Edmund, I think Ofcom look increasingly statist given the changes that the market has brought to broadcasting over the last ten years.
In these days of smartphones, tablets etc there are flows of media that can't be regulated under Ofcom's remit. And that's good. Let the market (ie the people) decide what they want to watch.
BTW, I enjoyed the reasoning in the thread header as to how each actor should act according to the actions of the others. Reminded me of doing game theory at university.
Edmund, I think Ofcom look increasingly statist given the changes that the market has brought to broadcasting over the last ten years.
In these days of smartphones, tablets etc there are flows of media that can't be regulated under Ofcom's remit. And that's good. Let the market (ie the people) decide what they want to watch.
BTW, I enjoyed the reasoning in the thread header as to how each actor should act according to the actions of the others. Reminded me of doing game theory at university.
Right, there's no need to have entry requirements at all. The leaders could just post their videos in response to each other. They could choose which other leaders' videos to respond to, and the voters could choose which ones to watch.
That said, legacy media do still have an impact, especially among the older demographics who do most of the actual voting.
He might want to consider giving England its own Parliament before shoving even more powers towards Wales and Scotland.
Whatever happened to English votes for English laws? Wasn't Ken Clarke doing something about this?
Westminster is the de facto English parliament, it has all the power and uses it for England
Scotland will vote NO for independence but will gain extra devolved powers. Cameron will then announce EVFEL as part of the Conservatives' next manifesto.
Not a chance of any significant powers if it is NO , hence why it will be a YES vote.
Is Eck turning up to the big cup final tomorrow ? heard its a flag day which should please him..
"STJOHN"'s two main bets for the Grand National are
BURTON PORT each way
and
ALVARADO each way.
I've also had smaller bets on four long shots, all each way
QUITO DE LA ROQUE, COlBERT STATION, RAZ DE MAREE and ROSE OF THE MOON
Good luck anyone having a bet.
You can make a case for alot of them this year.
Agreed, Pulpstar. I can't recall a more wide open National.
I too like Burton Port and Alvarado, but my main selections are Triolo D'Alene and Pineau de Re. Others that I think are overpriced are Lasr Time Dalbain and One In A Milan.
But it's 12/1 the field.....how open can it get, ffs?!
He might want to consider giving England its own Parliament before shoving even more powers towards Wales and Scotland.
Whatever happened to English votes for English laws? Wasn't Ken Clarke doing something about this?
Westminster is the de facto English parliament, it has all the power and uses it for England
Scotland will vote NO for independence but will gain extra devolved powers. Cameron will then announce EVFEL as part of the Conservatives' next manifesto.
Not a chance of any significant powers if it is NO , hence why it will be a YES vote.
Is Eck turning up to the big cup final tomorrow ? heard its a flag day which should please him..
he is busy in New York getting more inward investment and discussing independence with the Yanks. Doubt he would be interested in a diddy cup game.
It's impossible to be fair, but the above would seem to be fairish.
My assumption is that we require an MP to be effectively based in two places, so we should pay a reasonable cost of the second base. If we went on a cost basis, we could pay the reasonable cost of a second home in London (assumes the base is the constituency and an MP is effectively paid to work in the constituency). My view is that all you need is a one bedroom flat. If you want a bigger second home, pay for it. Your family home, you pay for out of your own resources. If the MP chooses to base the family in London, they can do so and still claim the 1-bed-flat allowance (but no more).
MPs in London wouldn't get a housing allowance but they do get a London weighting. Any MP within 40 miles would be expected to commute (like many of their constituents do). They should pay for that out of their own resources (ditto like many of their constituents) although we might pay them an out-of-London weighting.
Rather than MPs claiming for bathplugs etc we might make them a grant of say £3000 for furnishing their second home and £1000 annually for running costs, delapidations, etc.
If we pay towards a mortgage it will be for no more than the mortgage for a 1 bed flat in London (value to be determined independently) and must be on one property, for life. No flipping. The taxpayer should take a share in any added value, either when the property is sold or the MP ceases to be one.
This all seems fair, and seeks to treat MPs like any employee who is required to spend substantial amounts of time based in a second workplace in the UK.
That might work better, and be simpler, than my idea. It would be interesting to know what those more knowledgeable than myself of the lifestyle and workloads of MPs think.
VAT's undoubtedly risen, the kids tax allowance is not something that affects everyone (is that a universal decrease/loss of welfare, or dependent on income?), and the thresholds staying flat (save the personal allowance) are a sly and cheap way of dragging more people into higher rates.
On fuel, hasn't duty on that being frozen? I know VAT applies, but that's double-counting.
I saw a front page a few days ago with Balls bleating that everyone was circa £900 worth off. The problem is if he reversed tax/welfare changes to change that, it would increase the deficit, and the debt.
Why do people that don't want to listen to the concerns of working class people always compare Barking and Dagenham with places like Hampstead, Islington and Camden?
Barking and Dagenham is a massive council house/flat area.. massive estates of social housing. It is the government that allow uncontrolled immigration, and then house the immigrants in places like Barking and Dagenham.. its not about private property owners
From the article
"It’s market day and Marvin Brightly, 33, is dividing his time between his stall selling CDs and his Caribbean foodstore just down the road. He says that the pressure on housing from all the newcomers means that young men like him can never hope to qualify for social housing because they don’t tick the right boxes."
"A council spokesman points out that the borough has one of the largest social housing programmes in London. It is about to introduce a new landlord licensing scheme in a bid to clamp down on cowboy operators who cram ten Lithuanian builders into a space designed for a family of four. But there is only so much any local authority can do."
Barking’s Labour MP Margaret Hodge acknowledges that people are worried: ‘We’re in a period of huge transition, which is very hard for people to accept, but setting targets is not the answer. They don’t work and then people lose trust in the system.’
While pleased to see the back of the BNP, she is worried about the ‘outrageous’ way that other London boroughs are renting buy-to-let properties here and dumping difficult families without even informing the council."
