It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
It's an old cliché, I know, but the Fire Service is genuinely heading for a crisis. We already ride pumps with the bare minimum of crew, which is 4, 5 is better, and attendance times are creeping up. There is no doubt that the Fire Service is under utilised, incidents are down. But, crucially, we're getting to the point that when we are needed, we're stretched. The Ambos are in the same boat, albeit because they're super busy, and for all the talk of increased coppers on the beat, I'm not seeing 'em. It's no fun turning up to a fully involved house fire with just 4 of us. That wait for backup can seem a long time.
Higher prices have stimulated exploding construction in London. 250 towers planned, mostly residential. If overseas demand cools, it's by no means out of the question property will cheapen relative to earnings.
I remember going to a club in the 90s where two girls were dressed like that, and they were actually nurses.
Presumably, the nurses only look like that if you're with BUPA?
I had a gorgeous blonde physiotherapist when I was being treated under private healthcare in London. I'd see her twice a week, and thankfully she never wore anything like that uniform. If she had, there might have been an unfortunate accident ...
She introduced me to Prof. Watkins, who finally made it possible for me to walk without pain. So I've a great deal to thank her for. Through a moment's inspiration and a bit of blagging, she changed my life.
That must be one of the great things about being a doctor, or indeed at the business end of healthcare: you can really change lives for the better.
Many, many years ago, as part of my pharmaceutical duties, I used to fit surgical trusses. Seeing men walk in bent over and walk out upright saying they felt better than they had for ages was very, very rewarding.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
Serious question: could another factor be the Scottish referendum?
The No campaign likes to claim there will be no change to the status quo, and by implication no spending cuts in the event of a No - Mr Darling said a few days ago; "if Scotland was independent today we would have no option but to cut spending on services like schools and hospitals or put up taxes – or probably both. Today as part of the UK we don't have to do that." There are 2 ways to read that, of course, one being that he's not mentioning the cuts tomorrow ...
Maybe in an indirect way. I suspect that one of the reasons for this interminable campaign is that Salmond thought that by 2014 there would be a whole raft of "tory cuts" which he could point to and promise to fix if only we got control of our affairs.
If that was the plan it seems to have worked as well as most of the White Paper. This budget is their last chance to tell such a tale. The other problem was the report this week indicating that an independent Scotland would have to make even larger cuts, something that the previous reports had not indicated.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
Surely if we are looking for a cause for this closing of the scores (and I take anitfrank's point) it has to be the better economy. The news has been more consistently good in recent months and we are getting to the point when speculation about the budget is highlighting the better situation.
I still think this is a very tricky budget politically. There is a real need to reduce the deficit so there is no real money about. Osborne will be looking for quite a big bang for quite small bucks and that is always tricky. All in it together is due another run out which is problematic as well.
He did well last year by skipping the gimmicks. I hope he has learned that lesson even if it makes the budget duller. At the moment, even politically, looking grown up and competent is more than enough given the choices available.
It's true that the economy is looking up, and I've posted in the past that the recession didn't hit me and mine too hard-pension contributions up significantly, no payrises, but that was balanced out by low mortgage rates, only a couple of people( friends of friends, really) lost jobs, but on the whole, we got through it, maybe a little poorer in real terms, but almost intact......but....... That's going to change next year. The Public Sector is going to take a big hit, with the first proper cuts implemented. All the fat has been cut, cost savings have all been implemented, there's not a lot more natural wastage to go. It has to be implemented over the next year, and then the 2 years after that. That won't feed into the "Economy on the up" meme.
It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
I should say Mr Stopper that I replied to your earlier post before I read your later ones. I wish you all the very best in your own personal circumstances. I thought on re-reading my reply after catching up that it sounded heartless at best. There was no such intention.
Had a look in the window of my estate agent (Something I dare not do for several years after buying my house) seems prices are more or less where they were in 2009 to my eye (North midlands)
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
They pay VAT, though. And what are the costs of collecting minimal amounts of income tax?
Nice timing by the Tories: pulling even with LAB just as the IndyRef hots up. This is going to be hilarious watching Lamont and Co squirm as they try to be Cameron's little helpers without their voter base noticing.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
They pay VAT, though. And what are the costs of collecting minimal amounts of income tax?
Through PAYE? Minimal. The fact is that unless you are on more than about £27k a year (I think) you are net taker of tax. That number needs to come down not up, because we are otherwise approaching the point where 51% of the population democratically votes to expropriate the other 49%.
Nice timing by the Tories: pulling even with LAB just as the IndyRef hots up. This is going to be hilarious watching Lamont and Co squirm as they try to be Cameron's little helpers without their voter base noticing.
In what way has the IndyRef hotted up? You've been behind for years, and you're going to lose (unfortunately).
Everybody is aware of this and this is why it's of nil interest to anyone at all. To think it matters in the slightest is to exhibit no sense of proportion and a profound lack of judgement.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
They pay VAT, though. And what are the costs of collecting minimal amounts of income tax?
Through PAYE? Minimal. The fact is that unless you are on more than about £27k a year (I think) you are net taker of tax. That number needs to come down not up, because we are otherwise approaching the point where 51% of the population democratically votes to expropriate the other 49%.
Given how much of the income tax take comes from the top 1 and 10% of earners, we're practically in that situation already and the election of Labour will only aggravate it. Quite apart from the fundamental unfairness, it is stupid to be so reliant on such a small number of taxpayers for such a large proportion of our tax take. It's tantamount to a key man risk.
It's an old cliché, I know, but the Fire Service is genuinely heading for a crisis. We already ride pumps with the bare minimum of crew, which is 4, 5 is better, and attendance times are creeping up. There is no doubt that the Fire Service is under utilised, incidents are down. But, crucially, we're getting to the point that when we are needed, we're stretched. The Ambos are in the same boat, albeit because they're super busy, and for all the talk of increased coppers on the beat, I'm not seeing 'em. It's no fun turning up to a fully involved house fire with just 4 of us. That wait for backup can seem a long time.
I don't doubt it. The really depressing thing is that that increasing the public sector by over 1m in the last government had so little effect on the front line. Our public sector is massively over managed, generates far too much paperwork which seems to exist to justify the employment of others as much as for its utility and always seems to want to cut the sharp end as opposed to, say, personnel.
Modern IT should reduce the need for management as it does in private companies but in the public sector it just seems to increase it.
I think demand for UK property is so deep that a permanent rout of the market is highly unlikely. Even if overseas buyers pulled out en masse, there is still very healthy demand domestically to take up the slack in time.
