workable balance - gays have a right not to be discriminated against, but so do religious believers.
Perhaps antifrank or someone else could explain one thing though: if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple why would a gay couple want to get married somewhere they aren't welcome?
Comments
One development I am against is the new one that is often talked about on the airport/Marshalls site. It's the wrong place, and the road links to the city centre are already chock-a-block.
Hi Josias
I'm not sure that PB is the right forum for detailed discussions of Cambridge's housing needs. Building in flood plains is now technically feasible, though that does not make it sensible. Trumpington 'water meadows' and 'Waterbeach' are what they sound; they provide 'elbow room'. Building on them will make both flooding and droughts more likely.
UKIP know that immigrants make a huge and positive contribution to the country. That is not at issue. The problem is one of scale. The high level of net immigration has put huge stresses on infrastrucure---such as the housing we are discussing. UKIP would like a sign on our borders that says to potential immigrants,'Sorry, country full up'.
'• A Jobs Bill to put in place a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee. (WORKFARE)
After being unemployed for two years you get a fake job paid by the state.
• A Consumers Bill to tackle rip-off energy bills and train fares. (BILLS RISE)
Maybe Labour can explain why,when their leader was SoS for Energy he did nothing about rip-off energy bills and deliberately increased energy bills.
• A Housing Bill that would take action against rogue landlords and extortionate fees in the private rented sector. (STATE RUN HOUSING)
Council house building plans already binned.
- An Immigration Bill with economic measures that put an end to workers having their wages undercut illegally by employers exploiting migrant labour. (STATE SPENDING ON LAWYERS AT THE EU COURTS)
Labour had 13 years to do this & failed why would anyone believe them.
Three years of the blank piece of paper malarkey and they come up with this.
You couldn't make it up,political comedy at it's best
I'd imagine they are not the norm but I'm curious as to whether getting back to that idea is what Regional Banks are about and if so whether there is actually any evidence that a bank manager knowing your name but not knowing much about the business you work in leads to better outcomes.
I thought it was a pretty decent attempt. They even allowed Andrew Neil to say he was absolutely convinced Blair and Brown were much closer to Rupert than Mrs T.
There was even a smirk at the printers leader 'now Baroness' Dean, another example of a Union leader of the 80s whose militancy cost those she represented their jobs, whilst she prospered mightily.
https://twitter.com/SephRBrown/status/328590711903637504/photo/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22335085
South Shields By Election
Singles Only. Applies to the outright winner (party named on ballot) of the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request.
Labour
1/33
UKIP
14/1
Conservatives
50/1
Liberal Democrats
100/1
Green
100/1
Winner Without Labour Thursday 2nd May 2013, 12:00
South Shields By Election Hide
Singles Only. Applies to the second placed (party named on ballot) in the South Shields by election. Bets void should none be held before the next general election. Others on request.
UKIP
1/5
Conservatives
11/4
Liberal Democrats
20/1
Green
80/1
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/106820.html
2 wards had a turnout of 28-29%, 2 of 37%. The rest was around 32-34%
2010 turnout was 57.7%. I suppose turnout on Thursday will be a bit higher....35-40%?
Anyway, the great majority of votes should come by post....and so probably already cast...
if it's close, it will be obviously depend on the voting on Thursday turnout.
But if it's not close, it is basically all decided by now regardless on what happens on Thursday
The very fact there was even a slight question mark over South Shields is a triumph for Labour's expectation management.
I'm not sure though that tim is right about second place - UKIP have no hope of winning, but I think they should easily come second.
Sadly, I reckon it'll be Caterham. I have a lot of time for them, but they haven't fulfilled their promise.
Does this mean you have crossed the PB floor?
For locals, councils have usually started later last week or today.
"Ukip. What a bunch of effete, precious, namby-pamby, “mummy, mummy the big boys are being nasty to me” shower they are."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100214388/ukip-dont-like-it-up-em/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The Greek Parliament has passed a bill to lay off 15,000 public workers through the end of 2014.
The move is the latest step taken by Prime Minister Antonis Samaras in order to secure the country's bailout with international creditors. Greece is expected to meet with Troika (representatives from the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank) on Monday in order to approve the next tranche valued at €2.8bn.
A total of 168 parliament members voted in favor of the bill versus 123 that voted against it, according to statements by Parliament spokesperson Yannis Tragakis to state-run broadcaster Vouli TV. During the vote, an estimated thousand protestors had gathered outside the building.
But just how long more will the peoples of Southern Europe be prepared to walk through the valley of the shadow of death?
Better news, though, for Italy. The bond markets have rewarded the formation of a new government under Letta:
The Italian government managed to meet its target in Monday's sovereign debt sale while paying the lowest financing costs since October 2010.