F1: bit of an interesting insight into Mercedes domination: BBC Sport's chief F1 writer Andrew Benson in Bahrain:
"During Friday practice we explained why the Mercedes car is so fast, because of a clever layout of the engine, with the compressor at the front and the turbine at the back, which reduces throttle lag, improves weight and packaging and frees up the electrical parts of the power unit to produce more power at the wheels. We have a bit more info now on the detail behind that. The key is the better airflow into the compressor, because the air has less far to travel from the inlet. Less pressure loss at the compressor leads to more power than is available from the Ferrari and Renault engines. The interesting thing is that apparently the idea initially came from the chassis team, aware of the potential packaging, weight and weight distribution advantages of splitting the turbine and compressor. The engine team realised it was an enormous technical challenge and were not initially sure whether they could pull it off. But they have, and the results are spectacular."
Is that a reason to destroy her life? I don't agree with her politics either but she strikes me as a decent family woman and she has been found not guilty. Shades of the Harriet Harman stuff, such is the feeding frenzy.
I don't want her destroyed. I just object to paying for her life to be enriched,far beyond what she could expect to earn in the real world.
In what respect? She has been found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Just because she is a Tory doesn't mean we should lose sight of that fact.
@Bobafett: Even allowing for the legalistic "not guilty" [ which is not correct. Why is she paying any money back then ? ] verdict, one point still remains:
The mortgage on the house was actually higher than the cost of the house. In other words, she took out the additional money for other investments / spending.
And we are paying for that interest too !
So, even if we agree that at that time MPs were allowed to claim on the mortgage for the second house, should we also pay for other investments too ?
And as far as trying to bully the Standards Commissioner, she behaved like a b!tch !
I can see various problems with that: 1) MPs representing London will get free accommodation, which is hardly fair. Unless we make it so that the flat cannot be used in recess, which would mean everyone would need alternative accommodation anyway, and out-of-London MPs would not have the same access to London during recess.
The solution is radial constituencies converging on Westminster. That way all MPs could live in their constituencies and still be in easy reach of Parliament.
When was the last time any government reduced, per capita and taking into account inflation, the population's tax burden over the course of a parliament? I genuinely have no idea, but it would not surprise me if it hasn't been done for decades, but I'm probably wrong. :-)
Ed Miliband@Ed_Miliband·16m The next Labour government will be for the many, not the few. Say you’re with us: http://labour.tw/1kxFYpd pic.twitter.com/lzqLq3Ej7N
Remove from councils the requirement to house people.
It's worth remembering that levels of homelessness were no higher before council housing and housing benefit than they are now. We always try and treat symptoms, when the problem is attempting to use the government to achieve social aims ends up adding layers of complexity, cost, taxes, and unfairness.
I can see various problems with that: 1) MPs representing London will get free accommodation, which is hardly fair. Unless we make it so that the flat cannot be used in recess, which would mean everyone would need alternative accommodation anyway, and out-of-London MPs would not have the same access to London during recess.
The solution is radial constituencies converging on Westminster. That way all MPs could live in their constituencies and still be in easy reach of Parliament.
I would have expected you to take the high-tech approach. Split parliament up into 650 pieces and distribute one piece into each of the constituencies. Then have all MPs congregate into one big virtual space for debates, meetings and votes from on top of that piece. No second homes needed and no travel expenses ;-)
Remove from councils the requirement to house people.
It's worth remembering that levels of homelessness were no higher before council housing and housing benefit than they are now. We always try and treat symptoms, when the problem is attempting to use the government to achieve social aims ends up adding layers of complexity, cost, taxes, and unfairness.
Im sure you have a philosophical point, as you do with your theory of free movement of people as proferred by AJP Taylor. But Im talking about real concerns of real people who want to see something done, and how best to do something about it
I can see various problems with that: 1) MPs representing London will get free accommodation, which is hardly fair. Unless we make it so that the flat cannot be used in recess, which would mean everyone would need alternative accommodation anyway, and out-of-London MPs would not have the same access to London during recess.
The solution is radial constituencies converging on Westminster. That way all MPs could live in their constituencies and still be in easy reach of Parliament.
I would have expected you to take the high-tech approach. Split parliament up into 650 pieces and distribute one piece into each of the constituencies. Then have all MPs congregate into one big virtual space for debates, meetings and votes from on top of that piece. No second homes needed and no travel expenses ;-)
Keep going along those lines and you can skip the "have MPs" part too, so you don't need any first homes either.
Remove from councils the requirement to house people.
It's worth remembering that levels of homelessness were no higher before council housing and housing benefit than they are now. We always try and treat symptoms, when the problem is attempting to use the government to achieve social aims ends up adding layers of complexity, cost, taxes, and unfairness.
Im sure you have a philosophical point, as you do with your theory of free movement of people as proferred by AJP Taylor. But Im talking about real concerns of real people who want to see something done, and how best to do something about it
I'm not sure what rcs1000 would be if he's not a real person, although I guess he has childproof sockets.
Is that a reason to destroy her life? I don't agree with her politics either but she strikes me as a decent family woman and she has been found not guilty. Shades of the Harriet Harman stuff, such is the feeding frenzy.
I don't want her destroyed. I just object to paying for her life to be enriched,far beyond what she could expect to earn in the real world.
In what respect? She has been found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Just because she is a Tory doesn't mean we should lose sight of that fact.
@Bobafett: Even allowing for the legalistic "not guilty" [ which is not correct. Why is she paying any money back then ? ] verdict, one point still remains:
The mortgage on the house was actually higher than the cost of the house. In other words, she took out the additional money for other investments / spending.
And we are paying for that interest too !
So, even if we agree that at that time MPs were allowed to claim on the mortgage for the second house, should we also pay for other investments too ?
And as far as trying to bully the Standards Commissioner, she behaved like a b!tch !
That is factually incorrect.
She increased the size of her mortgage, but the Committee stated that she didn't charge the state for the interest on the extra borrowing
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Is that a reason to destroy her life? I don't agree with her politics either but she strikes me as a decent family woman and she has been found not guilty. Shades of the Harriet Harman stuff, such is the feeding frenzy.
I don't want her destroyed. I just object to paying for her life to be enriched,far beyond what she could expect to earn in the real world.
In what respect? She has been found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Just because she is a Tory doesn't mean we should lose sight of that fact.