Nice timing by the Tories: pulling even with LAB just as the IndyRef hots up. This is going to be hilarious watching Lamont and Co squirm as they try to be Cameron's little helpers without their voter base noticing.
In what way has the IndyRef hotted up? You've been behind for years, and you're going to lose (unfortunately).
Everybody is aware of this and this is why it's of nil interest to anyone at all. To think it matters in the slightest is to exhibit no sense of proportion and a profound lack of judgement.
If it's of nil interest, WHY DO YOU KEEP COMMENTING ON IT?
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Just popped in to see what was going on and lo and behold poor old OGH is desperately spinning for all his life to promote those dismal Libdems in he last thread. Clearly he thinks that the 14th of January this year is a 'very long time ago' as that was the last time the Libdems scored higher than UKIP in three polls from separate pollsters (ICM, Populus,Mori) in the same week.
As to its significance given Populus and ICM almost always report a Libdem advantage and Mori has been plus or minus a couple of points for months with Yougov occasionally reporting a Libdem lead the likelihood of such an event is reasonably high.
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Hence why the other place is clearly superior - all colleges are north of that particular landmark... ;-)
@MattChorley: Here's a thing. Voter satisfaction for Ed Miliband is barely better than William Hague's at same point in 2000 http://t.co/sdte5Rj1IA
Intriguing how Cameron's trajectory first follows the classic loser's path - like Hague, Howard, and IDS, but then it picks up strongly circa 2007? That must be because Brown took over around then, I presume. So Cameron gained by contrast.
Not just Brown taking over, but Dave giving the speech of his career at the Tory conference that year. The inheritance tax pledge also worked wonders for his rating despite it coming from Osborne. If there was ever such a thing as a game changer the Dave's 2007 conference speech was it.
The Divsional Court (Hallett LJ, Ouseley & Haddon-Cave JJ) has reserved judgment in the judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to grant a burial licence in respect of the remains of His late Majesty Richard III.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
All poor people in the country pay a lot of tax, seeing as every tenner they spend they have to hand over two quid to the government. Given that they are forced to spend a much larger share of their income just to get by, relative to the middle class, I don't think they should be hit income tax as well.
That would herald a "Michael Foot Period" for the Tories.
Govey is a class act without peer in UK Politics today and a thouroughly decent man to boot, are you a teacher or self-interested Union lackey by any chance.
Nope, neither.
It is painfully obvious, to anybody with half a brain, that Gove is a walking, talking, breathing liability. He just oozes liability.
But, by all means, feel free to elect him Tory leader. No complaints from me.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
They pay VAT, though. And what are the costs of collecting minimal amounts of income tax?
Through PAYE? Minimal. The fact is that unless you are on more than about £27k a year (I think) you are net taker of tax. That number needs to come down not up, because we are otherwise approaching the point where 51% of the population democratically votes to expropriate the other 49%.
Still have to decide on coding tubers etc. And write to everyone. Agree it’s cheaper than it used to be ..... or ought to be, given computerisation, but there’s still a cost to someone.
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Hey, we're talking about Oxford here. It only exists to churn out soulless and characterless automatons. Cambridge generates a much better class of spygraduate.
That would herald a "Michael Foot Period" for the Tories.
Govey is a class act without peer in UK Politics today and a thouroughly decent man to boot, are you a teacher or self-interested Union lackey by any chance.
Nope, neither.
It is painfully obvious, to anybody with half a brain, that Gove is a walking, talking, breathing liability. He just oozes liability.
But, by all means, feel free to elect him Tory leader. No complaints from me.
On the other hand, to anyone with a full brain, he is not a liability.
(Although I don't think he would make a good leader).
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Nabavi & Grandiose vs. Charles & LIAMT
I am not convinced.
There is definitely something non-conformist about that college next to the King's Arms though.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
They pay VAT, though. And what are the costs of collecting minimal amounts of income tax?
Through PAYE? Minimal. The fact is that unless you are on more than about £27k a year (I think) you are net taker of tax. That number needs to come down not up, because we are otherwise approaching the point where 51% of the population democratically votes to expropriate the other 49%.
Still have to decide on coding tubers etc. And write to everyone. Agree it’s cheaper than it used to be ..... or ought to be, given computerisation, but there’s still a cost to someone.
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Hey, we're talking about Oxford here. It only exists to churn out soulless and characterless automatons. Cambridge generates a much better class of spygraduate.
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
With one or two exceptions, the test is whether the college is north of All Souls. Graduates of colleges to the south (Cameron, Miliband, Osborne) tend to fall into the identikit category.
Nabavi & Grandiose vs. Charles & LIAMT
I am not convinced.
There is definitely something non-conformist about that college next to the King's Arms though.
In my defence I am not a PPEist and Brasenose is only fractionally south of All Souls'. My brother, who is a PPEist, sits safely to the north. Mind you he's off to the Treasury next year, so...
Hey, we're talking about Oxford here. It only exists to churn out soulless and characterless automatons. Cambridge generates a much better class of spygraduate.
I don't know very much about so a modern university as Cambridge, save that Cantabrians zealously persecuted Oxonians for heresy from the days of Wyclif until the Reformation, and were remarkably disloyal after the Second World War. There is something absolutely wonderful about reading Damian R. Leader's History of the University of Cambridge, I, (Cambridge, 1988), which covers in 400 pages the history of that institution from its emergence until 1546. In the introduction, he could only express the wish that one day the history of that technical college will be as well documented as the University of Oxford's. That consists inter alia of a magnificent eight volume series (Oxford, 1984-), of which the first three volumes (of c. 800 pages each) cover emergence until the end of the sixteenth century. As always, Cambridge remains in Oxford's intellectual shadow.
All poor people in the country pay a lot of tax, seeing as every tenner they spend they have to hand over two quid to the government.
Presumably you're basing that on the idea that £8 + VAT ~ £10? Not everything one spends on is VATable (eg rent and most food), so they're not paying 20% out in tax.
Even if they were, though, it doesn't alter the fact that paying 20% of £10,000 in does not even begin to cover what you take out. This is fine as long as you have a stable population of both low and high earners. It is categorically not fine if you do not, and we don't - we have pretty much unfettered immigration, so we have more and more of the sub-£10,000 bracket consuming more and more services at a net loss in tax paid in versus tax taken out.
It is quite clear that if 100 million immigrants were to arrive paying no or next to tax we couldn't survive. 50 million ditto. 25 million ditto. So what lower number of non-taxpayers can we afford? It may be less than we already have.
Hey, we're talking about Oxford here. It only exists to churn out soulless and characterless automatons. Cambridge generates a much better class of spygraduate.
