Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
Labour almost certainly lead among students, and the unemployed.
But, there are three big groups of voters who are not employees who likely give very big leads to the Conservatives. Retired people, employers and self-employed, and stay-at-home mothers.
But I'm almost certainly missing the point you're making ...
The point I'm making is that if the annual net rent you will earn from your new building is £100, then at (say) 10% return, the second year's rent is worth only £91, the third year's is worth £83, and so on. Rent received 30 years out is worth only £6 today, and rent received after 50 years is worth less than £1.
So while it is technically feasible to construct a commercial building to last 50 or 60 or 100 years, it's going to cost you more while not earning you any more. The NPV of the rents over 30, 50 or 100 years is about the same in each case.
This also applies to the eventual residual value of the building. It might be worth something, but "something" in 30 years' time is not much today, especially when you factor in the cost of the major works it's then likely to need to keep it in use.
A case in point is where I had my first job - in an office building along the steps between St. Paul's Cathedral and Queen Victoria Street, in London, in 1982. The building was about 10 or 15 years old at that time. It was completely vacated by its last tenant about 15 years later. It was then vacant for years and has since been ripped down and simply replaced. At that time, presumably a consideration was made of the economics of refitting and re-letting versus totally rebuilding and the answer was the latter, i.e. a 25-year-old building was essentially worthless. Of course a lot of this is to do with IT suitability but this just demonstrates how foolish it would be to assume that a building lettable to day will still be so in 30 years' time.
I know I'm missing something here but I'm not sure what it is.
Sometimes I have wished I was an architect but I understand that the Norman Fosters and those who make all the big bucks typically draw the new building on a fag packet and leave it to underpaid underlings to work out how to make it 1/ stand up and 2/ contain sufficient lettable space to pay for itself....
I'm getting confused. I thought return was calculated on the original capital. Can you please explain what it is?
This poll shows how reliant the Tories are on the votes of the 65+ age group, although that's nothing new of course. It also explains why people who decide to conduct their own personal surveys in railway stations and high streets never find a very high percentage of Tory supporters.
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.
My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).
I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???
Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.
Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(
My very rough, back of the envelope calculation, making guesses about the voting preferences of various classes of non-employees, suggests this would equate to a Labour lead of about 4% among the voters as a whole.
OT Went to the pictures last night to see Terry Gilliam's new film Zero Theorem
Not yet been able to decide whether it was a brilliant concept underplayed and therefore a work of genius or a mundane concept overplayed and therefore pretty poor. I am trending towards the genius but I suspect many people might go for very poor. I think it will definitely turn out to be a marmite movie.
But also worth noting is a very slick advert being shown before the film all about how much we rely on the countryside. I though it was for some new organic range or maybe a plea for supporting our farmers.
Turns out it was an advert to tell us how wonderful the Common Agricultural Policy is.
Remarkable garbage disinformation from Brussels but very slickly done.
Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.
They're onto something TBF. The rules are barking mad. Michael Howard tried to change them, but the headbangers wouldn't let him. If he hadn't been looking over his shoulder at the most unhinged 15% of his party all the time Cameron might actually have been able to follow a strategy designed to win a majority.
"JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"
Amazing since Labour have trashed peoples wages with unlimited immigration. I guess they topped it up with working tax credits that the country can't afford meaning people in low paid jobs will always vote for more of the same. Gordon Brown was more intelligent than we thought.
Only when the money well and truly runs out will anyone try and sort out the current mess, hopefully it will happen with Labour in power.
The Tories had a 20% plus lead among the over 65s in the most recent Populus poll, while Labour had a very big lead among public sector workers and a small one among private sector workers. All in all, there is no reason to doubt this poll is broadly reflective of other polling - it's just expressed in a different way.
Impressive Tory pitch-rolling for the Budget: Gove & Warsi talk Eton, Ken talks Europe, Boris's dad talks leadership election rule-changes.
They're onto something TBF. The rules are barking mad. Michael Howard tried to change them, but the headbangers wouldn't let him. If he hadn't been looking over his shoulder at the most unhinged 15% of his party all the time Cameron might actually have been able to follow a strategy designed to win a majority.
It was precisely because he ignored such a large proportion of his own party on the right that he failed to win a majority.
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.
"JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"
Isn't it just a turn of phrase?
No, there was quite a lot about it her autobiography. IIRC she had a bit of a fight about it, but she had other problems at the material time.
"JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"
Isn't it just a turn of phrase?
I heard an interview with her a while back (Desert Island Discs?) where she went into it. IANAL but from memory, to serve as a barrister you need to be in chambers. She was a trainee, and got thrown out for excess debauchery or somesuch. Later she accepted work as a barrister, despite having no chambers. She was therefore barred.
All from memory, so take with a dry lakebed of salt.
It sounds like it's either a good way of maintaining high professional standards at the bar, or a way of limiting entrants that perpetuates the old boy's network.
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.
If the Tories can't rely on the retired vote in West Sussex they really would be heading for total oblivion.
Not questioning the poll, but I would be interested to know what exactly mean by "employers"...that could include / exclude variety of different people...and why they were excluded, they are in employment themselves are they not.
Is it literally anybody who employs somebody else, or more than x other people, etc.
It's certainly true that those of us at the lower end of the income scale are getting little to no benefit from the recovery. We can certainly see that there's a pretty strong recovery taking place as the workload (and, in fairness, overtime) increases in our workplaces but this goes unreflected in pay.
For example - in 2007 I was earning a wage at an hourly rate that was around 14% above the then minimum wage. Seven years on in 2014 I'm still in the same job but my wage is now just less than 3% above the present minimum wage.
The reason for this is that 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were all pay freeze years at my place of work. Only in 2013 did we get a modest pay increase - the first since 2007. (And if there's no pay increase this year then, come the autumn, I'll find myself on minimum wage for the first time ever in my life.)
Of course there are other factors that have varied my pay over the last 7 years. For pretty much all of Gordon Brown's premiership I was faced with the double whammy of not just an hourly rate pay freeze but also a substantial reduction in my working hours. Obviously when you're paid by the hour and you find your working hours cut by 10 to 20% then you really do start to feel the squeeze.
The Cameron era began in much the same way as the Brown era... a continuation of frozen wages and reduced hours. The only light in the tunnel being the raising of the starting rate of income tax by the coalition government - which was effectively my only increase in income since the recession began. Little but welcome. Then gradually working hours increased and 2014 has seen a further increase in hours. I'm regularly working 45+ hours per week now.
PB.com has a lot of strengths - but diversity of contributors in the comment section isn't, alas, one of them. The problem lies in the fact that many ordinary working people are in jobs that don't involve sitting at desks with computers so are unable to contribute comments here during the working day - and most people have other things to do at weekends. Obviously people with desk jobs, the retired, the unemployed and students are always going to have more chance to state their views here than the likes of people such as myself. I'm only on here at this time today because I've got a week off work.
Sometimes, in an evening, I might glance through one of the daytime threads and find that they can sometimes read like the script for one of those hilarious out of touch middle class dinner party sketches that Bird & Fortune used to do.
At the moment I can't see anything or anyone in any of the political parties that could convince me vote for them. I've likened politics to a board game played between the politicians before on this site. That remains my view. Politics is becoming a spectator sport - with a decreasing number of spectators. As it stands I'll still be sitting the next election out.
It's certainly true that those of us at the lower end of the income scale are getting little to no benefit from the recovery. We can certainly see that there's a pretty strong recovery taking place as the workload (and, in fairness, overtime) increases in our workplaces but this goes unreflected in pay.
For example - in 2007 I was earning a wage at an hourly rate that was around 14% above the then minimum wage. Seven years on in 2014 I'm still in the same job but my wage is now just less than 3% above the present minimum wage.
The reason for this is that 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were all pay freeze years at my place of work. Only in 2013 did we get a modest pay increase - the first since 2007. (And if there's no pay increase this year then, come the autumn, I'll find myself on minimum wage for the first time ever in my life.)
Of course there are other factors that have varied my pay over the last 7 years. For pretty much all of Gordon Brown's premiership I was faced with the double whammy of not just an hourly rate pay freeze but also a substantial reduction in my working hours. Obviously when you're paid by the hour and you find your working hours cut by 10 to 20% then you really do start to feel the squeeze.
The Cameron era began in much the same way as the Brown era... a continuation of frozen wages and reduced hours. The only light in the tunnel being the raising of the starting rate of income tax by the coalition government - which was effectively my only increase in income since the recession began. Little but welcome. Then gradually working hours increased and 2014 has seen a further increase in hours. I'm regularly working 45+ hours per week now. *snip to get under character limit*
This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.