@Bobafett: Even allowing for the legalistic "not guilty" [ which is not correct. Why is she paying any money back then ? ] verdict, one point still remains:
The mortgage on the house was actually higher than the cost of the house. In other words, she took out the additional money for other investments / spending.
And we are paying for that interest too !
So, even if we agree that at that time MPs were allowed to claim on the mortgage for the second house, should we also pay for other investments too ?
And as far as trying to bully the Standards Commissioner, she behaved like a b!tch !
That is factually incorrect.
She increased the size of her mortgage, but the Committee stated that she didn't charge the state for the interest on the extra borrowing
F1: bit of an interesting insight into Mercedes domination: BBC Sport's chief F1 writer Andrew Benson in Bahrain:
"During Friday practice we explained why the Mercedes car is so fast, because of a clever layout of the engine, with the compressor at the front and the turbine at the back, which reduces throttle lag, improves weight and packaging and frees up the electrical parts of the power unit to produce more power at the wheels. We have a bit more info now on the detail behind that. The key is the better airflow into the compressor, because the air has less far to travel from the inlet. Less pressure loss at the compressor leads to more power than is available from the Ferrari and Renault engines. The interesting thing is that apparently the idea initially came from the chassis team, aware of the potential packaging, weight and weight distribution advantages of splitting the turbine and compressor. The engine team realised it was an enormous technical challenge and were not initially sure whether they could pull it off. But they have, and the results are spectacular."
That's utterly ingenious, and I'm surprised they've managed to get it so reliable. Utterly brilliant British engineering. :-)
Is that a reason to destroy her life? I don't agree with her politics either but she strikes me as a decent family woman and she has been found not guilty. Shades of the Harriet Harman stuff, such is the feeding frenzy.
I don't want her destroyed. I just object to paying for her life to be enriched,far beyond what she could expect to earn in the real world.
In what respect? She has been found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Just because she is a Tory doesn't mean we should lose sight of that fact.
@Bobafett: Even allowing for the legalistic "not guilty" [ which is not correct. Why is she paying any money back then ? ] verdict, one point still remains:
The mortgage on the house was actually higher than the cost of the house. In other words, she took out the additional money for other investments / spending.
And we are paying for that interest too !
So, even if we agree that at that time MPs were allowed to claim on the mortgage for the second house, should we also pay for other investments too ?
And as far as trying to bully the Standards Commissioner, she behaved like a b!tch !
That is factually incorrect.
She increased the size of her mortgage, but the Committee stated that she didn't charge the state for the interest on the extra borrowing
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
On the debate question, we can come up with any old objective (or subjective) criteria and use them as justification for including/excluding anyone.
I'm about as far removed from a UKIP supporter as you can get but I recognise Nigel Farage represents a constituency of opinion which is entitled to have its view heard and in the same way to have its view challenged.
It's not impossible that either UKIP or the LDs will win a majority but it is highly improbable. Any party that can put 326 candidates up can in theory win a majority and you might argue that for a wealthy individual that's not a lot of cash to drop to get a place on national television and a chance to put your viewpoint across.
So we're back to the twin demons of polling and past performance. On the basis of the former, Tony Blair would have talked to himself in 2001 as would Margaret Thatcher in 1983 but it doesn't work like that either and of course UKIP has never won a seat in any GE so the latter wouldn't help them.
Given that a future Coalition Government might rely on SNP, PC or DUP support, there's a question about their involvement.
There's no perfect answer of course - under the current arrangements, UKIP's exclusion is justifiable but not necessarily correct. The current process also closes off the option of the wealthy maverick paying for a lectern - is that right or justifiable in a democratic process ?
Im sure you have a philosophical point, as you do with your theory of free movement of people as proferred by AJP Taylor. But Im talking about real concerns of real people who want to see something done, and how best to do something about it
Taylor was an arch statist. He began that volume of the Oxford History of England series with his picture of minimal government in order to emphasise how beneficial he thought the expansion of government power had been in the period after 1914.
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Your arguments are ludicrous. Tax allowance/ tax credit, no-one cares what you call it. The taxman is better off by £45pcm on that change alone.
Im sure you have a philosophical point, as you do with your theory of free movement of people as proferred by AJP Taylor. But Im talking about real concerns of real people who want to see something done, and how best to do something about it
Taylor was an arch statist. He began that volume of the Oxford History of England series with his picture of minimal government in order to emphasise how beneficial he thought the expansion of government power had been in the period after 1914.
Fair points, I wonder what Mr. Taylor (who died in only 1990) would have made of he extent the state has entrenched itself into every day life.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
And you don't understand this why? He's just pulled a number out of hs arse in an effort to make a partisan claim - it's as simple as that. Perhaps "Jonathan" is really Ed Balls? The technique matches up.
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Your arguments are ludicrous. Tax allowance/ tax credit, no-one cares what you call it. The taxman is better off by £45pcm on that change alone.
No sign of the market I want. I'm going to go do some exercise, then come back and see if it's up. If it isn't, or the price is bad, I'll just go without tipping.
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Your arguments are ludicrous. Tax allowance/ tax credit, no-one cares what you call it. The taxman is better off by £45pcm on that change alone.
What change are you talking about?
Withdrawal of child tax credit to families from around £26-£30k. Minimum amount lost is £545.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
The sensible answer surely is to have four debates, two with Ukip, the Lib Dems and the Greens as well as Dave and Ed, and then two as a direct face-off between the two main parties as to who will be Prime Minister.
I know the Greens aren't polling anywhere near Ukip, but they have an MP and are an established national party. Ukip shouldn't really object to them participating, because if Farage's call for a people's army is so strong it'll hardly be dilluted by Caroline Lucas or Jenny Jones bleating on, and it may even help them as Farage will really have something to get his teeth into. It would also rather nicely balance the debate - you'd have the two mainstream left and right-wing options, plus the two more extreme alternatives and Nick Clegg, wherever on the political spectrum he decides he is that day. It may even be good for David Cameron as it would give the Greens a bit of publicity (and possibly pick off some ultra-left votes from Labour) when they've largely been forgotten outside Brighton.
A one-on-one debate would be fantastic - a real chance to see both leaders try and dismantle each others' arguments without the third man for it to filter through, saying he thinks both are half right.