I don't know very much about so a modern university as Cambridge, save that Cantabrians zealously persecuted Oxonians for heresy from the days of Wyclif until the Reformation, and were remarkably disloyal after the Second World War. There is something absolutely wonderful about reading Damian R. Leader's History of the University of Cambridge, I, (Cambridge, 1988), which covers in 400 pages the history of that institution from its emergence until 1546. In the introduction, he could only express the wish that one day the history of that technical college will be as well documented as the University of Oxford's. That consists inter alia of a magnificent eight volume series (Oxford, 1984-), of which the first three volumes (of c. 800 pages each) cover emergence until the end of the sixteenth century. As always, Cambridge remains in Oxford's intellectual shadow.
That's just a sign of how hard Oxford has to work in order to keep up with the excellence of Cambridge. The city that (I will reluctantly admit) gave us Tolkein and CS Lewis (before the latter became all sensible and moved to Cambridge) producing a series of self-aggrandising and inherently stuffy, unreadable books about itself.
Oxford is the Silmarillion, whilst Cambridge is the Lord of the Rings.
Oh, and Cambridge is by far the safer city. I've seen two documentary series that revealed Oxford's massive murder rate. Morse and Lewis, I think they were called.
All poor people in the country pay a lot of tax, seeing as every tenner they spend they have to hand over two quid to the government.
Presumably you're basing that on the idea that £8 + VAT ~ £10? Not everything one spends on is VATable (eg rent and most food), so they're not paying 20% out in tax.
Even if they were, though, it doesn't alter the fact that paying 20% of £10,000 in does not even begin to cover what you take out. This is fine as long as you have a stable population of both low and high earners. It is categorically not fine if you do not, and we don't - we have pretty much unfettered immigration, so we have more and more of the sub-£10,000 bracket consuming more and more services at a net loss in tax paid in versus tax taken out.
It is quite clear that if 100 million immigrants were to arrive paying no or next to tax we couldn't survive. 50 million ditto. 25 million ditto. So what lower number of non-taxpayers can we afford? It may be less than we already have.
Each immigrant in the UK costs £3,000/day according to Migration Watch.
So just one million immigrants would cost the UK £3billion.
We have 8m immigrants, so that means the cost to the UK is £24billion a day. In total that means that immigration costs us £8.8trillion/year.
If we were to remove the immigrants British GDP would be £8.8 trillion higher, and there would only be 52 million of us.
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000. Without immigrants, assuming Migration Watch is correct (*), we would be the richest people on the planet.
If that had been the 3:30 at Catterick result would have been altered.
ha! Big ask to change the Gold Cup result. Bit like big penalty shouts. Then again looked to be a senior group of stewards.
I wasn't on either so this isn't my pocket talking -
But they admitted interference. The winner won by a short head. This is racing under rules, not a point to point.
I'd have understood if they'd taken it away from him - but then it isn't a question of geometry. Several variables, Russell had his whip in the correct hand, there is interference all over the place and it's more art than science but yes I take your point on one reading.
In your shoes I'd be in the scared shitless camp too. I do note that you said in working out how to save money your Chief has said nothing is off the table, does that mean his swanky new HQ and all the admin wallahs that have been employed to staff it are up for the chop? How about his own job? A merger with one or more neighbouring brigades would find lots of savings without affecting front-line fire and rescue work at all.
I suspect that there are a lot of ways Fire and Rescue could make very significant savings but they all seem to involve people in brigade HQs and County Council Offices losing out. The two administrative counties of Sussex have had one shared police force for nearly fifty years, one ambulance service for quite a few years but a recent attempt to merge the two fire brigades was abandoned as it was "impossible".
The way things are shaping up over here, you'd think that all the Republicans have to do to gain control of the US Senate is to stick to Obamacare and the economy, and not to have any idiots running for office. Simple, right?
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
Hey, we're talking about Oxford here. It only exists to churn out soulless and characterless automatons. Cambridge generates a much better class of spygraduate.
I don't know very much about so a modern university as Cambridge, save that Cantabrians zealously persecuted Oxonians for heresy from the days of Wyclif until the Reformation, and were remarkably disloyal after the Second World War. There is something absolutely wonderful about reading Damian R. Leader's History of the University of Cambridge, I, (Cambridge, 1988), which covers in 400 pages the history of that institution from its emergence until 1546. In the introduction, he could only express the wish that one day the history of that technical college will be as well documented as the University of Oxford's. That consists inter alia of a magnificent eight volume series (Oxford, 1984-), of which the first three volumes (of c. 800 pages each) cover emergence until the end of the sixteenth century. As always, Cambridge remains in Oxford's intellectual shadow.
That's just a sign of how hard Oxford has to work in order to keep up with the excellence of Cambridge. The city that (I will reluctantly admit) gave us Tolkein and CS Lewis (before the latter became all sensible and moved to Cambridge) producing a series of self-aggrandising and inherently stuffy, unreadable books about itself.
Oxford is the Silmarillion, whilst Cambridge is the Lord of the Rings.
Oh, and Cambridge is by far the safer city. I've seen two documentary series that revealed Oxford's massive murder rate. Morse and Lewis, I think they were called.
Oxford seems to have a level of violent crime similar to Johannesburg.
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000.
I suspect you may have misconstrued MW...I thought they said the net value of an immigrant was a Mars bar per year?
But if we take the fag packet estimate wot I have read, that under £27k makes you a net taker, then adding more people under £27k increases the net amount being taken out. It doesn't matter how VAT they pay or what they spend their money on, they're a net cost to the taxpayer. This can only be funded by charging everyone else more. It shouldn't be a surprise that importing poor people costs taxpayers, and therefore we should stop doing so.
What is the earthly point of getting rid of north Britain if we then simply replace it with 5 million spongers from elsewhere?
It was always very strange politics to back load the cuts in public spending towards the end of the Parliament as I have commented many times before. I think Osborne simply concluded that the economy could not take them in 2010. I suspect the Lib Dems hoped that growth and surging tax revenues would make them unnecessary. If so they underestimated the scale of the problem. Approximatley 5.5m people currently work in the public sector and some of them are going to lose their jobs. Many more are going to be asked to do more for no more money and even more still are going to feel under threat and concerned about their future. This is inevitable but it is not great politics.
Serious question: could another factor be the Scottish referendum?
The No campaign likes to claim there will be no change to the status quo, and by implication no spending cuts in the event of a No - Mr Darling said a few days ago; "if Scotland was independent today we would have no option but to cut spending on services like schools and hospitals or put up taxes – or probably both. Today as part of the UK we don't have to do that." There are 2 ways to read that, of course, one being that he's not mentioning the cuts tomorrow ...
