Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling lesson of the week: Don’t get too excited about

2

Comments

  • JohnO said:

    JohnO said:

    Virtually no change in today's Populus

    New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 34 (=); LD 9 (-1); UKIP 12 (=); Oth 8 (=)

    No change?

    Ahem, Sleazy broken UKIP on the slide!
    Um? No kipper change from Monday. Your point being....??
    Sorry I meant the Lib Dems, they are down 1.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    Even with a recovery apparently, the voters are saying to the Tories: THanks, but no thanks.

    By the way, I sell to Manufacturing British industry only. And my sales per day this quarter is slightly below last quarter !


    Maybe you're not much of a salesman.
    There will be tears in fourteen months, I tell you.
    There will be tears a lot sooner than that. When is Osborne next in Scotland?

    Quite. There'll be tears before bedtime for YES on 19th September as a day of resounding defeats echo through Scotland.

    Who will you blame for the YES defeat and why will it be so resoundingly rejected ?

    I prefer to do my autopsies post-mortem. Unlike you and George Osborne, I don't yet know if Scotland is going to win or lose on 18 September. It is customary to let the electorate have their say before declaring a winner.

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as YES is already dead in the water.

    This being a political betting site it is customary to put your cash/opinion down before the voters choose as I've yet to find a bookie who's overly keen on letting one wager after the result is known !?!

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

    Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

    Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
    Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

    Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

    More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.
    His ARSE will be nipping shortly
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited March 2014

    300: Rise of an Empire.

    One word. Wow

    Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

    I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

    At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

    But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

    Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

    *Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

    Senate? In Athens? Maybe just the film's translation, which is fair enough.

    Mind you, I can't imagine the UK establishment putting on plays as part of an official state-religious festival like the Athenians did, with tragedies on the abuse of power, and satirical characters called the equivalent of, say, FartyCameron (a purely academic analogy, with apologies to Mr C), as a modern equivalent of Bdelycleon in Aristophanes' Wasps - who, to quote the helpful website below, "fears that the old man and his senile cronies will ruin Athens by constantly voting according to their geriatric right-wing reactionary inclinations"). And there is the giant dung-beetle which the hero had to fly to Heaven to secure peace, in Peace. I remember being so surprised at school at the way my translations of Aristophanes came out that I had to be reassured by the Greek master that it wasn't a big windup.

    http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/091aristoph.htm

    Edit: the nearest in British politics is probably Steve Bell's 'If...' cartoon strip - certainly has the right levels of scatological and obscene humour.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    I do hope our fraternal PB YES colleagues mellow over the coming months as reality dawns on them.

    So fellow PBers let us now embrace them to the greater PB bosom and condole with them in the darkness of their sad and bleak condition. Let it not be said that PB is found wanting and let us reach out to these wretched individuals and not walk on by.

    Come hither friends. Your cause is doomed but you are not.
  • Carnyx said:



    300: Rise of an Empire.

    One word. Wow

    Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

    I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

    At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

    But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

    Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

    *Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

    Senate? In Athens? Maybe just the film's translation, which is fair enough.

    Mind you, I can't imagine the UK establishment putting on plays as part of an official state-religious festival like the Athenians did, with tragedies on the abuse of power, and satirical characters called the equivalent of, say, FartyCameron (a purely academic analogy, with apologies to Mr C), as a modern equivalent of Bdelycleon in Aristophanes' Wasps - who, to quote the helpful website below, "fears that the old man and his senile cronies will ruin Athens by constantly voting according to their geriatric right-wing reactionary inclinations"). And there is the giant dung-beetle which the hero had to fly to Heaven to secure peace, in Peace. I remember being so surprised at school at the way my translations of Aristophanes came out that I had to be reassured by the Greek master that it wasn't a big windup.

    http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/091aristoph.htm
    I dumbed down for the PB Plebs by calling it the Senate.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Awfully politically incorrect of our captain Sam Warburton to say he's British. Surely he is a European.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Fenster said:

    Awfully politically incorrect of our captain Sam Warburton to say he's British. Surely he is a European.

    Well, he is a citizen of the European Union and carries an EU passport.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818

    Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

    Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

    A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

    Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

    Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

    That is stupid on a lot of levels

    1) The captain should be decided on who is the best person in terms of experience, talent and leadership not on where you are on the nationalist spectrum.
    2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.
    3) You can consider yourself to be Welsh and British at the same time (as most Welsh actually do) . Fair enough if Warbuton said he considered himself to be English but he didn't.
    4) confirms that PC are petty nationalists above anything else
  • Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

    Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

    A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

    Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

    Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

    That is stupid on a lot of levels

    2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.
    This is Wales, they take their rugby quite seriously round there.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    JackW said:

    I do hope our fraternal PB YES colleagues mellow over the coming months as reality dawns on them.

    So fellow PBers let us now embrace them to the greater PB bosom and condole with them in the darkness of their sad and bleak condition. Let it not be said that PB is found wanting and let us reach out to these wretched individuals and not walk on by.