In their heart-of-hearts kippers should accept it to - if there were a political earthquake large enough to elevate Farage to the level of Cameron and Miliband in terms of GE votes and likely MPs then it won't matter very much that he doesn't get to debate with them. The exposure in the larger debates would also probably help Ukip achieve their realistic aim - getting a handful of MPs.
The problem will be the Lib Dems - who despite having no hope of providing a PM form part of the government and are unlikely to stomach a demotion to the status of a minor party, even if that's where the polls tell us they are. The SNP and Plaid don't really have a case - Alex Salmond and Leanne Wood aren't even in theory running to become Prime Minister and so can debate with either their respective opposition leaders or the ministers responsible for their parts of the country.
How it would work legally I don't know, but it seems fair to everyone (except perhaps the Lib Dems, on previous performance rather than their current horror show) and would have the added bonus of giving us a real head-to-head debate between prospective Prime Ministers.
Is that a reason to destroy her life? I don't agree with her politics either but she strikes me as a decent family woman and she has been found not guilty. Shades of the Harriet Harman stuff, such is the feeding frenzy.
I don't want her destroyed. I just object to paying for her life to be enriched,far beyond what she could expect to earn in the real world.
In what respect? She has been found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Just because she is a Tory doesn't mean we should lose sight of that fact.
@Bobafett: Even allowing for the legalistic "not guilty" [ which is not correct. Why is she paying any money back then ? ] verdict, one point still remains:
The mortgage on the house was actually higher than the cost of the house. In other words, she took out the additional money for other investments / spending.
And we are paying for that interest too !
So, even if we agree that at that time MPs were allowed to claim on the mortgage for the second house, should we also pay for other investments too ?
And as far as trying to bully the Standards Commissioner, she behaved like a b!tch !
That is factually incorrect.
She increased the size of her mortgage, but the Committee stated that she didn't charge the state for the interest on the extra borrowing
From the Committee's Report. I prefer primary sources to a newspaper's partial reporting.
Even though the figures available are incomplete, we are satisfied that there is sufficient independent evidence to support Mrs Miller's assertion that up until the year 2008-09 she did not claim for the interest on any increases to her mortgage after her election.
I disagree, we should do it the other way around, and each constituency should provide and maintain a house there for the incumbent MP while they cough up for what ever their accommodation needs are while they attend Parliament in London. We have a situation right now where some MP's choose to live with their families in London while others don't, and we should recognise this and therefore make it far more flexible than simple providing a 1 bed flat for each MP.
I imagine a lot of politicians are sitting with their heads in their hands this morning re the expenses phoenix.
Yeah, that's one thing we can be grateful to Maria Miller for. It needs a few more to get dragged in, then maybe the whole rotten system can be modernised.
I think we should buy a tower block in central-ish London, refurbish it as 1 bed flats, and let them live there free of charge. In fact, if we kick them out during the summer recess we could let it as holiday accommodation and the whole enterprise might break even.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
No, it's putting the Government's claims about people being better off due to the raising of the income tax allowance into proper context.
Or is a measure only an electoral bribe when introduced by Labour, when it's the Coalition doing it it's responsible by definition?
The sensible answer surely is to have four debates, two with Ukip, the Lib Dems and the Greens as well as Dave and Ed, and then two as a direct face-off between the two main parties as to who will be Prime Minister.
I know the Greens aren't polling anywhere near Ukip, but they have an MP and are an established national party. Ukip shouldn't really object to them participating, because if Farage's call for a people's army is so strong it'll hardly be dilluted by Caroline Lucas or Jenny Jones bleating on, and it may even help them as Farage will really have something to get his teeth into. It would also rather nicely balance the debate - you'd have the two mainstream left and right-wing options, plus the two more extreme alternatives and Nick Clegg, wherever on the political spectrum he decides he is that day. It may even be good for David Cameron as it would give the Greens a bit of publicity (and possibly pick off some ultra-left votes from Labour) when they've largely been forgotten outside Brighton.
A one-on-one debate would be fantastic - a real chance to see both leaders try and dismantle each others' arguments without the third man for it to filter through, saying he thinks both are half right.
In their heart-of-hearts kippers should accept it to - if there were a political earthquake large enough to elevate Farage to the level of Cameron and Miliband in terms of GE votes and likely MPs then it won't matter very much that he doesn't get to debate with them. The exposure in the larger debates would also probably help Ukip achieve their realistic aim - getting a handful of MPs.
The problem will be the Lib Dems - who despite having no hope of providing a PM form part of the government and are unlikely to stomach a demotion to the status of a minor party, even if that's where the polls tell us they are. The SNP and Plaid don't really have a case - Alex Salmond and Leanne Wood aren't even in theory running to become Prime Minister and so can debate with either their respective opposition leaders or the ministers responsible for their parts of the country.
How it would work legally I don't know, but it seems fair to everyone (except perhaps the Lib Dems, on previous performance rather than their current horror show) and would have the added bonus of giving us a real head-to-head debate between prospective Prime Ministers.
Agree. Sceptical about including the Greens, but willing to be convinced.
I disagree, we should do it the other way around, and each constituency should provide and maintain a house there for the incumbent MP while they cough up for what ever their accommodation needs are while they attend Parliament in London. We have a situation right now where some MP's choose to live with their families in London while others don't, and we should recognise this and therefore make it far more flexible than simple providing a 1 bed flat for each MP.
I imagine a lot of politicians are sitting with their heads in their hands this morning re the expenses phoenix.
Yeah, that's one thing we can be grateful to Maria Miller for. It needs a few more to get dragged in, then maybe the whole rotten system can be modernised.
I think we should buy a tower block in central-ish London, refurbish it as 1 bed flats, and let them live there free of charge. In fact, if we kick them out during the summer recess we could let it as holiday accommodation and the whole enterprise might break even.
In the past they had clubs, like the National Liberal club, with accommodation. It was in the parties' interest to ensure their members were there to vote. At some point the parties offloaded these costs onto the state.
I disagree, we should do it the other way around, and each constituency should provide and maintain a house there for the incumbent MP while they cough up for what ever their accommodation needs are while they attend Parliament in London. We have a situation right now where some MP's choose to live with their families in London while others don't, and we should recognise this and therefore make it far more flexible than simple providing a 1 bed flat for each MP.