Maybe in an indirect way. I suspect that one of the reasons for this interminable campaign is that Salmond thought that by 2014 there would be a whole raft of "tory cuts" which he could point to and promise to fix if only we got control of our affairs.
If that was the plan it seems to have worked as well as most of the White Paper. This budget is their last chance to tell such a tale. The other problem was the report this week indicating that an independent Scotland would have to make even larger cuts, something that the previous reports had not indicated.
David, more Tory lies I see. Can you show me where any credible person showed cuts were necessary. Or are you basing that on a single GERS report and missing the huge surplus we had in the previous 4 years that would have paid for the cut in revenue ( caused by Tories ) and much more, even if we had been stupid enough to follow Tory plans.
The Divsional Court (Hallett LJ, Ouseley & Haddon-Cave JJ) has reserved judgment in the judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to grant a burial licence in respect of the remains of His late Majesty Richard III.
".. His Late Majesty ..."
Is that your wording, Mr. Town, or the words of the court? If that latter is it not explosive stuff? Henry VII based his claim to the throne that Richard was a usurper and therefore not really king. So some HM Judges calling him "His Late Majesty" would seem to be casting doubt on HMtQ's right to the throne.
They are holding it in a 1200 seat auditorium, early pictures show multitudes of empty seats , more than 50%. Surge must have not been as expected, assume Fitalass missed the bus.
The issue I have with raising the personal allowance is twofold. One, everybody should pay some tax, however little. Everybody uses services, and it is fundamentally inequitable that there be anyone who gets everything for nothing while voting all the cost onto others.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
If lower paid workers pay less tax through increased allowances, increasing their net income, will this mean that they will get smaller tax credits, making the changes revenue neutral?
All poor people in the country pay a lot of tax, seeing as every tenner they spend they have to hand over two quid to the government.
Presumably you're basing that on the idea that £8 + VAT ~ £10? Not everything one spends on is VATable (eg rent and most food), so they're not paying 20% out in tax.
Even if they were, though, it doesn't alter the fact that paying 20% of £10,000 in does not even begin to cover what you take out. This is fine as long as you have a stable population of both low and high earners. It is categorically not fine if you do not, and we don't - we have pretty much unfettered immigration, so we have more and more of the sub-£10,000 bracket consuming more and more services at a net loss in tax paid in versus tax taken out.
It is quite clear that if 100 million immigrants were to arrive paying no or next to tax we couldn't survive. 50 million ditto. 25 million ditto. So what lower number of non-taxpayers can we afford? It may be less than we already have.
Each immigrant in the UK costs £3,000/day according to Migration Watch.
So just one million immigrants would cost the UK £3billion.
We have 8m immigrants, so that means the cost to the UK is £24billion a day. In total that means that immigration costs us £8.8trillion/year.
If we were to remove the immigrants British GDP would be £8.8 trillion higher, and there would only be 52 million of us.
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000. Without immigrants, assuming Migration Watch is correct (*), we would be the richest people on the planet.
* Which is not necessarily correct.
"Each immigrant in the UK costs £3,000/day according to Migration Watch."
per year
edit: plus it's average so some will be a lot more and some will be net positive
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000.
I suspect you may have misconstrued MW...I thought they said the net value of an immigrant was a Mars bar per year?
But if we take the fag packet estimate wot I have read, that under £27k makes you a net taker, then adding more people under £27k increases the net amount being taken out. It doesn't matter how VAT they pay or what they spend their money on, they're a net cost to the taxpayer. This can only be funded by charging everyone else more. It shouldn't be a surprise that importing poor people costs taxpayers, and therefore we should stop doing so.
What is the earthly point of getting rid of north Britain if we then simply replace it with 5 million spongers from elsewhere?
Well, it is presumably a bit more complex than that.
If the graduate starting salary at Goldman Sachs was £23,000, then they would be 'net scroungers' in year one. But presumably we wouldn't want to discourage GS from bringing the brightest and the best to London, because in year three they would probably be on £75-100k all in.
A points system - which reflects lifetime tax contributing power - would be a more sensible way to go.
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000.
I suspect you may have misconstrued MW...I thought they said the net value of an immigrant was a Mars bar per year?
But if we take the fag packet estimate wot I have read, that under £27k makes you a net taker, then adding more people under £27k increases the net amount being taken out. It doesn't matter how VAT they pay or what they spend their money on, they're a net cost to the taxpayer. This can only be funded by charging everyone else more. It shouldn't be a surprise that importing poor people costs taxpayers, and therefore we should stop doing so.
What is the earthly point of getting rid of north Britain if we then simply replace it with 5 million spongers from elsewhere?
"I suspect you may have misconstrued MW...I thought they said the net value of an immigrant was a Mars bar per year? "
IIRC the Mars bar thing was a House of Lords report from a while back.
Is that your wording, Mr. Town, or the words of the court? If that latter is it not explosive stuff? Henry VII based his claim to the throne that Richard was a usurper and therefore not really king. So some HM Judges calling him "His Late Majesty" would seem to be casting doubt on HMtQ's right to the throne.
My wording, although Haddon-Cave J, in a bizarre set of reasons for granting permission to claim, dated 15 August 2013, described Richard III as 'a former King of England' (p. 2 at [1] of Reasons). It is, of course, true that the Title of the King Act 1485 claimed that 'Richard the Thirde [was] late in dede and not of right King of England', while the Pardon Act 1485 granted pardon 'to all them who assisted the King in his Wars against Richard Duke of Gloucester'.
The way things are shaping up over here, you'd think that all the Republicans have to do to gain control of the US Senate is to stick to Obamacare and the economy, and not to have any idiots running for office. Simple, right?
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
One can never underestimate the Republicans' determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but in general, the Senate seems to be looking pretty good for them right now.
Crossover nailonists a.o.t.s. today. We have seen it all before and we will see it all again.....but still no crossover.
I don't know why you are obsessing about this fabled crossover business. It makes absolutely zero difference to the overall polling picture if there is one poll which says Tory lead +1 instead of -1. What has undeniable changed is the direction of travel. Labour are down and the Tories are up, slightly. 14 months out from the election the red team should be very, very worried. If the economy keeps improving and if jobs keep being created in the private sector the Tories may squeak in the most seats by enough to keep Dave in No. 10, there are no big policy announcements that either of the Eds can make that will change anything, which means the 2015 election is out of their hands and they are reliant on external factors and the government fecking it up (which could well happen, but Osborne has played a very straight bat for the big set pieces after the omnishambles so it is not likely IMO).