    Come hither friends. Your cause is doomed but you are not.

    I quite agree about the problems facing the Brexit supporters. Do you think that counsellors should be recruited for them?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

    Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

    Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
    Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

    Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

    More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.

    Things I have read on PB regarding the the next UK GE.

    Mainly from Tories, the Cons will need around a 7% swing to get a working majority, but it's still all to play for and it'll be the 6 month run-up to the GE that counts.

    Mainly from Labour & LDs, it's boots on the ground and gotv that'll be crucial.

    *strokes chin*


    Those are not inconsistent.

    Labour has plenty of supporters, but as we saw yesterday a significant number may not vote - so GOTV (and hence BotG) are critical.

    The Tories need to both GOTV and to win new supporters.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015
    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    Even with a recovery apparently, the voters are saying to the Tories: THanks, but no thanks.

    By the way, I sell to Manufacturing British industry only. And my sales per day this quarter is slightly below last quarter !


    Maybe you're not much of a salesman.
    There will be tears in fourteen months, I tell you.
    There will be tears a lot sooner than that. When is Osborne next in Scotland?

    Quite. There'll be tears before bedtime for YES on 19th September as a day of resounding defeats echo through Scotland.

    Who will you blame for the YES defeat and why will it be so resoundingly rejected ?

    I prefer to do my autopsies post-mortem. Unlike you and George Osborne, I don't yet know if Scotland is going to win or lose on 18 September. It is customary to let the electorate have their say before declaring a winner.

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as YES is already dead in the water.

    This being a political betting site it is customary to put your cash/opinion down before the voters choose as I've yet to find a bookie who's overly keen on letting one wager after the result is known !?!

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

    Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

    Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
    Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

    Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

    More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.
    His ARSE will be nipping shortly
    Jack consumes vast quantities of political vindaloo, prepared with rancid Tory mutton. No wonder his rear-end is in need of lashings of Preparation H.

  • This made me laugh far too much

    Russian minister branded 'gay lover' in Channel 4 subtitle gaffe

    Sergey Lavrov’s name is translated as ‘so gay lover of’ by broadcaster’s automated software in report on Ukraine crisis

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/07/russian-minister-branded-gay-lover-in-channel-4-subtitle-gaffe
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410

    The Pistorius trial is fascinating, for a number of reasons, Roxanne Adams being one of them!
    Sometimes, Barry Roux seems so manic, I half expect him to call some poor witness a "fokking prawn"!

    CLear and obvious psychological tactics - slightly inconsistent recall is I believe a feature of true and genuine memory of an event. There was an argument and then she was shot... Burglar my foot. I believe he is however truly remorseful and regretful for his actions and genuinely wishes he could turn back the clock. But that does not change the facts.

    I believe the judge will be able to see through Roux's attempts to discredit the witnesses - I know which way I would be going if I was the SA Judge or a juror on that trial.

    Mind you the same clear evidence was present in the OJ trial - the jury acquitted there, mainly due to racial prejudice I believe.
  • DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Charles said:


    You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

    Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

    Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
    Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

    Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

    More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.

    Things I have read on PB regarding the the next UK GE.

    Mainly from Tories, the Cons will need around a 7% swing to get a working majority, but it's still all to play for and it'll be the 6 month run-up to the GE that counts.

    Mainly from Labour & LDs, it's boots on the ground and gotv that'll be crucial.

    *strokes chin*


    Those are not inconsistent.

    Labour has plenty of supporters, but as we saw yesterday a significant number may not vote - so GOTV (and hence BotG) are critical.

    The Tories need to both GOTV and to win new supporters.
    The problem for the Tories is that so many former Con voters are Getting Out To Vote... for UKIP.
  • This reminds me of that Sion Simon piece in the new statesman

    John McTernan ‏@johnmcternan 1m

    When Scotland votes No, Scottish Labour will be the big winners. My @TheScotsman column:

    http://bit.ly/1qethUM
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 5m
    Kings Lynn & West Norfolk

    Result

    #Conservatives 78.4%
    #UKIP 21.6%

    A bit of a disappointment for us Kippers.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Carnyx said:

    JackW said:

    I do hope our fraternal PB YES colleagues mellow over the coming months as reality dawns on them.

    So fellow PBers let us now embrace them to the greater PB bosom and condole with them in the darkness of their sad and bleak condition. Let it not be said that PB is found wanting and let us reach out to these wretched individuals and not walk on by.

    Come hither friends. Your cause is doomed but you are not.

    I quite agree about the problems facing the Brexit supporters. Do you think that counsellors should be recruited for them?

    Without doubt.

    Mike may also have to put a "Donate" button up to provide funds for the private dentists required because of all the gnashing of teeth.