I imagine a lot of politicians are sitting with their heads in their hands this morning re the expenses phoenix.
Yeah, that's one thing we can be grateful to Maria Miller for. It needs a few more to get dragged in, then maybe the whole rotten system can be modernised.
I think we should buy a tower block in central-ish London, refurbish it as 1 bed flats, and let them live there free of charge. In fact, if we kick them out during the summer recess we could let it as holiday accommodation and the whole enterprise might break even.
But doesn't that act to the disadvantage of *genuinely* local MPs. They will probably have an established family home in the locality already, but will have the expense of a house in London. I suppose you could let them rent out the house provided by the constituency if they so wish?
On the debate question, we can come up with any old objective (or subjective) criteria and use them as justification for including/excluding anyone.
I'm about as far removed from a UKIP supporter as you can get but I recognise Nigel Farage represents a constituency of opinion which is entitled to have its view heard and in the same way to have its view challenged.
It's not impossible that either UKIP or the LDs will win a majority but it is highly improbable. Any party that can put 326 candidates up can in theory win a majority and you might argue that for a wealthy individual that's not a lot of cash to drop to get a place on national television and a chance to put your viewpoint across.
So we're back to the twin demons of polling and past performance. On the basis of the former, Tony Blair would have talked to himself in 2001 as would Margaret Thatcher in 1983 but it doesn't work like that either and of course UKIP has never won a seat in any GE so the latter wouldn't help them.
Given that a future Coalition Government might rely on SNP, PC or DUP support, there's a question about their involvement.
There's no perfect answer of course - under the current arrangements, UKIP's exclusion is justifiable but not necessarily correct. The current process also closes off the option of the wealthy maverick paying for a lectern - is that right or justifiable in a democratic process ?
There really has to be a balance. On the one hand, it would be an undermining of democracy if anyone rich enough to stump up 350+ deposits could buy their way in; on the other, going on past performance could introduce a five or ten year time lag.
The sensible compromise to my mind is to require both. So if a new party does establish a strong track record within a parliament, in both opinion polling and at the ballot box in other elections (locals, Europeans, by-elections etc), then that should be a route in. Likewise, just because a party did well last time, it shouldn't guarantee participation a maintenance of Major Party status if they collapse in between. That said, there's a case that if a party doesn't have a track record at previous general elections, the barriers should be higher for interim performance than for those that have proven themselves in the most demanding electoral circumstances i.e. a general election.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
No, it's putting the Government's claims about people being better off due to the raising of the income tax allowance into proper context.
Or is a measure only an electoral bribe when introduced by Labour, when it's the Coalition doing it it's responsible by definition?
If you are giving people money that is extracted from other tax payers then that could be an electoral bribe (e.g. the school meals scheme or free travel for OAPs)
I don't see how allowing people to keep more of their own money could be defined as such.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
Unfortunately once you've bribed the greedy, the feckless and the stupid in sufficient numbers it becomes politically almost impossible to claw the country back towards fiscal responsibility.
And when you add voters like Jonathan who fabricate numbers without evidence just to make partisan points you're basically doomed.
If they already have a constituency home they can choose to sell it or rent it out while the MP coughs up for place to stay in London. And because equally, you currently have some MP's just requiring a 1 bed place in London while others have their main home and family with them in London. As things stands, you are going to have MP's who would be at disadvantage with either option if we opt for such a massive reform of the current system to make it more fit for purpose for the taxpayer.
But I do know that simple providing a free 1 bed flat in London is going to be the worst option for MP's with young families, and in particular for female MP's. It would just make becoming an MP even more a rich man's choice. We have to allow for more flexibility when it comes to the accommodation needs of MP's while they attend Parliament during the week, but the onus should be on them picking up that tab for their choices.
I disagree, we should do it the other way around, and each constituency should provide and maintain a house there for the incumbent MP while they cough up for what ever their accommodation needs are while they attend Parliament in London. We have a situation right now where some MP's choose to live with their families in London while others don't, and we should recognise this and therefore make it far more flexible than simple providing a 1 bed flat for each MP.
I imagine a lot of politicians are sitting with their heads in their hands this morning re the expenses phoenix.
Yeah, that's one thing we can be grateful to Maria Miller for. It needs a few more to get dragged in, then maybe the whole rotten system can be modernised.
I think we should buy a tower block in central-ish London, refurbish it as 1 bed flats, and let them live there free of charge. In fact, if we kick them out during the summer recess we could let it as holiday accommodation and the whole enterprise might break even.
But doesn't that act to the disadvantage of *genuinely* local MPs. They will probably have an established family home in the locality already, but will have the expense of a house in London. I suppose you could let them rent out the house provided by the constituency if they so wish?
Ref the Greens and GE debates. They've missed their chance. If they wanted in, they should have argued for inclusion in the Euro-debates, where they have a far stronger track record both in vote share and in elected representatives won. Having sat these ones out, it'd be difficult to sustain why they should be in next year. For context, last time, they only just contested half the seats (if you include the Scottish Greens), and won just 1% of the vote.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
Unfortunately once you've bribed the greedy, the feckless and the stupid in sufficient numbers it becomes politically almost impossible to claw the country back towards fiscal responsibility.
And when you add voters like Jonathan who fabricate numbers without evidence just to make partisan points you're basically doomed.
I guess it's now the IFS fabricating numbers GeoffM.
Families to be £1,800 a year worse off by 2015, IFS says
If they already have a constituency home they can choose to sell it or rent it out while the MP coughs up for place to stay in London. And because equally, you currently have some MP's just requiring a 1 bed place in London while others have their main home and family with them in London. As things stands, you are going to have MP's who would be at disadvantage with either option if we opt for such a massive reform of the current system to make it more fit for purpose for the taxpayer.
But I do know that simple providing a free 1 bed flat in London is going to be the worst option for MP's with young families, and in particular for female MP's. It would just make becoming an MP even more a rich man's choice. We have to allow for more flexibility when it comes to the accommodation needs of MP's while they attend Parliament during the week, but the onus should be on them picking up that tab for their choices.