Who says the BBC has a problem with bias? Not like Newsnight doesn't already have a good representation from the left.
Honestly, is there not an economist out there who isn't a signed up (or might as well be) member of a political party?
There has to be somebody out there who hasn't spent their entire career being a staffer & activist for a main political party and who has an expert grasp on the field.
Surely it would be much better to have somebody who maybe isn't part of political operation, maybe has done a good stint in the real world...and not talking about being a Marxist music teacher.
The way things are shaping up over here, you'd think that all the Republicans have to do to gain control of the US Senate is to stick to Obamacare and the economy, and not to have any idiots running for office. Simple, right?
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
One can never underestimate the Republicans' determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but in general, the Senate seems to be looking pretty good for them right now.
The way things are shaping up over here, you'd think that all the Republicans have to do to gain control of the US Senate is to stick to Obamacare and the economy, and not to have any idiots running for office. Simple, right?
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
One can never underestimate the Republicans' determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but in general, the Senate seems to be looking pretty good for them right now.
- in spite of their best efforts! :-)
Are there any non-loony candidates, who could get nominated for Georgia?
You must get really annoyed at the way some Republicans treat elections as nothing more than a pissing contest.
Honestly, is there not an economist out there who isn't a signed up (or might as well be) member of a political party?
There has to be somebody out there who hasn't spent their entire career being a staffer & activist for a main political party and who has an expert grasp on the field.
I wouldn't worry. The BBC's living on borrowed time; 'Bye Bye BBC3' was just the beginning. Wait for the funding model to change, and then the fun starts.
Who says the BBC has a problem with bias? Not like Newsnight doesn't already have a good representation from the left.
Honestly, is there not an economist out there who isn't a signed up (or might as well be) member of a political party?
There has to be somebody out there who hasn't spent their entire career being a staffer & activist for a main political party and who has an expert grasp on the field.
Surely it would be much better to have somebody who maybe isn't part of political operation, maybe has done a good stint in the real world...and not talking about being a Marxist music teacher.
@OliverCooper: I wonder why Duncan Weldon deleted this tweet apparently admitting that he's not qualified for the Newsnight role... http://t.co/bJaQa6GSlM
The way things are shaping up over here, you'd think that all the Republicans have to do to gain control of the US Senate is to stick to Obamacare and the economy, and not to have any idiots running for office. Simple, right?
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
One can never underestimate the Republicans' determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but in general, the Senate seems to be looking pretty good for them right now.
- in spite of their best efforts! :-)
Are there any non-loony candidates, who could get nominated for Georgia?
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
Honestly, is there not an economist out there who isn't a signed up (or might as well be) member of a political party?
There has to be somebody out there who hasn't spent their entire career being a staffer & activist for a main political party and who has an expert grasp on the field.
I wouldn't worry. The BBC's living on borrowed time; 'Bye Bye BBC3' was just the beginning. Wait for the funding model to change, and then the fun starts.
Just shut down the whole BBC news editorial side and call it a day. Have them present facts in a 10 minute bulletin and leave it at that. They clearly can't be trusted to make decisions without letting their bias get in the way.
If I were in charge of the select committee responsible I would be hauling the BBC Trust chairman and DG in front of the committee tomorrow to explain how someone as biased as this could be appointed any position within the organisation and explain how the appointment satisfies their own rules about bias.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Is that your wording, Mr. Town, or the words of the court? If that latter is it not explosive stuff? Henry VII based his claim to the throne that Richard was a usurper and therefore not really king. So some HM Judges calling him "His Late Majesty" would seem to be casting doubt on HMtQ's right to the throne.
My wording, although Haddon-Cave J, in a bizarre set of reasons for granting permission to claim, dated 15 August 2013, described Richard III as 'a former King of England' (p. 2 at [1] of Reasons). It is, of course, true that the Title of the King Act 1485 claimed that 'Richard the Thirde [was] late in dede and not of right King of England', while the Pardon Act 1485 granted pardon 'to all them who assisted the King in his Wars against Richard Duke of Gloucester'.
I am glad it was your wording and not the courts. I am not sure our Prime Minister would be up to the constitutional crisis occasioned by some senior judges being lugged off to the Tower.
I see from the document you kindly linked to that the learned Judge did not Just refer to Richard III as a "former king of England" but went so far as to say he was "anointed former monarch of the realm", which is getting pretty close to a statement that would have given him a stay at HM's expense in previous times and cost him his head under the Tudors.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Stuart, It is called delusion, they think they are a major party.
I see from the document you kindly linked to that the learned Judge did not Just refer to Richard III as a "former king of England" but went so far as to say he was "anointed former monarch of the realm", which is getting pretty close to a statement that would have given him a stay at HM's expense in previous times and cost him his head under the Tudors.
Surely the judge is just pragmatically recognising that for all reasonable purposes he was de facto king. No history book says that from 1480 to 1485 (or whenever it was he started) England had no monarch.
It reminds me a bit of the way in 1802 to 1815 we used to refer to Napoleon as "the head of French government" while not recognising any of his self-awarded titles. Calling him that was acknowledging reality without acknowledging Napoleon's take on it.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Stuart, It is called delusion, they think they are a major party.
'Delusion' - assuming a 'Yes' vote to a Scottish Independence Referendum.
In your shoes I'd be in the scared shitless camp too. I do note that you said in working out how to save money your Chief has said nothing is off the table, does that mean his swanky new HQ and all the admin wallahs that have been employed to staff it are up for the chop? How about his own job? A merger with one or more neighbouring brigades would find lots of savings without affecting front-line fire and rescue work at all.
I suspect that there are a lot of ways Fire and Rescue could make very significant savings but they all seem to involve people in brigade HQs and County Council Offices losing out. The two administrative counties of Sussex have had one shared police force for nearly fifty years, one ambulance service for quite a few years but a recent attempt to merge the two fire brigades was abandoned as it was "impossible".
That new HQ needs filling up, it's only just opened!
It's gonna be front line staff who take the hit. On any day there are about 65 whole time staff on duty in the county, plus (hopefully!) enough retained on call to turn their pumps out, with 7 or 8 control staff coordinating our response. Up in the big house, we've got Corporate Communications, IT, Estates Management, HR, Equality and Diversity staff, Legal, Finance, Plus umpteen other departments. Then you have the departments filled with officers who count as operational, but in fact drive desks- Community Fire Safety, Ops planning, Training, Inspection and others. Then you have the Senior Management Team. We're a small, semi rural county, but we run our HQ like we're a Met brigade.