  • Pulpstar said:

    The Pistorius trial is fascinating, for a number of reasons, Roxanne Adams being one of them!
    Sometimes, Barry Roux seems so manic, I half expect him to call some poor witness a "fokking prawn"!

    CLear and obvious psychological tactics - slightly inconsistent recall is I believe a feature of true and genuine memory of an event. There was an argument and then she was shot... Burglar my foot. I believe he is however truly remorseful and regretful for his actions and genuinely wishes he could turn back the clock. But that does not change the facts.

    I believe the judge will be able to see through Roux's attempts to discredit the witnesses - I know which way I would be going if I was the SA Judge or a juror on that trial.

    Mind you the same clear evidence was present in the OJ trial - the jury acquitted there, mainly due to racial prejudice I believe.
    There was racial prejudice, but that was from the cop.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman#Role_in_O.J._Simpson_murder_trial
  • Opinium Research ‏@OpiniumResearch 1m

    Opinium's @AGKD123 blog: Despite having “UK” in name UKIP voters among most likely to prefer Scots to be independent http://bit.ly/1dyn8NV
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    Even with a recovery apparently, the voters are saying to the Tories: THanks, but no thanks.

    By the way, I sell to Manufacturing British industry only. And my sales per day this quarter is slightly below last quarter !


    Maybe you're not much of a salesman.
    There will be tears in fourteen months, I tell you.
    There will be tears a lot sooner than that. When is Osborne next in Scotland?

    Quite. There'll be tears before bedtime for YES on 19th September as a day of resounding defeats echo through Scotland.

    Who will you blame for the YES defeat and why will it be so resoundingly rejected ?

    I prefer to do my autopsies post-mortem. Unlike you and George Osborne, I don't yet know if Scotland is going to win or lose on 18 September. It is customary to let the electorate have their say before declaring a winner.

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as YES is already dead in the water.

    This being a political betting site it is customary to put your cash/opinion down before the voters choose as I've yet to find a bookie who's overly keen on letting one wager after the result is known !?!

    You might consider doing your autopsy now as Con Maj is already dead in the water.

    Who will you blame for the Conservatives' defeat and why will they be so resoundingly rejected?

    Current Ladbrokes' YES price = 7/2
    Current Ladbrokes' CON MAJ price = 7/2

    Hmmm... identical prices. And yet, according to Jack YES is dead in the water while CON MAJ is nailed on.

    More hot air than a well-used bagpipe.
    His ARSE will be nipping shortly
    Jack consumes vast quantities of political vindaloo, prepared with rancid Tory mutton. No wonder his rear-end is in need of lashings of Preparation H.

    We'll just forget your blooper about "CON Maj nailed on" shall we ?!?

    Also rancid Tory mutton is far superior to ordinary SNP sheep !!

    Bah .... Bah ....

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JohnO said:

    Virtually no change in today's Populus

    New Populus VI: Lab 37 (=); Cons 34 (=); LD 9 (-1); UKIP 12 (=); Oth 8 (=)

    Scottish split (+/- change UK GE 2010):

    Lab 37% (-5)
    SNP 33% (+13)
    Con 17% (n/c)
    LD 8% (-11)
    UKIP 3% (+2)
    Grn 2% (+1)

    http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Online_VI_06-03-2014_BPC.pdf
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    Opinium Research ‏@OpiniumResearch 1m

    Opinium's @AGKD123 blog: Despite having “UK” in name UKIP voters among most likely to prefer Scots to be independent http://bit.ly/1dyn8NV

    Well, the "Labour" party don't represent workers.

    The "Conservative" party are crap at conserving anything.

    The "Liberal" democrats are illiberal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    This reminds me of that Sion Simon piece in the new statesman

    John McTernan ‏@johnmcternan 1m

    When Scotland votes No, Scottish Labour will be the big winners. My @TheScotsman column:

    http://bit.ly/1qethUM

    Thanks - had missed that. Hmmmm ... "As Labour offer a radical, social democratic vision of Scotland within the UK the left of the SNP face a choice. Equally, as the excellent Ruth Davidson makes her mark on the Scottish Conservatives, pragmatic centre-right policies are developed and offered to voters."

    Yet the SNP are centrist and well to the left of Labour! As is clear every time Ms Lamont goes on about the need for means testing and moans about something for nothing. Irrespective of what one thinks about the merits of the different approaches, it doesn't say much for Mr McTernan that he can't or won't order a simple sequence from L to R. And it would not be the first time Mr McTernan has got his predictions in a twist.

    I was reading this just this morning, with its rather different conclusions

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/scotland-referendum-no-labour-fear

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

    Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

    A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

    Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

    Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

    That is stupid on a lot of levels

    1) The captain should be decided on who is the best person in terms of experience, talent and leadership not on where you are on the nationalist spectrum.
    2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.
    3) You can consider yourself to be Welsh and British at the same time (as most Welsh actually do) . Fair enough if Warbuton said he considered himself to be English but he didn't.
    4) confirms that PC are petty nationalists above anything else
    - "A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection. "

    This from a supporter of the PM who on countless occasions has used sport (eg. the Olympics) to further his own political interests.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/07/article-2553833-1B453B9100000578-636_634x400.jpg

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    JohnLoony said:

    Rejoice! Rejoice!