Clarissa Dickson Wright drank 6 pints of tonic water every day for 12 years, quite a feat really, as well as, for a while, two bottles of gin a day and a bottle of vodka before getting out of bed:
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.
If the Tories can't rely on the retired vote in West Sussex they really would be heading for total oblivion.
Mr. JS, I think they'll get enough of the vote, even on a hold your nose basis, to keep most, if not all, of their seats down here (though probably only the collapse in the Lib Dem position will save Mid-Sussex especially if Soames bows out). What I am struggling to get my head round is this idea that there is a big majority for the Conservatives amongst the retired. If it exists then I think it must do so because of the piss-poor quality of the opposition and not enthusiasm for Cameron and his gang.
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.
Isn't it the definition of madness to repeatedly do the same thing, resulting in an adverse outcome, whilst hoping for a more beneficial one?
Clarissa Dickson Wright drank 6 pints of tonic water every day for 12 years, quite a feat really, as well as, for a while, two bottles of gin a day and a bottle of vodka before getting out of bed:
This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.
Fair comment, Anorak. No need to apologise.
I actually do have a BSc - from the University of Wales. I studied agriculture at Bangor and graduated in 1995. My family background is farming but I left the industry in 2000 and have no interest in returning to it.
Henry has broken the criteria into three areas and the production in question would have to meet two out of these three to qualify - the first suggests that at least 50% of production staff must be black, Asian or minority ethnic.
The second is that the production company must be 30% BAME-controlled and/or 30% of senior personnel must be BAME.
And the third dictates that at least 50% of on-screen talent must be BAME.
This isn't meant to be patronising - and I apologise if it's perceived that way - but the quality of your writing suggests you're wasted in a [close to] minimum-wage job.
Fair comment, Anorak. No need to apologise.
I actually do have a BSc - from the University of Wales. I studied agriculture at Bangor and graduated in 1995. My family background is farming but I left the industry in 2000 and have no interest in returning to it.
I don't blame you. A farmer's life is usually a pretty miserable one - unless you own several hundred acres of East Anglia and can afford to pay others to do the hard work! I had family in sheep farming up in Cumbria. Given the effort expended the rewards were awful, and ever-diminishing.
Henry has broken the criteria into three areas and the production in question would have to meet two out of these three to qualify - the first suggests that at least 50% of production staff must be black, Asian or minority ethnic.
The second is that the production company must be 30% BAME-controlled and/or 30% of senior personnel must be BAME.
And the third dictates that at least 50% of on-screen talent must be BAME.
Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.
My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).
I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???
Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.
Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(
This isn't a Conservative government.
It's a Coalition government.
There are important changes - such as bringing down the cost of chilcare by aligning our regulations with France - that were stymied by the LibDems.
A majority conservative government could have been more proactive on many things (including Regulation Mr Alanbrooke - but Cable needed an economics ministry). Perhaps the next one will be...
Well i'm not that surprised by this poll. the tories are doing all they can to lose my vote.
My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).
I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???
Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.
Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(
This isn't a Conservative government.
It's a Coalition government.
There are important changes - such as bringing down the cost of chilcare by aligning our regulations with France - that were stymied by the LibDems.
A majority conservative government could have been more proactive on many things (including Regulation Mr Alanbrooke - but Cable needed an economics ministry). Perhaps the next one will be...
This isn't a Conservative government. This is an M&S government.
"JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"
Isn't it just a turn of phrase?
IANAL, but Chambers is the office setup that barristers have. It provides legal administrative support, regulatory systems, general administration (eg billing) and gives the Courts a central point to coordinate with.
Although barristers are technically sole traders, I can see the courts might want a mechanism for coordination.
" So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."
Curious indeed. Although it is a one-off and is sponsored by the unions, a seventeen percent lead cannot be easily dismissed. It does lead one to speculate that the Tories must be leading amongst the unemployed and retired.
The unemployed? No way: Labour would be even further ahead with them. It's just that the Tories have a massive lead among retired people, and maybe a small lead with stay-at-home mums (and dads).
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
The Conservatives have a massive lead amongst the retired? Maybe, but I don't know where, it certainly doesn't seem to be true down here in the Conservative heartland of West Sussex. Cameron and his clique are about as popular with us retired people as plague rats and, save for the very wealthy, everyone is worried about what the future holds their children/grand-children. I dare say that many, maybe even most, will, come they day, hold their noses and vote Conservative but it will be out of fear not enthusiasm.