The sad fact is that in many ways, actually turning Fire Engines out of the doors almost seems secondary to running the Service. I had the argument with our previous deputy Chief that HQ didn't put any fires out- he responded that HQ facilitated us in putting out fires, and that it wasn't all about the red lorries. We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. We're not even allowed to put a shelf up around the station, we have to put a requisition into Estates, who'll pay a contractor to put it up. We have a cleaner, an admin assistant, we pay a company to mow the grass in front of our station, we pay a window cleaning company, we have a station cook. I work with practical guys and girls, qualified fire fighters who have had jobs before joining, trained plumbers, sparkies, brickies, mechanics, painters, a chef, welders, lots of ex forces people, we even have an ex Marine Sniper, who's done "things" in Bosnia and Sierra Leone ( to be fair, we keep him in a dark room, playing chill out New Age music, soothes him). Surely we could be allowed to run the station?
@MediaGuido: It is not as if #Newsnight has hired Harriet Harman's economics adviser for the show is it? Oh, he was Harriet Harman's economics adviser...
That new HQ needs filling up, it's only just opened!
It's gonna be front line staff who take the hit. On any day there are about 65 whole time staff on duty in the county, plus (hopefully!) enough retained on call to turn their pumps out, with 7 or 8 control staff coordinating our response. Up in the big house, we've got Corporate Communications, IT, Estates Management, HR, Equality and Diversity staff, Legal, Finance, Plus umpteen other departments. Then you have the departments filled with officers who count as operational, but in fact drive desks- Community Fire Safety, Ops planning, Training, Inspection and others. Then you have the Senior Management Team. We're a small, semi rural county, but we run our HQ like we're a Met brigade.
The sad fact is that in many ways, actually turning Fire Engines out of the doors almost seems secondary to running the Service. I had the argument with our previous deputy Chief that HQ didn't put any fires out- he responded that HQ facilitated us in putting out fires, and that it wasn't all about the red lorries. We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. We're not even allowed to put a shelf up around the station, we have to put a requisition into Estates, who'll pay a contractor to put it up. We have a cleaner, an admin assistant, we pay a company to mow the grass in front of our station, we pay a window cleaning company, we have a station cook. I work with practical guys and girls, qualified fire fighters who have had jobs before joining, trained plumbers, sparkies, brickies, mechanics, painters, a chef, welders, lots of ex forces people, we even have an ex Marine Sniper, who's done "things" in Bosnia and Sierra Leone ( to be fair, we keep him in a dark room, playing chill out New Age music, soothes him). Surely we could be allowed to run the station?
The cuts will mostly fall on us.
A disgrace if they do. Your fire department sounds a bit like where I work. Hundreds of people employed but only about 50 of them do any real work and they're the ones who get hammered when there are redundancy programmes.
I suspect that there are a lot of ways Fire and Rescue could make very significant savings but they all seem to involve people in brigade HQs and County Council Offices losing out. The two administrative counties of Sussex have had one shared police force for nearly fifty years, one ambulance service for quite a few years but a recent attempt to merge the two fire brigades was abandoned as it was "impossible".
That new HQ needs filling up, it's only just opened!
It's gonna be front line staff who take the hit. On any day there are about 65 whole time staff on duty in the county, plus (hopefully!) enough retained on call to turn their pumps out, with 7 or 8 control staff coordinating our response. Up in the big house, we've got Corporate Communications, IT, Estates Management, HR, Equality and Diversity staff, Legal, Finance, Plus umpteen other departments. Then you have the departments filled with officers who count as operational, but in fact drive desks- Community Fire Safety, Ops planning, Training, Inspection and others. Then you have the Senior Management Team. We're a small, semi rural county, but we run our HQ like we're a Met brigade.
The sad fact is that in many ways, actually turning Fire Engines out of the doors almost seems secondary to running the Service. I had the argument with our previous deputy Chief that HQ didn't put any fires out- he responded that HQ facilitated us in putting out fires, and that it wasn't all about the red lorries. We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. We're not even allowed to put a shelf up around the station, we have to put a requisition into Estates, who'll pay a contractor to put it up. We have a cleaner, an admin assistant, we pay a company to mow the grass in front of our station, we pay a window cleaning company, we have a station cook. I work with practical guys and girls, qualified fire fighters who have had jobs before joining, trained plumbers, sparkies, brickies, mechanics, painters, a chef, welders, lots of ex forces people, we even have an ex Marine Sniper, who's done "things" in Bosnia and Sierra Leone ( to be fair, we keep him in a dark room, playing chill out New Age music, soothes him). Surely we could be allowed to run the station?
The cuts will mostly fall on us.
It reminds me of something I read not too long ago describing the size of the administrative parts of the Ministry of Defence since 1945. As the number of ships, airplanes, and troops declined, the civil service and admin parts just continued to grow.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Stuart, It is called delusion, they think they are a major party.
Well, they are kind of a major party. I cannot see them ever getting much less than 15% of the vote. And although it is pretty hard to see them getting over 20% in the foreseeable future, a steady block of support at the 15%-19% level gives them an interesting role in Scottish politics, perhaps at times even a decisive one, cf. the English Liberal Democrats.
But 300 folk at a "conference", in an election year, is simply laughable. They have bugger all motivation.
There's no getting away from it, it's been a bad run of polls for Labour.
Despite my joining in with the taunting of PBTories, I've secretly been worried about Labour for a while. I don't think they've been doing well since Xmas -- after they finally looked to be defining themselves, and defining why people should vote Labour, towards the end of last year, they've let things completely drift again. I still maintain their newfound focus on "budget discipline" is a complete mistake -- even leaving aside that it rules out doing ANYTHING that a Labour government should do, it's completely woeful political strategy. Having Ed Balls say all the time things like "we'll spend properly this time, honest! We'll be good, we'll even create a surplus!" just stinks of the lady doth protest too much -- it's the equivalent of an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend who you dumped for being too clingy bombarding you with texts begging to get back together and promising that this time they'll be more normal and give you your space. It doesn't reassure you, it just reminds you of why you dumped them in the first place.
I still think the next election is in Labour's hands, but it's starting to look like they might let it slip away. They need to come up with a coherent message of what the Labour Party is for, and fast -- and "we won't be as bad as the Tories" or "we'll do some technocratic reorganisation of public services" will absolutely NOT suffice.
That new HQ needs filling up, it's only just opened!
It's gonna be front line staff who take the hit. On any day there are about 65 whole time staff on duty in the county, plus (hopefully!) enough retained on call to turn their pumps out, with 7 or 8 control staff coordinating our response. Up in the big house, we've got Corporate Communications, IT, Estates Management, HR, Equality and Diversity staff, Legal, Finance, Plus umpteen other departments. Then you have the departments filled with officers who count as operational, but in fact drive desks- Community Fire Safety, Ops planning, Training, Inspection and others. Then you have the Senior Management Team. We're a small, semi rural county, but we run our HQ like we're a Met brigade.