    The evil homophobic bigot who openly condoned an arson attack on the offices of a gay magazine has, at long last, become a rotting corpse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10681346/Dame-Elaine-Kellett-Bowman.html

    You don't really celebrate the death of a fellow human being do you?
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    This reminds me of that Sion Simon piece in the new statesman

    John McTernan ‏@johnmcternan 1m

    When Scotland votes No, Scottish Labour will be the big winners. My @TheScotsman column:

    http://bit.ly/1qethUM

    You clearly missed my post at the beginning of this thread:
    What do you make of John McTernan's predictions in today's Scotsman? Lab gain
    Caithness and Sutherland. Con gain North East Fife. Con gain Gordon. Con gain West Aberdeenshire. Con gain Berwickshire et al. Even Lab poss gain Inverness.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,062
    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Err, how is that a failure? Canning the contract is actually a success by the government so they can get a better provider for the service. Sticking with a rubbish company is what Labour did and it cost the NHS £12bn for a computer system that still doesn't work properly.

    It's like saying a manager has failed because they had to sack an under performing employee. Only in Labour's world is that the manager's failure and not the employee's failure.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Yes indeed. I am just looking at the amounts of money that have been lent to Chinese companies by the country's banks against their IP rights and the numbers are huge - far, far greater than anywhere else in the world. It is not going to end well.

  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.
    I earn broadly similar to that, And I don't qualify for CTC. Unless the guy has high childcare costs, I'm not sure how he gets it. Looking at the HMRC website, if he earns 25 grand a year, with one kid and no child care costs, he'd get 340 quid a year!


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited March 2014


    This from a supporter of the PM who on countless occasions has used sport (eg. the Olympics) to further his own political interests.

    This from a supporter of the man who came up with "Scolympians" despite his deputy describing it as shameful.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818

    Hmm, what a numpty this Plaid Cymru MP is.

    Has he never heard of the British and Irish Lions?

    A political spat has broken out after a Plaid Cymru MP questioned how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British.

    Warburton had said his nationality was British in response to comments from England players suggesting some of their Welsh rivals "hated" England.

    Jonathan Edwards MP said on Twitter that it was hard to understand how Warburton could be skipper if he did not consider himself Welsh.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

    That is stupid on a lot of levels

    1) The captain should be decided on who is the best person in terms of experience, talent and leadership not on where you are on the nationalist spectrum.
    2) A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection.
    3) You can consider yourself to be Welsh and British at the same time (as most Welsh actually do) . Fair enough if Warbuton said he considered himself to be English but he didn't.
    4) confirms that PC are petty nationalists above anything else
    - "A taxpayer funded MP should have more relevant areas to work and comment on than getting involved in rugby team selection. "

    This from a supporter of the PM who on countless occasions has used sport (eg. the Olympics) to further his own political interests.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/07/article-2553833-1B453B9100000578-636_634x400.jpg

    Sigh! Did Cameron try to interfere with who was selected for the athletics or who carried the flag ? er no
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Awfully politically incorrect of our captain Sam Warburton to say he's British. Surely he is a European.

    Congrats to Sam Warburton for a dose of common sense. Personally I can't abide all the nonsensical trash talking bullsh8t that has accompanied this game from both sides. Its a game of rugby FFS. It's getting worse that boxing.

    As a fervent Welsh supporter I would gladly swap a win against England Sunday for one against SA, NZ or Aus in the summer or the autumn.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.
    I earn broadly similar to that, And I don't qualify for CTC. Unless the guy has high childcare costs, I'm not sure how he gets it. Looking at the HMRC website, if he earns 25 grand a year, with one kid and no child care costs, he'd get 340 quid a year!


    CTC thresholds have come down a lot in the last two years . I used to get the basic amount but nowhere near qualify for it now. I suspect the example given was what he used to be able to claim and maybe , due to the ridiculously complicated and yet not joined up system, still be doing
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    This is why I love PB.

    One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

    And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    taffys said:

    This is why I love PB.

    One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

    And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

    "And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article" - you could have just stopped there.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    AndyJS said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Rejoice! Rejoice!

    The evil homophobic bigot who openly condoned an arson attack on the offices of a gay magazine has, at long last, become a rotting corpse

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10681346/Dame-Elaine-Kellett-Bowman.html

    You don't really celebrate the death of a fellow human being do you?
    Plenty of people do.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    Yes indeed. I am just looking at the amounts of money that have been lent to Chinese companies by the country's banks against their IP rights and the numbers are huge - far, far greater than anywhere else in the world. It is not going to end well.