I disagree, we should do it the other way around, and each constituency should provide and maintain a house there for the incumbent MP while they cough up for what ever their accommodation needs are while they attend Parliament in London. We have a situation right now where some MP's choose to live with their families in London while others don't, and we should recognise this and therefore make it far more flexible than simple providing a 1 bed flat for each MP.
I imagine a lot of politicians are sitting with their heads in their hands this morning re the expenses phoenix.
Yeah, that's one thing we can be grateful to Maria Miller for. It needs a few more to get dragged in, then maybe the whole rotten system can be modernised.
I think we should buy a tower block in central-ish London, refurbish it as 1 bed flats, and let them live there free of charge. In fact, if we kick them out during the summer recess we could let it as holiday accommodation and the whole enterprise might break even.
But doesn't that act to the disadvantage of *genuinely* local MPs. They will probably have an established family home in the locality already, but will have the expense of a house in London. I suppose you could let them rent out the house provided by the constituency if they so wish?
So they have to go through the hassle of moving from their existing home into constituency approved housing? Sorry, but that's just crazy.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
What is democracy but bribing the electorate with their own or others' money? There is a reason that democracy has been considered a corrupt form of government by nearly all political theorists since Plato.
The whole 'we're worse off' argument is a reassertion of the magic money tree. It's taking as a starting point a position from which the government was bribing the electorate with their children's money (on top of a huge amassing of private and corporate debt). That whole line of thinking should be dismissed as irresponsible; a throwback to the Brown Boom days. If we want to get richer, we need to earn it. We can't just increase our standard of living by passing legislation to make everyone richer.
Unfortunately once you've bribed the greedy, the feckless and the stupid in sufficient numbers it becomes politically almost impossible to claw the country back towards fiscal responsibility.
And when you add voters like Jonathan who fabricate numbers without evidence just to make partisan points you're basically doomed.
I guess it's now the IFS fabricating numbers GeoffM.
Families to be £1,800 a year worse off by 2015, IFS says
First you made up some numbers off the top of your head and called them "your" individual circumstances. When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words. Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it.
On the debate question, we can come up with any old objective (or subjective) criteria and use them as justification for including/excluding anyone.
I'm about as far removed from a UKIP supporter as you can get but I recognise Nigel Farage represents a constituency of opinion which is entitled to have its view heard and in the same way to have its view challenged.
It's not impossible that either UKIP or the LDs will win a majority but it is highly improbable. Any party that can put 326 candidates up can in theory win a majority and you might argue that for a wealthy individual that's not a lot of cash to drop to get a place on national television and a chance to put your viewpoint across.
So we're back to the twin demons of polling and past performance. On the basis of the former, Tony Blair would have talked to himself in 2001 as would Margaret Thatcher in 1983 but it doesn't work like that either and of course UKIP has never won a seat in any GE so the latter wouldn't help them.
Given that a future Coalition Government might rely on SNP, PC or DUP support, there's a question about their involvement.
There's no perfect answer of course - under the current arrangements, UKIP's exclusion is justifiable but not necessarily correct. The current process also closes off the option of the wealthy maverick paying for a lectern - is that right or justifiable in a democratic process ?
But I do know that simple providing a free 1 bed flat in London is going to be the worst option for MP's with young families, and in particular for female MP's. It would just make becoming an MP even more a rich man's choice. We have to allow for more flexibility when it comes to the accommodation needs of MP's while they attend Parliament during the week, but the onus should be on them picking up that tab for their choices.
It was put up as an item for discussion - good that people are picking up on the impracticalities.
Although surely any profession where you are supposed to be simultaneously based in two places that could be a couple of hundred miles apart, is not really suitable for anyone with a young family. And personally I'd prefer it if there were more single MPs, those of us who are evolutionary dead ends are an important constituency that is not well served.
Mr. Neil, it's worth recalling the IFS attacked an earlier Budget for not being 'progressive' because it would spend less on welfare, due to a forecast decline in unemployment...
The sensible answer surely is to have four debates, two with Ukip, the Lib Dems and the Greens as well as Dave and Ed, and then two as a direct face-off between the two main parties as to who will be Prime Minister.
I know the Greens aren't polling anywhere near Ukip, but they have an MP and are an established national party. Ukip shouldn't really object to them participating, because if Farage's call for a people's army is so strong it'll hardly be dilluted by Caroline Lucas or Jenny Jones bleating on, and it may even help them as Farage will really have something to get his teeth into. It would also rather nicely balance the debate - you'd have the two mainstream left and right-wing options, plus the two more extreme alternatives and Nick Clegg, wherever on the political spectrum he decides he is that day. It may even be good for David Cameron as it would give the Greens a bit of publicity (and possibly pick off some ultra-left votes from Labour) when they've largely been forgotten outside Brighton.
A one-on-one debate would be fantastic - a real chance to see both leaders try and dismantle each others' arguments without the third man for it to filter through, saying he thinks both are half right.
In their heart-of-hearts kippers should accept it to - if there were a political earthquake large enough to elevate Farage to the level of Cameron and Miliband in terms of GE votes and likely MPs then it won't matter very much that he doesn't get to debate with them. The exposure in the larger debates would also probably help Ukip achieve their realistic aim - getting a handful of MPs.
The problem will be the Lib Dems - who despite having no hope of providing a PM form part of the government and are unlikely to stomach a demotion to the status of a minor party, even if that's where the polls tell us they are. The SNP and Plaid don't really have a case - Alex Salmond and Leanne Wood aren't even in theory running to become Prime Minister and so can debate with either their respective opposition leaders or the ministers responsible for their parts of the country.
How it would work legally I don't know, but it seems fair to everyone (except perhaps the Lib Dems, on previous performance rather than their current horror show) and would have the added bonus of giving us a real head-to-head debate between prospective Prime Ministers.
Seems on vinous to me that there should be a head to head between Miliband and Cameron, and another that includes smaller parties like Ukip and the lib Dems... Why is that so difficult?
We have gay marriage, and that used to be against the rules too!
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words. Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it.
"Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it."
Amen to that!
As for being "challenged" by you. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
To be fair, I'd say it's a limited and flawed analytical assumption rather than "leftist" per se.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words. Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it.
"Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it."
Amen to that!
As for being "challenged" by you. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed.
I hadn't noticed either; mostly because I didn't challenge you. HurstLlama did.
Mr. Charles, when we have a leftwing government we'll find out whether the IFS is acting contrary to the IFS for media attention, or whether it's just leftwing.
@Charles And how many MP's go onto sell their constituency property and move elsewhere after they stand down from Parliament or lose their seat in a GE? If all the taxpayer did was cough up for a 1 bed flat in London while MP's were there during the week, how do you expect current or future prospective MP's with young families who wish to stay together during the week to cough up for two homes out of an MP's salary because a 1 bed flat is totally impracticable for them? The current system is broken, its led too many MP's being able to build up a property portfolio via taxpayers while the expenses system has become a joke!
A future taxpayer owned and maintained constituency home with the incumbent MP paying for their own accommodation needs whilst in London is the most flexible way to go. And if the MP already has a home in the constituency they can have the flexibility of renting it out or selling it too. I think that you are forgetting that we currently have a system where our elected Prime Minister and Chancellor both have to move out of their family homes and into London based flats paid for by the taxpayer above the shop. If that system is good enough for the PM and the chancellor, then it should be good enough for all MP's.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
Whereas , your slanted , controversial and rightist attitude is that you must take money off the poor to encourage them to work harder but to give more money to the rich to encourage them to work harder .
Mr. Socrates, I have no idea what happened to English votes to English laws. If they keep ignoring the West Lothian Question it'll just increase the irritation of the English at the democratic deficit.
Could it be that the WLQ is mostly mythical and dreamt up by intentionally, or otherwise, troublemaking unionists? I don't know the answer, but consider this.
Virtually all policy decisions in Westminster that change English policies affect the budget allocation/costs and therefore also the Barnett formula. Which gives the Scots and Welsh MPs a legitimate locus.
How many, really, how many votes are there where the above does not apply? I recently saw a count by someone for, I think, 2011 and the number was minimal - and much of it was for the Much Hadham (Waterworks) (Consolidation) Act or similar local stuff.
And it is the unionist parties not the SNP who insist on making their Scottish (and Welsh, remember) MPs vote on purely English matters. Yes, the ones with HQs in London. To do that and then complain about it is perhaps just a wee bittie inconsistent.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
To be fair, I'd say it's a limited and flawed analytical assumption rather than "leftist" per se.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
Yes, that seems a very reasonable reading of the mindset and motivations. It's just irritating that they are held up as somehow utterly impartial, neutral and perfect. Every organisation has an agenda - the only trick is to spot it.
If they wanted in, they should have argued for inclusion in the Euro-debates
You think they didnt argue for inclusion in these debates?
I don't know but whether the Greens did or not, they didn't end up in them. Given that result, I can't see why it should be any different next year when far fewer people will have the chance to vote for them and of those who can, fewer will.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
Whereas , your slanted , controversial and rightist attitude is that you must take money off the poor to encourage them to work harder but to give more money to the rich to encourage them to work harder .
My attitude is to take less money off everyone - by spending less and doing less.
Likewise, just because a party did well last time, it shouldn't guarantee participation a maintenance of Major Party status if they collapse in between.
Speaking of collapses, though I wouldn't call them a major party, I noticed the BNP got interviewed on the Andrew Marr programme last Sunday. This must of been on their 2009 Euro performance because they have, to all intents and purposes, collapsed.
Also, it would daft if an incumbent was barred from participating in their own re-election.
C 50.5%, LD 24.5%, L 20.38%, UKIP 4.10%, Other 0.5%
Interesting. What's the betting like ?
And in last year's local elections, Labour only came 4% behind the Tories in that constituency -- very odd considering Labour generally did very poorly in the south last year.
I say for the debates they just set down some permanent rules, with any party entitled to a place if they meet atleast TWO of the following three criteria
(1) Standing candidates in atleast half of all UK constituencies (2) Currently holding atleast 10% of all seats in the House of Commons (3) Has an average of 10% or above in all opinion polls in the 12 months prior to election
So, under such criteria, Farage would get a place if he could keep UKIP's poll ratings above 10% until next spring, while also giving a justifiable basis for excluding the Greens and the SNP.
There's no getting around the fact it would look absurd for Clegg to be included and Farage not if UKIP are still outpolling the Lib Dems.
Vat. Fuel Loss of kids tax allowance. Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
Are you sure about those figures? For a basic ate taxpayer I don't think they stack up and therefore your lowest estimate of £50pcm is a nonsense.
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
Don't need to provide figures. Lost child tax allowance altogether (as a basic tax payer) then got dragged into higher rate tax. Then have to spend extra on travel (fuel) and VAT. It adds up.
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Johnathan I don't understand. You are happy to produce this figure of a loss between £50 and £100 pcm but then say there is no need to to say how this is calculated.
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Your arguments are ludicrous. Tax allowance/ tax credit, no-one cares what you call it. The taxman is better off by £45pcm on that change alone.
What change are you talking about?
Withdrawal of child tax credit to families from around £26-£30k. Minimum amount lost is £545.
Alas, Mr. J. I don't think you actually had any figures to back-up your original claim of £50- £100 pcm worse off. because of tax increases. I think it best left at that.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
Tuition fees do indeed - but if memory serves that was (a) a very few Unionist MPs and (b) a most unusual occasion, possibly - given the rarity in which anyone comes up with specific examples of the WLQ.
On devolution: is it so unfair? Only relatively speaking. It would have been much worse for us not to have devolution, it could be argued.
But to come back to the WLQ - is it really a problem? The odd, and in this case very high profile vote aside. It was so unusual, IIRC, that even our token Tory MP abstained from the vote as a matter of principle.
No, it's not. Scottish people wanted devolution, English people dont seem to care. If England wanted devolution and didnt get it - that would be unfair.
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Ah yes, the notoriously pinko IFS.
Yes, that's the one.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
To be fair, I'd say it's a limited and flawed analytical assumption rather than "leftist" per se.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
That would be the OBR that have never got a forecast anywhere near right. A five year old could differentiate themselves from the OBR.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
MD , we may have a parliament but almost all the power is retained by the English parliament in Westminster
Remarkably kind of that English Parliament to bail out the Scottish banks. A very generous parting gift from the long- suffering but soon to be free English.