The sad fact is that in many ways, actually turning Fire Engines out of the doors almost seems secondary to running the Service. I had the argument with our previous deputy Chief that HQ didn't put any fires out- he responded that HQ facilitated us in putting out fires, and that it wasn't all about the red lorries. We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. We're not even allowed to put a shelf up around the station, we have to put a requisition into Estates, who'll pay a contractor to put it up. We have a cleaner, an admin assistant, we pay a company to mow the grass in front of our station, we pay a window cleaning company, we have a station cook. I work with practical guys and girls, qualified fire fighters who have had jobs before joining, trained plumbers, sparkies, brickies, mechanics, painters, a chef, welders, lots of ex forces people, we even have an ex Marine Sniper, who's done "things" in Bosnia and Sierra Leone ( to be fair, we keep him in a dark room, playing chill out New Age music, soothes him). Surely we could be allowed to run the station?
The cuts will mostly fall on us.
A disgrace if they do. Your fire department sounds a bit like where I work. Hundreds of people employed but only about 50 of them do any real work and they're the ones who get hammered when there are redundancy programmes.
Nonetheless, the very best of luck to you all.
I'm not saying it's only us who do the work, just that we could still turn out pumps without the input of a lot of our "support" departments.
Comments
Say Hi to PtP and co from me if you are. And I hope your betting is going a damn sight better than mine !
Royal Irish Hussar and Alaivan for a poor start.
If that was the plan it seems to have worked as well as most of the White Paper. This budget is their last chance to tell such a tale. The other problem was the report this week indicating that an independent Scotland would have to make even larger cuts, something that the previous reports had not indicated.
The second issue is that raising the allowance ensures that immigration is a cost not a benefit. All those people working as cleaners and baristas are going in some cases to be taken out of tax altogether, but they're still going to use maternity units, GPs and schools. This means that more of these will need to be funded, but it won't be by their own taxes, because they aren't paying any.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26576398
Everybody is aware of this and this is why it's of nil interest to anyone at all. To think it matters in the slightest is to exhibit no sense of proportion and a profound lack of judgement.
Proof that a public school education (Westminster) and an Oxford degree in PPE (New College) doesn't necessary lead to identikit politicians.
Tony Benn remained an Oxford Union debater to the end of his life, unlike his near contemporary at Oxford, Margaret Thatcher.
After fifty years as an MP, he "retired from parliament to spend more time on politics". In Harold Wilson's words Benn "immatured with age".
A dangerous dilettante but a man of infinite charm, elegance and wit.
I think demand for UK property is so deep that a permanent rout of the market is highly unlikely. Even if overseas buyers pulled out en masse, there is still very healthy demand domestically to take up the slack in time.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3355/Immigration-are-we-talking-about-it.aspx
As to its significance given Populus and ICM almost always report a Libdem advantage and Mori has been plus or minus a couple of points for months with Yougov occasionally reporting a Libdem lead the likelihood of such an event is reasonably high.
The third rule of politics applies:
Never trust a Libdem quoting statistics....
Apologies if this has already been pointed out
It is painfully obvious, to anybody with half a brain, that Gove is a walking, talking, breathing liability. He just oozes liability.
But, by all means, feel free to elect him Tory leader. No complaints from me.
(end of obligatory Oxonian baiting)
(Although I don't think he would make a good leader).
I am not convinced.
There is definitely something non-conformist about that college next to the King's Arms though.
1/4 LD (Clegg)
5 Lab
10 Con
100 Jeremy Clarkson
500 Peter Stringfellow
1000 Elvis Bus Pass
Even if they were, though, it doesn't alter the fact that paying 20% of £10,000 in does not even begin to cover what you take out. This is fine as long as you have a stable population of both low and high earners. It is categorically not fine if you do not, and we don't - we have pretty much unfettered immigration, so we have more and more of the sub-£10,000 bracket consuming more and more services at a net loss in tax paid in versus tax taken out.
It is quite clear that if 100 million immigrants were to arrive paying no or next to tax we couldn't survive. 50 million ditto. 25 million ditto. So what lower number of non-taxpayers can we afford? It may be less than we already have.
LOL
Lord Windermere 1/3, On His own 3/1 GIant Bolster 300-1 !
didn't but he did take his ground...
But they admitted interference. The winner won by a short head. This is racing under rules, not a point to point.
Oxford is the Silmarillion, whilst Cambridge is the Lord of the Rings.
Just look at the way we churn out Nobel prizes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#University_of_Cambridge
Oh, and Cambridge is by far the safer city. I've seen two documentary series that revealed Oxford's massive murder rate. Morse and Lewis, I think they were called.
YouGov: 7, 4, 2, 5
Populus: 4, 1
ICM 3
MORI 3
Straight average of all 8 polls = 3.6
So just one million immigrants would cost the UK £3billion.
We have 8m immigrants, so that means the cost to the UK is £24billion a day. In total that means that immigration costs us £8.8trillion/year.
If we were to remove the immigrants British GDP would be £8.8 trillion higher, and there would only be 52 million of us.
So, instead of GDP per capita of $38,000, we would have GDP of $200,000. Without immigrants, assuming Migration Watch is correct (*), we would be the richest people on the planet.
* Which is not necessarily correct.
@TwistedFireStopper,
In your shoes I'd be in the scared shitless camp too. I do note that you said in working out how to save money your Chief has said nothing is off the table, does that mean his swanky new HQ and all the admin wallahs that have been employed to staff it are up for the chop? How about his own job? A merger with one or more neighbouring brigades would find lots of savings without affecting front-line fire and rescue work at all.
I suspect that there are a lot of ways Fire and Rescue could make very significant savings but they all seem to involve people in brigade HQs and County Council Offices losing out. The two administrative counties of Sussex have had one shared police force for nearly fifty years, one ambulance service for quite a few years but a recent attempt to merge the two fire brigades was abandoned as it was "impossible".
In my own state of Georgia, retiring senator Saxby Chambliss has created an opening. On the Democratic side, the daughter of Sam Nunn, Michelle, is running. She is a strong middle of the road candidate and is not the usual left wing loony the Democrats put up these days, and is gathering some business support.