    The complete mess that is the Chinese financial system is one reason that I am short on equities and long on gold and cash. It is not going to be a gentle landing.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    You too can help Labour write their manifesto based so far on 8 policy documents that are outllined.

    http://labourlist.org/2014/03/writing-our-manifesto-together-from-the-grassroots-up/
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Carnyx said:



    300: Rise of an Empire.

    One word. Wow

    Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

    I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

    At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

    But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

    Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

    *Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

    Senate? In Athens? Maybe just the film's translation, which is fair enough.

    Mind you, I can't imagine the UK establishment putting on plays as part of an official state-religious festival like the Athenians did, with tragedies on the abuse of power, and satirical characters called the equivalent of, say, FartyCameron (a purely academic analogy, with apologies to Mr C), as a modern equivalent of Bdelycleon in Aristophanes' Wasps - who, to quote the helpful website below, "fears that the old man and his senile cronies will ruin Athens by constantly voting according to their geriatric right-wing reactionary inclinations"). And there is the giant dung-beetle which the hero had to fly to Heaven to secure peace, in Peace. I remember being so surprised at school at the way my translations of Aristophanes came out that I had to be reassured by the Greek master that it wasn't a big windup.

    http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/clasdram/chapters/091aristoph.htm
    I dumbed down for the PB Plebs by calling it the Senate.
    The Areopagus had a lot in common with the Roman Senate.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited March 2014
    Anorak said:

    taffys said:

    This is why I love PB.

    One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

    And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

    "And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article" - you could have just stopped there.
    Here's a non shrill piece from Polly in 2006.

    It includes this corker

    People used to laugh when Brown bombastically promised to end boom and bust: it was once the natural British economic weather. Who's having the last laugh now?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/21/comment.budget2006
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    300: Rise of an Empire.

    One word. Wow

    Ok, it was as historically accurate as Morris Dancer's observation on the Second Punic War Michael Gove's thoughts on The First World War.

    I mean I can't ever imagine Athenian senators debating with each other and saying "Shut your cockhole"

    At times it was (deliberately) camper than a row of pink tents, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments.

    But it was an enjoyable, story and visceral treat, if you loved the first one, you'll love this one.

    Final thought, I would do horrible, unforgivable things to conquer Eva Green's [moderated]*

    *Yes, I know a terrible human being, and deserve to be punished, by her.

    How big a role does Lena Headey have?
    Lena Headey is so good as Cersei.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014
    taffys said:

    Awfully politically incorrect of our captain Sam Warburton to say he's British. Surely he is a European.

    Congrats to Sam Warburton for a dose of common sense. Personally I can't abide all the nonsensical trash talking bullsh8t that has accompanied this game from both sides. Its a game of rugby FFS. It's getting worse that boxing.

    As a fervent Welsh supporter I would gladly swap a win against England Sunday for one against SA, NZ or Aus in the summer or the autumn.

    Totally agree, far too much hype about nationalism in sport creeping in . If there is to be hype then it needs to be about expecting great talent or feats not about hating another country or even totally loving your own

    even cricket is getting bad in this respect with the ridiculous singing of anthems and Jerusalem in the Ashes Summer series
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    taffys said:

    This is why I love PB.

    One day after we were discussing why the tories aren;t targeting Wales more, Grant Schapps is all over the front of Wales online.

    And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article defending Ed's rotten principality.

    "And Polly Toynbee writes a shrill article" - you could have just stopped there.
    Here's a non shrill piece from Polly in 2006.

    It includes this corker

    People used to laugh when Brown bombastically promised to end boom and bust: it was once the natural British economic weather. Who's having the last laugh now?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/21/comment.budget2006
    Tremble before the Antinostradamus.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.

    I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably have more free cash than they did when they lived together.

    I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

    Its not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I think the thresholds have been much reduced in the last two years from those David quotes
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?

    The key word seems to be lower ,hardly a failure
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Charting the Tories' miserable failure on unemployment going right back to the early nineties.

    Note how in desperation they fiddled the claimant count so it dropped away from the IFO series.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I am wandering slightly outside my comfort zone at the moment by getting involved in a divorce case which (happily) involves some interesting company law problems. But I am just, yet again utterly gobsmacked at what I am seeing.

    The director of the company is paying himself £2K a month at the moment. He has one child with him and he is receiving £198 PER WEEK in CTC plus, of course £80 per month CB. His wife is receiving benefits of £2,000 per month for herself and the other 2 kids to which he contributes £200 a month through the CSA.

    So a family that were previously taxpayers are now being subsidised by the state to the tune of over £2,600 a month. It is just incredible.

    What is even more alarming and frankly outrageous is that because of the sleight of hand by Brown very little of this shows in the national acccounts. Instead of this showing as a huge increase in benefit spending it shows as deflated income tax receipts (since the CTC and WTC are simply debited there). I really do not understand why the government has tolerated this nonsense. It makes it very difficult to work out what the cost of inwork benefits are and distorts the apparent returns on income tax.