Isn't it the definition of madness to repeatedly do the same thing, resulting in an adverse outcome, whilst hoping for a more beneficial one?
Einstein apparently said something like that, yes. On the other hand you could apply the same rule to voting in a Labour government (always left unemployment higher etc. etc.).
I think a lot of political commentators and indeed politicians have got it wrong in how to attract the grey vote. The current orthodoxy seems to be based around the idea that you cannot take away pensioner benefits otherwise the old buggers will stop voting for you. In my experience that is not necessarily true. For most pensioners concern about their children and especially their grand-children is a much bigger driver than their own well-being.
Of course for genuinely needy pensioners we should provide what is needed in terms of heating food and so forth, but let's target need. For example, the idea that the members of the Hurtspierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association need free bus passes (mainly used for our first Tuesday in the month Brighton Luncheon outing) is a nonsense, as is giving us a heating allowance. Take that money from us give it to the genuinely needy. Maybe go even so far as to make the old age pension not a universal benefit (some of us have a big enough occupational pension to live on).
Approached in the right way and HMG could take money from the retired with their blessing (and votes) provided it was spent on the coming generations.
" So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."
I wonder though....so far the 'leaks' have been remarkably few and far between. Tomorrow is either going to be one of the most boring budgets ever or Kirkup might well be on to something (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).
" So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."
I wonder though....so far the 'leaks' have been remarkably few and far between. Tomorrow is either going to be one of the most boring budgets ever or Kirkup might well be on to something (Ip off the basic rate would be my hunch).
Or the truth is somewhere between the two. He is quiet, so his big "rabbit out of the hat" gets all the headlines, rather than already chip paper after being leaked in the Sunday papers...but actually the big rabbit isn't actually that big of a deal and it is just some spin operation to cover over what is otherwise same old same old budget.
I can't see given the state of public finances how he can produce anything that radical, without either taking from Peter to pay Paul or just abandoning any illusion of cuts / radical deficit reduction.
It seems he kicked the idea of IC+NI tax being combined into the long grass in the past couple of announcements, which would be one eye catcher.
I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year. I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
Except Bercow won't be presiding. It will be the admirable Lindsay Hoyle as Deputy Speaker.
Hannan on EU reform: "I have absolutely no doubt that the PM will secure all his stated [EU] negotiating aims. Indeed it’s clear, looking at them, that the starting point was not “What kind of relationship with the EU do we ideally want?” but “What can we be certain of securing, so that the negotiations can be declared a success?”
Sir Humphrey in Brussels has evidently been shuttling around his opposite numbers finding out what they are prepared to concede. “Look here, I don’t suppose we could opt out of some of these regulations that are hurting the City of London? No? How about an end to the Cohesion Fund racket? Too much? Ah. Alright then. What about taking out the words ‘ever closer union’ – just the words, you understand? Yes? Splendid!”"
I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year. I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
Except Bercow won't be presiding. It will be the admirable Lindsay Hoyle as Deputy Speaker.
Now Mr. Llama, about our bet on the Indy referendum.
I don't believe anyone can now reasonably argue that it will be cancelled.
Shouldn't we now be a-settling?
Mr O, as I have said in the past you shall have your dosh, when the race is run. I will even drive up to your establishment and deliver it in crisp fivers by hand (maybe you will give me a cup of tea or something). However, I am not PaddyPower and will not pay out on the basis of press reports.
Hannan on EU reform: "I have absolutely no doubt that the PM will secure all his stated [EU] negotiating aims. Indeed it’s clear, looking at them, that the starting point was not “What kind of relationship with the EU do we ideally want?” but “What can we be certain of securing, so that the negotiations can be declared a success?”
Sir Humphrey in Brussels has evidently been shuttling around his opposite numbers finding out what they are prepared to concede. “Look here, I don’t suppose we could opt out of some of these regulations that are hurting the City of London? No? How about an end to the Cohesion Fund racket? Too much? Ah. Alright then. What about taking out the words ‘ever closer union’ – just the words, you understand? Yes? Splendid!”"
I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
Yep, Osborne is definitely a sipper, but the current price of 3.8-4.5 reflects that.
I've sold 'Billion' at 36. Selling is always a bit of a risk on this kind of market, but at a quick count the numbers of instances of the word (and variants) in 2011, 2012 and 2013 seem to have been 16, 31 and 23.