On the Republican side I give you Paul Broun, who says things like - Evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies from the pit of hell, designed to convince people they don't need a savior, and that the earth is 6000 years old and was made in 6 days.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82108.html
OK, one loony is not that bad....we also have Phil Gingrey, who says that Todd Akin was kinda right about his rape comments, complains about his salary, and goes on about traditional gender roles.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/19/far-right-senate-candidate-phil-gingrey-loses-entire-campaign-staff.html
What's truly head scratching is that they are both medical doctors.
Then we have anti-abortion Karen Handel, who almost wrecked the Komen organization when an executive there, by declaring war on Planned Parenthood. Thanks to the resulting public outcry, she resigned, and the decision was reversed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/karen-handel-susan-g-komen-decision-defund-planned-parenthood_n_1255948.html
So, to sum up, a good Democratic, middle of the road candidate, and 3 Republican loons.
This in a state where there is currently not a single state wide Democratic Party elected official. Looks like that may be about to change come November.
Talk about a self-inflicted wound for the Republicans.
But if we take the fag packet estimate wot I have read, that under £27k makes you a net taker, then adding more people under £27k increases the net amount being taken out. It doesn't matter how VAT they pay or what they spend their money on, they're a net cost to the taxpayer. This can only be funded by charging everyone else more. It shouldn't be a surprise that importing poor people costs taxpayers, and therefore we should stop doing so.
What is the earthly point of getting rid of north Britain if we then simply replace it with 5 million spongers from elsewhere?
Is that your wording, Mr. Town, or the words of the court? If that latter is it not explosive stuff? Henry VII based his claim to the throne that Richard was a usurper and therefore not really king. So some HM Judges calling him "His Late Majesty" would seem to be casting doubt on HMtQ's right to the throne.
per year
edit: plus it's average so some will be a lot more and some will be net positive
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/press-release/380
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/briefing-paper/1.37
If the graduate starting salary at Goldman Sachs was £23,000, then they would be 'net scroungers' in year one. But presumably we wouldn't want to discourage GS from bringing the brightest and the best to London, because in year three they would probably be on £75-100k all in.
A points system - which reflects lifetime tax contributing power - would be a more sensible way to go.
IIRC the Mars bar thing was a House of Lords report from a while back.
Who says the BBC has a problem with bias? Not like Newsnight doesn't already have a good representation from the left.
Honestly, is there not an economist out there who isn't a signed up (or might as well be) member of a political party?
There has to be somebody out there who hasn't spent their entire career being a staffer & activist for a main political party and who has an expert grasp on the field.
Surely it would be much better to have somebody who maybe isn't part of political operation, maybe has done a good stint in the real world...and not talking about being a Marxist music teacher.
You must get really annoyed at the way some Republicans treat elections as nothing more than a pissing contest.
Meanwhile, this will keep you entertained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574654/I-earn-DOUBLE-320-000-year-BBC-TV-chief-defends-huge-pay-packet-BBC3-used-run-sacrificed-latest-budget-cuts.html
If I were in charge of the select committee responsible I would be hauling the BBC Trust chairman and DG in front of the committee tomorrow to explain how someone as biased as this could be appointed any position within the organisation and explain how the appointment satisfies their own rules about bias.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCRxFbZKEJw/UyL-rKQuNII/AAAAAAAAZl0/rMaamgsyrB0/s1600/MH370A.jpg
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-malaysia-airlines-radar-exclusive-idUSBREA2D0DG20140314
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCRxFbZKEJw/UyL-rKQuNII/AAAAAAAAZl0/rMaamgsyrB0/s1600/MH370A.jpg
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
I see from the document you kindly linked to that the learned Judge did not Just refer to Richard III as a "former king of England" but went so far as to say he was "anointed former monarch of the realm", which is getting pretty close to a statement that would have given him a stay at HM's expense in previous times and cost him his head under the Tudors.
It reminds me a bit of the way in 1802 to 1815 we used to refer to Napoleon as "the head of French government" while not recognising any of his self-awarded titles. Calling him that was acknowledging reality without acknowledging Napoleon's take on it.
It's gonna be front line staff who take the hit. On any day there are about 65 whole time staff on duty in the county, plus (hopefully!) enough retained on call to turn their pumps out, with 7 or 8 control staff coordinating our response.
Up in the big house, we've got Corporate Communications, IT, Estates Management, HR, Equality and Diversity staff, Legal, Finance, Plus umpteen other departments. Then you have the departments filled with officers who count as operational, but in fact drive desks- Community Fire Safety, Ops planning, Training, Inspection and others. Then you have the Senior Management Team.
We're a small, semi rural county, but we run our HQ like we're a Met brigade.
The sad fact is that in many ways, actually turning Fire Engines out of the doors almost seems secondary to running the Service. I had the argument with our previous deputy Chief that HQ didn't put any fires out- he responded that HQ facilitated us in putting out fires, and that it wasn't all about the red lorries.
We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. We're not even allowed to put a shelf up around the station, we have to put a requisition into Estates, who'll pay a contractor to put it up.
We have a cleaner, an admin assistant, we pay a company to mow the grass in front of our station, we pay a window cleaning company, we have a station cook.
I work with practical guys and girls, qualified fire fighters who have had jobs before joining, trained plumbers, sparkies, brickies, mechanics, painters, a chef, welders, lots of ex forces people, we even have an ex Marine Sniper, who's done "things" in Bosnia and Sierra Leone ( to be fair, we keep him in a dark room, playing chill out New Age music, soothes him). Surely we could be allowed to run the station?
The cuts will mostly fall on us.
Props to Davy Russell for realising they were all going too fast in the Gold Cup and running his own race out the back.
But 300 folk at a "conference", in an election year, is simply laughable. They have bugger all motivation.
Despite my joining in with the taunting of PBTories, I've secretly been worried about Labour for a while. I don't think they've been doing well since Xmas -- after they finally looked to be defining themselves, and defining why people should vote Labour, towards the end of last year, they've let things completely drift again. I still maintain their newfound focus on "budget discipline" is a complete mistake -- even leaving aside that it rules out doing ANYTHING that a Labour government should do, it's completely woeful political strategy. Having Ed Balls say all the time things like "we'll spend properly this time, honest! We'll be good, we'll even create a surplus!" just stinks of the lady doth protest too much -- it's the equivalent of an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend who you dumped for being too clingy bombarding you with texts begging to get back together and promising that this time they'll be more normal and give you your space. It doesn't reassure you, it just reminds you of why you dumped them in the first place.
I still think the next election is in Labour's hands, but it's starting to look like they might let it slip away. They need to come up with a coherent message of what the Labour Party is for, and fast -- and "we won't be as bad as the Tories" or "we'll do some technocratic reorganisation of public services" will absolutely NOT suffice.