    In the interests of clarity I would urge George Osborne in the budget to fix this so that the amounts paid out in CTC and WTC is added to the benefits bill. We could then have a sensible conversation about the affordability of low skill, minimum wage, part time people working so that they qualify for this avalanche of additional entitlements. At the moment this is very difficult to do. And extremely difficult to afford.

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably h

    I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

    ITs not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I thinkt he thresholds have been much reduced in he last two years from those David quotes

    I ain't quoting 'em, it's David's client who is supposedly getting CTC at that level. I just can't see it. If its true, I want some of that!

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?

    The key word seems to be lower ,hardly a failure
    Yes, let's leave millions languishing on the dole for ages.

    The Tory way after all.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    If I was you Ben, I'd be busy dreaming up excuses for the labour services meltdown in the principality that is finally being dragged into the spotlight.

    How about these?

    Wales has lots of valleys and mountains and stuff and so its more difficult to get to schools and hospitals.
    Welsh people are going to England for their health treatment because the weather's a bit nicer.
    Welsh children are falling behind their English counterparts because they are thinking about Gareth Bale too much.
    Its not fair because England have decided to bring in all these academies and free schools without telling us how good they would be.
    Cruel English people expoited our resources a century ago, which is not that long ago when you think about it.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Yes, let's leave millions languishing on the dole for ages.

    That's the labour way, as benefits street pointed out in spades.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    taffys said:

    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    If I was you Ben, I'd be busy dreaming up excuses for the labour services meltdown in the principality that is finally being dragged into the spotlight.


    Its not fair because England have decided to bring in all these academies and free schools without telling us how good they would be.


    That's definitely case not proven and if anything the early evidence is negative.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

    Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    hat's definitely case not proven and if anything the early evidence is negative.

    You and Polly really are in Dalek mode this morning

    Coalition better than us on health and education....''DOES NOT COMPUTE......DOES NOT COMPUTE.....!!!''
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,565

    Good morning all and I noted that as the polls have been indicating the Tories are a lost cause in the north of England. That will fully explain why they took the Bury seat yesterday on a fairly large swing.

    Just how much of that 37-41% Labour vote expressed in the polls represents people who actually go out to vote rather than just shout their mouths off?

    A very good Tory result in Bury, but in weeks where Labour has had poor polls but good local elections I've resisted the "Oh, look at the real votes" line. I'd always rather have a good national poll, since individual local elections usually have unique special factors. I'm not at all worried by the GOTV competition on the day (the Tory ground war these days is very thinly stretched and suffers from lack of recent canvass information), though I do think the Tories are much better at postal votes as a rule (Bury was a spectacular example, with two thirds of the turnout being postal votes), and at anything else they can do by post. 2015 will be a good test of air war vs ground war, in fact.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably h

    I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

    ITs not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I thinkt he thresholds have been much reduced in he last two years from those David quotes
    I ain't quoting 'em, it's David's client who is supposedly getting CTC at that level. I just can't see it. If its true, I want some of that!



    This is the benefits he is getting now. I met him on Wednesday. Given the age of the child I think some of it might be WTC rather than CTC but he has absolutely no incentive to overstate the figures, quite the reverse really.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @DavidL

    I largely agree with you on CTC/WTC;

    Your example is perhaps not anonymous enough for a public blog.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Good morning all and I noted that as the polls have been indicating the Tories are a lost cause in the north of England. That will fully explain why they took the Bury seat yesterday on a fairly large swing.

    Just how much of that 37-41% Labour vote expressed in the polls represents people who actually go out to vote rather than just shout their mouths off?

    A very good Tory result in Bury, but in weeks where Labour has had poor polls but good local elections I've resisted the "Oh, look at the real votes" line. I'd always rather have a good national poll, since individual local elections usually have unique special factors. I'm not at all worried by the GOTV competition on the day (the Tory ground war these days is very thinly stretched and suffers from lack of recent canvass information), though I do think the Tories are much better at postal votes as a rule (Bury was a spectacular example, with two thirds of the turnout being postal votes), and at anything else they can do by post. 2015 will be a good test of air war vs ground war, in fact.

    It was a good result for the Conservatives (particularly as UKIP polled quite well in a marginal seat). However, I think there is a view that is a seat that the Conservatives should never have lost in the first place.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

    Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

    The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

    Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015
    And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:

    "The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland."
    http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/

    Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:


    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010.

    Made even more impressive by the population of working age going up as SPA rises for women (you'd expect women aged 60-62 to have a lower than average participation rate).
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

    Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

    The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

    Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!
    Even the Labour front bench have stopped dissing the Tories for the overall employment/unemployment figures Ben -To get on message you need to moan about the types of job the tories are creating , you know generally useful ones rather than proper jobs like coordinator roles and diversity managers
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2014
    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

    Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

    The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

    Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!
    To be fair, Labour were bequeathed a golden legacy (again) and unusually managed to spin it out for almost a decade before the inevitable economic clusterfuck.