This is not advice, do your own research, you might lose your shirt, etc etc.
I see Sporting index are doing their usual 'order order' and how many sips of water markets . What was the make up last year? I think George has form where sips of water are concerned and Bercow likes the sound of his own voice so both could be interesting
Yep, Osborne is definitely a sipper, but the current price of 3.8-4.5 reflects that.
I've sold 'Billion' at 36. Selling is always a bit of a risk on this kind of market, but at a quick count the numbers of instances of the word (and variants) in 2011, 2012 and 2013 seem to have been 16, 31 and 23.
This is not advice, do your own research, you might lose your shirt, etc etc.
Good pick , I think these million and billion spreads are still influenced a bit by the fondness of Gordon Brown (especially) for tractor stats Just don't panic when he mentions billion about 8 times in 10 seconds when he goes through the predicted and historical public deficit each year. It calms down then!!
Judging from what I've heard about this budget so far, I'd be more inclined to go for a hike in stamp duty thresholds. All Osborne's rhetoric has been about hard working families being able to buy their own homes....
Judging from what I've heard about this budget so far, I'd be more inclined to go for a hike in stamp duty thresholds. All Osborne's rhetoric has been about hard working families being able to buy their own homes....
Or removing the "steps" ? Would suit me am looking to buy/sell.
PoliticsMarkets @politicsmarkets 7m Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015
Better odds than that on betfair
Not after commission. 1.4/1 * 95% = 1.33/1 (assuming the guy isn't a regular punter) and 11/8 is 1.375/1.
Betfair are actually quite rarely best value for one-off bets on anything that's covered by plenty of bookies. The principal advantage of betfair is trading.
PoliticsMarkets @politicsmarkets 7m Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015
Better odds than that on betfair
Not after commission. 1.4/1 * 95% = 1.33/1 (assuming the guy isn't a regular punter) and 11/8 is 1.375/1.
Betfair are actually quite rarely best value for one-off bets on anything that's covered by plenty of bookies. The principal advantage of betfair is trading.
Of course is the commission not even higher if he is a massive punter on betfair ?
Of course is the commission not even higher if he is a massive punter on betfair ?
If he's a big winner in percentage terms, yes, via the premium charge. But someone having a series of one-off bets at close-to-fair prices would be unlikely to be hit by that - it's more targeted at traders and punters who are essentially taking advantage of either (a) inside or (b) quicker information ("courtsiders").
Are we witnessing pre-nuptial posturing this morning between Jack W and Mick Pork? What do Lady W and Mrs Pork have to say about this? Ed Milibland about to call for a Public Enquiry into the situation.
Mrs Pork feels a bit let down, but once Mick fixes her puncture, all will be well again.
Not questioning the poll, but I would be interested to know what exactly mean by "employers"...that could include / exclude variety of different people...and why they were excluded, they are in employment themselves are they not.
Is it literally anybody who employs somebody else, or more than x other people, etc.
I imagine "Employers" includes self employed, and company directors (or similar) but not people who pay for services even if that worker has only one "boss", ie an MP who "employs" a researcher or a couple who "employ" a nanny or cleaner would not qualify as "Employers".
I do think it's a bit odd that this group is not included in the opinion poll of the "Employed" and is almost certainly going to be more tory than the 27:44 Tory:Labour split.
Comments
But, there are three big groups of voters who are not employees who likely give very big leads to the Conservatives. Retired people, employers and self-employed, and stay-at-home mothers.
Worth noting that the Tories were in third place in 1974 among the youngest age groups, who are now the same people giving them a big lead.
My wife doesn't work, so i don't benefit from this ridiculous childcare bribe. There is only a need for it in the first place because house prices are insanely high (another thing the tories seem to like).
I work hard and yet I am basically taxed at 67% on every pound I earn of the last 1/6th of my income because the government thinks i am too rich to have child benefit. Yet apparently (a) I could earn double and still get this childcare bung or (b) my wife and I could in theory earn £100k between us and still keep the CB AND get the childcare cash. WTF???
Also the FT has calculated that the higher rate threshold would be £76K if it had kept up with inflation. Now 5 million people are expected to pay 40% from next year! This is not a tory government, it feels like Wilson or Callaghan. And government spending still goes up, the deficit is merely inching down so there's no sign of respite any time soon. P1ssing all the money away on free school meals, bribes for farming your children out to strangers 5 days a week, and funding a housing benefit bill which is ballooning due to the pumping up of a housing bubble is not remotely what i hoped for from a conservative government.