Italy sold a total of €6.0bn in long-term debt, compared to the previously announced target of €4-6bn.
The Italian Treasury sold €3.0bn in five-year bonds with an average yield of 2.84%. This is down from the prior 3.65% and is the lowest yield since October 2010. Demand also increased as shown by the rise in the bid-to-cover ratio to 1.36 compared to the previous 1.22.
Now whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your viewpoint.
I was greatly amused to see Ken Clarke out there, kicking UKIP.
If there's one politician that will enrage the Kippers, it will be him.
But he's popular with non Tories, so his attacks will have some resonance.
I'm not sure it's such a good thing extrapolating the views of a few councillors and activists and applying it to the whole party.
I'm sure there's people with unpalatable views in all parties.
Plus it was in Romanian...
rEd's mantra appears to be there is nothing the state can't do better than the market or individuals.
This looks like being the most left wing Labour offering since 1983 - he's making Kinnock look like a Blairite.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-in-blast-at-ken-clarke-over-his-illadvised-insults-against-ukip-8594730.html
You betting on that?
No wonder rEd isn't mentioning his name much..
Today:
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 1m
Ed Miliband tells the BBC that Labour will "look at" whether rich pensioners should continue to receive perks like winter fuel allowance.
Yesterday :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/28/attack-pensioners-benefits-destroy-social-cohesion
"The attack on pensioners' benefits could destroy social cohesion
Ending fuel allowances and free TV and bus passes would save little – and risk turning young against old and rich against poor" by Peter Hain.
They must surely see the incoherence - not to mention the political stupidity - of taking benefits away from pensioners while reinstating child benefit for those on £70K p.a.
Or is this all talk and nothing will be done on either proposal?
In his opinion people with his political views care about others and are nice (and doubtless deserve to be rewarded for being so) while people with opposing political views don't care about others and are nasty (and doubtless deserve to be punished for being so).
In reality most people care about other people, but mostly about those similar to themselves and less so about those different to themselves.
I dare say that Roger (or for that matter the PPE crowd who dominate the politcal establishment) doesn't greatly care for the people I work with - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates - or the people I used to work with but lost their jobs during the last decade - white working class blokes on northern industrial estates.
And that's not surprising as after all what do white working class blokes on northern industrial estates have in common with a Millfield educated advert director who lives on the French Riviera (or to the PPE crowd that dominate the political establishment).
But what we're going to see as it becomes apparant that this country isn't as rich as we were told and that the promises which various governments made are not going to be kept is increasingy 'class conflict' between different socioeconomic groups as they fight over a reducing economic 'cake'.
So the likes of Roger will increasingly despise the provincial wwc UKIP crowd and they will increasingly depise the likes of Roger back.
This will noe make for a society at ease with itself.
Mad scramble to scribble on the blank sheet of paper.
Hard to listen to a chap with a mouthful of marbles.
Benedict Brogan @benedictbrogan 1m
Martha Kearney killing @Ed_Miliband with how wd you pay for VAT cut question. No answer, flannel, stutter.
However, it does make their opposition to the cuts in child benefit for higher rate taxpayers look unprincipled and shortsighted.
Labour all over the place - and rEd flailing wildly on R4 - they need to hide him Gordon Brown style until Friday.
There were excellent PPEists I know well who shied away from public service because they despise our political class. That's the root cause of the problem: a political class who are on the make, either directly or indirectly, with no sense of the honour to be called to serve your country.
Make politics a vocation not a career and things would be much better.
From 2001 to 2009 North Wales police was led by this man. "Throughout his tenure, Brunstrom has courted controversy with his campaign against speeding drivers, and his support for speed cameras"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brunstrom
Mind you, will this set off a discussion about the importance of universalism? Or has the left now accepted that is an idea whose time has passed?
All down to the priorities of an unelected man.
Why do we still think that Ed is crap? Ed is most certainly not crap! The Labour Party has never had such an inspirational and charismatic leader. The Progressive Tradition in this country has never had such a statesman-like standard bearer. Nay, his performance on The World At One today was arguably the best ever given by a Labour Party leader (or indeed, any party leader!). Ed's oratory and passion are second to none, and he makes a perfect antidote to the smarmy, puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!
Therefore an Englishman who thinks marriage is for a man and a woman, Class A drugs should be illegal, and has more time for a person from their own town than a person from Bucharest but isnt rabidly against any of these things, is not perhaps a little old fashioned (what an insult that is!) but actually an evil, bigoted racist homophobe
"There is a lack of consideration of other people views by so many people in the modern world. "
Quite so.