    On the other hand the Tories record of stabilising and now reducing unemployment in the teeth of the worst and most wide-spread global recession in generations is nothing short of witchcraft, especially given the structural deficit they inherited.

    Or don't you remember the bleats of "5 million unemployed"?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    BenM said:

    RobD said:

    BenM said:

    More Tory failure

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26470392

    Tory Failures are stacking up so much they're teetering.

    Because government contracts were just peachy under Labour!
    The Tory Work Programme is a colossal failure.

    yes a huge failure given how much unemployment has dropped since labour
    130,000 lower in 4 years?
    And about a million more in work than 4 years ago.

    Labour posted "record highs" in employment throughout its term in office.

    With a growing population that's not a particularly difficult metric to achieve.
    As a proportion of the population of working age, the proportion of people in employment is about 1.5% higher than in May 2010. That's about 500,000 people.

    Whatever their other faults, the Coalition has enjoyed a great deal of success on employment.

    The Tories switch to talking about "employment" rather than "unemployment" because their record on those out of work is utterly abysmal, as it always is.

    Yet the Tory record on "employment" still compares poorly to most of Labour's period in office too!
    Both unemployment and employment are a good deal better than they were in May 2010.

    When employment rises, more people come back into the Labour market. That's why economic inactivity is also a good deal lower than four years ago.

    I'd have thought you'd consider this to be a good thing.

  • I have concluded that eating BenM would be a vegan act - not merely vegetarian.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited March 2014
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T
    I

    How's he getting CTC (Child Tax Credits?) on that salary?

    My understanding is that he could get CTC (albeit on a diminishing scale) on twice that salary since you can still qualify up to just over £50K a year. The£2K is gross so he nets about £1600 pcm.

    Because the family is split up they clearly have a lot more housing costs etc but it does seem to me that the consequences of all of this are being borne by the taxpayer not the parties themselves who probably h

    I'm sorry, David, but I can't find anywhere in the HMRC entitlement tables where a single parent, with one child, earning 24 grand a year can get nearly 800 quid a month in CTC. If he does, then what the feck have this government been doing?

    ITs not an easy system to work out (thanks Labour) but I thinkt he thresholds have been much reduced in he last two years from those David quotes
    I ain't quoting 'em, it's David's client who is supposedly getting CTC at that level. I just can't see it. If its true, I want some of that!

    This is the benefits he is getting now. I met him on Wednesday. Given the age of the child I think some of it might be WTC rather than CTC but he has absolutely no incentive to overstate the figures, quite the reverse really.



    I don't doubt you, David, but there's no way he's getting over 9 grand a year in tax credits for one kid, even if he has the maximum childcare costs, if he's earning 24 grand.

    Here are the entitlement tables.

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/index.htm

    If he is, then the system is broken beyond all repair, and this coalition government isn't fit for purpose, and should just give up.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I have been in and out of meetings with commissioners for weeks as it is peak time for signing off next years contracts. Money is very tight, but I have never seen such a positive and collaborative engagement in previous years.

    These reforms are a mixture of bottom up and top down (sevices commissioned as specialist services are dealt with by National Health England). The local CCG bits are working well, the centralised bits less so. As ever NHE is dominated by London centric pen pushers to whom everything outside the M25 is "here be dragons". Far better than Wales by the sound of it.

    Norman Lamb is doing an excellent job in Health; and Hunt is better than I expected.
    taffys said:

    hat's definitely case not proven and if anything the early evidence is negative.

    You and Polly really are in Dalek mode this morning

    Coalition better than us on health and education....''DOES NOT COMPUTE......DOES NOT COMPUTE.....!!!''

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015

    @DavidL

    I largely agree with you on CTC/WTC;

    Your example is perhaps not anonymous enough for a public blog.

    I was conscious of that and tried to keep things sufficiently annoymous. It is a point well made though.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2014
    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmaster's decision - especially given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BenM obviously lives in Denailland..nice comfy place.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    edited March 2014
    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave

    It did amuse me that the film I saw last weekend (Monuments Men) had a warning that it 'contained moderate violence AND scenes of smoking!!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2014

    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
    It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternatives are higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

    Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmaster's decision - especially given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Brave policy from the school.
    Actually sounds like a good thing...

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    DavidL said:


    Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.

    Once was all that was required. And it was timed to perfection. The Chancellor created a 'material fact' (that current and potential future rUK CotE say 'no currency union') which companies are legally obliged to reflect on and, if necessary, address in their reports.