Yet the other parties are all worse. None of the above has it for me for now :-(
Not yet been able to decide whether it was a brilliant concept underplayed and therefore a work of genius or a mundane concept overplayed and therefore pretty poor. I am trending towards the genius but I suspect many people might go for very poor. I think it will definitely turn out to be a marmite movie.
But also worth noting is a very slick advert being shown before the film all about how much we rely on the countryside. I though it was for some new organic range or maybe a plea for supporting our farmers.
Turns out it was an advert to tell us how wonderful the Common Agricultural Policy is.
Remarkable garbage disinformation from Brussels but very slickly done.
"JohnLoony: Wikipedia says that Clarissa Dickson-Wright was "disbarred [as a barrister] for practising without chambers". What does that mean? Why would "not having chambers" be a reason for not being a barrister?"
Isn't it just a turn of phrase?
Only when the money well and truly runs out will anyone try and sort out the current mess, hopefully it will happen with Labour in power.
All from memory, so take with a dry lakebed of salt.
It sounds like it's either a good way of maintaining high professional standards at the bar, or a way of limiting entrants that perpetuates the old boy's network.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/mh370-missing-plane-search-live
Is it literally anybody who employs somebody else, or more than x other people, etc.
For example - in 2007 I was earning a wage at an hourly rate that was around 14% above the then minimum wage. Seven years on in 2014 I'm still in the same job but my wage is now just less than 3% above the present minimum wage.
The reason for this is that 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 were all pay freeze years at my place of work. Only in 2013 did we get a modest pay increase - the first since 2007. (And if there's no pay increase this year then, come the autumn, I'll find myself on minimum wage for the first time ever in my life.)
Of course there are other factors that have varied my pay over the last 7 years. For pretty much all of Gordon Brown's premiership I was faced with the double whammy of not just an hourly rate pay freeze but also a substantial reduction in my working hours. Obviously when you're paid by the hour and you find your working hours cut by 10 to 20% then you really do start to feel the squeeze.
The Cameron era began in much the same way as the Brown era... a continuation of frozen wages and reduced hours. The only light in the tunnel being the raising of the starting rate of income tax by the coalition government - which was effectively my only increase in income since the recession began. Little but welcome. Then gradually working hours increased and 2014 has seen a further increase in hours. I'm regularly working 45+ hours per week now.
PB.com has a lot of strengths - but diversity of contributors in the comment section isn't, alas, one of them. The problem lies in the fact that many ordinary working people are in jobs that don't involve sitting at desks with computers so are unable to contribute comments here during the working day - and most people have other things to do at weekends. Obviously people with desk jobs, the retired, the unemployed and students are always going to have more chance to state their views here than the likes of people such as myself. I'm only on here at this time today because I've got a week off work.
Sometimes, in an evening, I might glance through one of the daytime threads and find that they can sometimes read like the script for one of those hilarious out of touch middle class dinner party sketches that Bird & Fortune used to do.
At the moment I can't see anything or anyone in any of the political parties that could convince me vote for them. I've likened politics to a board game played between the politicians before on this site. That remains my view. Politics is becoming a spectator sport - with a decreasing number of spectators. As it stands I'll still be sitting the next election out.
The self-employed are about 13% of the workforce now. They'll likely give a very substantial lead to the Conservatives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/10702886/Clarissa-Dickson-Wright-obituary.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26630062
Red Bishop to pawn 4.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/18/bristol-plans-ban-tree-climbing-skateboarding-parks
Tuesday 18 March 2014 10.29 GMT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-26609949
18 March 2014 Last updated at 09:51
I actually do have a BSc - from the University of Wales. I studied agriculture at Bangor and graduated in 1995. My family background is farming but I left the industry in 2000 and have no interest in returning to it.
The second is that the production company must be 30% BAME-controlled and/or 30% of senior personnel must be BAME.
And the third dictates that at least 50% of on-screen talent must be BAME.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26626388
Replace BAME with white....Would sound like something out of the BNP manifesto.
Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:
http://tinyurl.com/prrpu6g
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10704798/Ukraine-crisis-Putin-signs-treaty-making-Crimea-part-of-Russia.html
Queen to King; Check!!!!!!
'Minority ethnic' sounds decidedly French ('minoritie ethnique' or somesuch)!
It's a Coalition government.