If welfare benefits are to be distributed according to need (a perfectly rational and commendable basis), there is no coherent case for giving benefits to those who earn enough to pay higher rate tax. If welfare is to be distributed according to contribution, then those who pay the most into the system will get the most out of it - and only those who contribute get anything, which is where Beveridge started. That at least has some element of fairness (you only get out if you contribute) but it conflicts with the "need" principle.
None of the parties has really grappled with this, all preferring to add bits on to please various groups. Hence the current mess with all its conflicting messages to us all about whether work is worthwhile or not.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1359789-martha-kearney-interviews-labour-leader-ed-miliband-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4
'If Labour are saying that rich pensioners should not get perks like the winter fuel allowance/free bus passes etc, why wouldn't the same principle apply to child benefit for higher earners?'
Labour has spent the last 3 years opposing cuts to child benefits for millionaires. .
I'm quite nervous about the vote to temporarily restrict the use of certain pesticides to protect bee populations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22335520
Using the benchmark that Greenpeace is always on the wrong side of every argument, then it should not be banned.
If someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal, in what sense is that person not seeking to impose his views on gay couples who want to get married?
Well, no. If people had only thought about voting Conservative in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and not actually done it, then we'd all be in a better place. But in reality most people do seek to do something about their views, if only by voting, and it does impact upon the lives of others.
Take gay marriage: I support it personally, but equally don't want to force any religious community that disagrees with me to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm sure there will be some militant gay rights activists who believe that their right to get married overrides the rights of the religious to stay true to their beliefs
no surprise.
And the way to do it is to allow gay couples to get married if they want to, regardless of whether you approve of it. There is no way to keep gay marriage illegal without being inconsiderate to the views of others.
Great slip of the tongue from Ed M: "Are our problems so deep that nobody can make a difference to them? My emphatic answer is yes."
And he has a nerve to talk about energy prices. It's odd that none of the Labour supporters on here have ever try to defend Miliband's time at the DECC, especially with respect to energy security.
Ed is turning into you!
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/328857604099022848/photo/1
"as a stress-testing exercise, an indication of whether Labour could survive the sort of rigorous examination it would face during a general election campaign, it was very revealing - because it showed that the answer was probably no. Miliband had nothing to say about welfare (except arguing that it was an employment issue, which is only partly true) and he was evasive on the economy, refusing to accept that cutting VAT would probably involve a short-term increase in borrowing."
They have not managed to find a tweet that is not negative: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/29/local-elections-politics-live-blog
On the plus side very few who are not already committed will even have heard it but if interviewers start to think they can get headlines by taking chunks out of Ed life gets a lot more difficult.
"let's protect tax credits and make work pay" - how the hell is bankrolling subsidies making work pay ?
I've recanted my views, now I say make marriage only available to gay couples.
I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should be illegal,
I'd rather take the position that there is a secular aspect to marriage and there is a religious aspect and that in today's society it's unhelpful to conflate the two. By this I mean that everyone should have a civil marriage (to get the tax breaks, etc) and if people want a religious service on top then that's up to them.
Almost 900 replies, in various stages of seething, on to his UKIP wimps article in the telly...
No, but then neither would I legislate to make gay marriage in the Church of England impossible!
"I'm not suggesting that gay marriage should be illegal"
I didn't suggest you were. But the subtext of your comment did appear to be that you agree with Sam that there is a "considerate" way of supporting discrimination against gay couples.
Religious people do not get any state subsidy for being religious. Charities get certain tax breaks and quite a lot of religious bodies/people are behind charitable activity (though not all charities are religious nor all religious people charitable, of course). We either think that charitable activities - however we define them - are worth subsidising or not. But we should not make a subsidy conditional on what people think ("not making windows into people's souls" and all that), unless the aim of the charity is to do something illegal.
Personally, I think that some of what passes for charitable activity seems to be a bit of a racket - see the S Times article this weekend about trusts claiming to do charitable work but in reality being a money laundering scam, but that is by the by.
If marriage is to be for people who love each other, would siblings be allowed to marry, and if not, why not?
I think you may have misunderstood the nature of the quadruple lock. You are not alone.
This is a good guide. For those who can't be bothered to read it, the government is simply acknowledging the unique nature of canonical law.
ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/12/12/making-sense-of-camerons-quadruple-lock-on-equal-marriage/
There's a reason why incest is illegal.
Causes all sorts of deformities in the kids.
I'm all in favour of live and let live - I'm not keen on over-riding anyone's rights and freedoms. It's all about finding a workable balance - gays have a right not to be discriminated against, but so do religious believers.
Perhaps antifrank or someone else could explain one thing though: if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple why would a gay couple want to get married somewhere they aren't welcome?
Followed by a u turn sooner rather than later.