    Reporting season has started and I would be surprised if many more Scottish registered (and English registered with substantial Scottish businesses) companies do not address this. For some it will be 'this may happen, but we do not see it affecting our business', others 'we've called the movers, just in case'.......
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,818
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
    It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

    Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
    yes I meant that you cannot allow one school to be more permissive just because the kids there do not behave and not give the same allowance to other schools where kids can behave. It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    DavidL said:


    Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.

    Once was all that was required. And it was timed to perfection. The Chancellor created a 'material fact' (that current and potential future rUK CotE say 'no currency union') which companies are legally obliged to reflect on and, if necessary, address in their reports.

    Reporting season has started and I would be surprised if many more Scottish registered (and English registered with substantial Scottish businesses) companies do not address this. For some it will be 'this may happen, but we do not see it affecting our business', others 'we've called the movers, just in case'.......
    You just don't get it do you, it's blustering and bullying from Osborne, nothing more....

    *titters*
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @BenM

    Two facts for you to reflect on :

    1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.

    2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2014

    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
    It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

    Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
    yes I meant that you cannot allow one school to be more permissive just because the kids there do not behave and not give the same allowance to other schools where kids can behave. It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair
    Over-rigidity in the education system has been a festering canker in this country for decades. Giving headteachers in academies the ability to adapt to local needs has been a stunning success.

    Given your user name, I'd have thought you'd agree :)
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    edited March 2014

    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
    It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

    Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
    It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair
    Rubbish.

    This is a school dealing with children who have failed, often several times, in mainstream education. Keeping these children in FTE is hard, but surely it is better that they are in school than absconding.

    Are you suggesting that the school is going to be attractive to kids who smoke so much that they get themselves expelled (repeatedly) until they are referred?

  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    For a main party that is the only real opposition in mid term, some of the performances of Labour in some of the Council by-elections in the south/affluent areas are really quite dreadful especially given their opinion poll rating at the moment
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550
    And this gives numerical breakdown for tax and nic receipts, including WTC and CTC https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282929/20140212_HMRCReceiptsBulletin_Jan_v0.1.pdf
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550
    So for comparison for 12/13 IT receipts were £152b with CTC and WTC £30b approximately
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    JackW said:

    @BenM

    Two facts for you to reflect on :

    1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.

    2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.

    Hi Jack
    Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited March 2014

    DavidL said:


    Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.

    Once was all that was required. And it was timed to perfection. The Chancellor created a 'material fact' (that current and potential future rUK CotE say 'no currency union') which companies are legally obliged to reflect on and, if necessary, address in their reports.

    Reporting season has started and I would be surprised if many more Scottish registered (and English registered with substantial Scottish businesses) companies do not address this. For some it will be 'this may happen, but we do not see it affecting our business', others 'we've called the movers, just in case'.......
    You might want to read the quotation given by Mr L more carefully. It is only about independence yes/no, and the financial companies are of course going to say that sort of thing because they have to, and to set up nameplates in EWNI just in case, because they will be in two (presumably increasingly) different regulatory regimes and jurisdictions. There is nothing to do with Mr Osborne's speech in that. It may have been "good timing" for Mr Osborne's speech, in the sense that every single "mibbes aye, mibbes naw, we'll keep the options open either way" can be spun by the media as you do. But it's not the same thing.

    Just wait till the UKIP really crank things up!!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,015
    Thanks for the link. The summary that is perhaps the most interesting is:

    "Table 2.1 shows that, on 02 December 2013:
    4.6 million families, containing 7.7 million children, were tax credit recipients
    or were receiving the equivalent child support through benefits;
    These families comprised:
    4.1 million families with children receiving CTC, or the equivalent via benefits:
    1.4 million in which no adult was in-work
    1.9 million in-work receiving the maximum CTC, and also receiving WTC
    0.8 million in-work receiving less than the maximum CTC
    0.5 million families in-work without children, receiving only WTC.
    2.6 million recipient families were couples (2.2 million had children).
    2.0 million were single adults (1.9 million had children).
    Later tables show that:
    422 thousand families were benefiting from the childcare element of WTC; they were receiving an average of £59 per week help with their childcare costs;
    115 thousand families were benefiting from the disabled worker element of WTC;

    Any which way you add this up it is a lot of money. 422K x£59 x52= £1,294,696,000 for child care alone.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I know of a Leicestershire organisation with a total smoking ban for all users on the grounds, but with an exception made for the alcoholics anonymous. The feeling was that alcohol withdrawal was hard enough without adding smoking cold turkey on top. Seems reasonable to me.

    Homeless men have some of the highest smoking rates (90% is typical) so any scheme that fails to recognise this is not going to be engaged with. I suspect the pupil referal unit is similar. Life is full of compromises.
    Anorak said:

    Anorak said:

    School allows 14 year olds to have smoking breaks.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-26480334

    Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.

    Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
    It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternatives are higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.

    Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Life is full of compromises.

    It's useful if the teachers are imposing a trade off ie, you lot can have fag breaks if in return you behave or whatever.
This discussion has been closed.