There are important changes - such as bringing down the cost of chilcare by aligning our regulations with France - that were stymied by the LibDems.
A majority conservative government could have been more proactive on many things (including Regulation Mr Alanbrooke - but Cable needed an economics ministry). Perhaps the next one will be...
Not my words...might be a typo from BBC journalist.
This is an M&S government.
Although barristers are technically sole traders, I can see the courts might want a mechanism for coordination.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100264179/budget-2014-george-osborne-is-quiet-too-quiet-hes-up-to-something/
" So maybe all the pre-briefing about a “steady as she goes” Budget is accurate. But if there are fireworks in the Commons tomorrow, don’t be completely surprised."
Is that anything to do with Jack's ARSE?
(I am not a linguist!)
I think a lot of political commentators and indeed politicians have got it wrong in how to attract the grey vote. The current orthodoxy seems to be based around the idea that you cannot take away pensioner benefits otherwise the old buggers will stop voting for you. In my experience that is not necessarily true. For most pensioners concern about their children and especially their grand-children is a much bigger driver than their own well-being.
Of course for genuinely needy pensioners we should provide what is needed in terms of heating food and so forth, but let's target need. For example, the idea that the members of the Hurtspierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association need free bus passes (mainly used for our first Tuesday in the month Brighton Luncheon outing) is a nonsense, as is giving us a heating allowance. Take that money from us give it to the genuinely needy. Maybe go even so far as to make the old age pension not a universal benefit (some of us have a big enough occupational pension to live on).
Approached in the right way and HMG could take money from the retired with their blessing (and votes) provided it was spent on the coming generations.
I don't believe anyone can now reasonably argue that it will be cancelled.
Shouldn't we now be a-settling?
I can't see given the state of public finances how he can produce anything that radical, without either taking from Peter to pay Paul or just abandoning any illusion of cuts / radical deficit reduction.
It seems he kicked the idea of IC+NI tax being combined into the long grass in the past couple of announcements, which would be one eye catcher.
Cable will be wanting credit for the colour of GO's tie or whatever.
"I have absolutely no doubt that the PM will secure all his stated [EU] negotiating aims. Indeed it’s clear, looking at them, that the starting point was not “What kind of relationship with the EU do we ideally want?” but “What can we be certain of securing, so that the negotiations can be declared a success?”
Sir Humphrey in Brussels has evidently been shuttling around his opposite numbers finding out what they are prepared to concede. “Look here, I don’t suppose we could opt out of some of these regulations that are hurting the City of London? No? How about an end to the Cohesion Fund racket? Too much? Ah. Alright then. What about taking out the words ‘ever closer union’ – just the words, you understand? Yes? Splendid!”"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100264175/david-cameron-wants-to-stay-in-the-eu-on-something-like-the-current-terms-but-hes-our-only-chance-of-a-referendum/
I've sold 'Billion' at 36. Selling is always a bit of a risk on this kind of market, but at a quick count the numbers of instances of the word (and variants) in 2011, 2012 and 2013 seem to have been 16, 31 and 23.
This is not advice, do your own research, you might lose your shirt, etc etc.
Just don't panic when he mentions billion about 8 times in 10 seconds when he goes through the predicted and historical public deficit each year. It calms down then!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/10705370/Ministers-admit-defeat-in-battle-against-grey-squirrels.html
Ladbrokes say they have taken a £25,000 bet at 11/8 on Tories to be biggest party #GE2015
Better odds than that on betfair
Interesting article....will leave it at that, other than to say how come the Sunday Times legal team didn't know or object?
Judging from what I've heard about this budget so far, I'd be more inclined to go for a hike in stamp duty thresholds. All Osborne's rhetoric has been about hard working families being able to buy their own homes....
But not £25k's worth.
Or removing the "steps" ? Would suit me am looking to buy/sell.
Betfair are actually quite rarely best value for one-off bets on anything that's covered by plenty of bookies. The principal advantage of betfair is trading.
It's pretty thin gruel, to be honest.
It's not as if there are any Floaters in the PB toilet bowl to still stink the place out.
Get it?
*chortle*
I do think it's a bit odd that this group is not included in the opinion poll of the "Employed" and is almost certainly going to be more tory than the 27:44 Tory:Labour split.
Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:
http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.4574998/the-2014-budget
Sporting Index have put up some Budget Specials:
http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.4574998/the-2014-budget
Interesting....