Comments
In these days of smartphones, tablets etc there are flows of media that can't be regulated under Ofcom's remit. And that's good. Let the market (ie the people) decide what they want to watch.
BTW, I enjoyed the reasoning in the thread header as to how each actor should act according to the actions of the others. Reminded me of doing game theory at university.
That said, legacy media do still have an impact, especially among the older demographics who do most of the actual voting.
Is Eck turning up to the big cup final tomorrow ? heard its a flag day which should please him..
I too like Burton Port and Alvarado, but my main selections are Triolo D'Alene and Pineau de Re. Others that I think are overpriced are Lasr Time Dalbain and One In A Milan.
But it's 12/1 the field.....how open can it get, ffs?!
Good luck to us all.
Fuel
Loss of kids tax allowance.
Static thresholds
Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.
VAT's undoubtedly risen, the kids tax allowance is not something that affects everyone (is that a universal decrease/loss of welfare, or dependent on income?), and the thresholds staying flat (save the personal allowance) are a sly and cheap way of dragging more people into higher rates.
On fuel, hasn't duty on that being frozen? I know VAT applies, but that's double-counting.
I saw a front page a few days ago with Balls bleating that everyone was circa £900 worth off. The problem is if he reversed tax/welfare changes to change that, it would increase the deficit, and the debt.
Why do people that don't want to listen to the concerns of working class people always compare Barking and Dagenham with places like Hampstead, Islington and Camden?
Barking and Dagenham is a massive council house/flat area.. massive estates of social housing. It is the government that allow uncontrolled immigration, and then house the immigrants in places like Barking and Dagenham.. its not about private property owners
From the article
"It’s market day and Marvin Brightly, 33, is dividing his time between his stall selling CDs and his Caribbean foodstore just down the road. He says that the pressure on housing from all the newcomers means that young men like him can never hope to qualify for social housing because they don’t tick the right boxes."
"A council spokesman points out that the borough has one of the largest social housing programmes in London. It is about to introduce a new landlord licensing scheme in a bid to clamp down on cowboy operators who cram ten Lithuanian builders into a space designed for a family of four. But there is only so much any local authority can do."
Barking’s Labour MP Margaret Hodge acknowledges that people are worried: ‘We’re in a period of huge transition, which is very hard for people to accept, but setting targets is not the answer. They don’t work and then people lose trust in the system.’
While pleased to see the back of the BNP, she is worried about the ‘outrageous’ way that other London boroughs are renting buy-to-let properties here and dumping difficult families without even informing the council."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597454/We-Residents-deprived-borough-speak-predicted-Britain-need-Manchester-absorb-immigration.html
BBC Sport's chief F1 writer Andrew Benson in Bahrain:
"During Friday practice we explained why the Mercedes car is so fast, because of a clever layout of the engine, with the compressor at the front and the turbine at the back, which reduces throttle lag, improves weight and packaging and frees up the electrical parts of the power unit to produce more power at the wheels. We have a bit more info now on the detail behind that. The key is the better airflow into the compressor, because the air has less far to travel from the inlet. Less pressure loss at the compressor leads to more power than is available from the Ferrari and Renault engines. The interesting thing is that apparently the idea initially came from the chassis team, aware of the potential packaging, weight and weight distribution advantages of splitting the turbine and compressor. The engine team realised it was an enormous technical challenge and were not initially sure whether they could pull it off. But they have, and the results are spectacular."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26899449
When was the last time any government reduced, per capita and taking into account inflation, the population's tax burden over the course of a parliament? I genuinely have no idea, but it would not surprise me if it hasn't been done for decades, but I'm probably wrong. :-)
Ed Miliband@Ed_Miliband·16m
The next Labour government will be for the many, not the few. Say you’re with us: http://labour.tw/1kxFYpd pic.twitter.com/lzqLq3Ej7N
Remove from councils the requirement to house people.
It's worth remembering that levels of homelessness were no higher before council housing and housing benefit than they are now. We always try and treat symptoms, when the problem is attempting to use the government to achieve social aims ends up adding layers of complexity, cost, taxes, and unfairness.
'Net effect, roughly £50-100pcm worse off.'
And if Ed ever gets elected you can double that figure.
She increased the size of her mortgage, but the Committee stated that she didn't charge the state for the interest on the extra borrowing
The threshold for basic rate taxpayers has not been kept static, it has increased and therefore the proportion of income on which someone is paying income tax has decreased. Have basic rate taxpayers lost children's tax credits? The Fuel duty escalator has been suspended and if you are spending so much that £50 = 2.5% of our VATable spending per month you ain't hard up to start with.
Do you want to provide some figures to back up your statement?
C 25590, LD 12414, L 10327, UKIP 2076, Other 247.
C 50.5%, LD 24.5%, L 20.38%, UKIP 4.10%, Other 0.5%
Interesting. What's the betting like ?
The worse thing is that the incentive to earn more is diminished by the massive marginal tax rates for child benefit.
Top tip, don't have kids under the coalition.
Signal detected in search for MH370, but not confirmed as being from the plane.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26902127
Sounds more promising than any of the wreckage sightings.
On the debate question, we can come up with any old objective (or subjective) criteria and use them as justification for including/excluding anyone.
I'm about as far removed from a UKIP supporter as you can get but I recognise Nigel Farage represents a constituency of opinion which is entitled to have its view heard and in the same way to have its view challenged.
It's not impossible that either UKIP or the LDs will win a majority but it is highly improbable. Any party that can put 326 candidates up can in theory win a majority and you might argue that for a wealthy individual that's not a lot of cash to drop to get a place on national television and a chance to put your viewpoint across.
So we're back to the twin demons of polling and past performance. On the basis of the former, Tony Blair would have talked to himself in 2001 as would Margaret Thatcher in 1983 but it doesn't work like that either and of course UKIP has never won a seat in any GE so the latter wouldn't help them.
Given that a future Coalition Government might rely on SNP, PC or DUP support, there's a question about their involvement.
There's no perfect answer of course - under the current arrangements, UKIP's exclusion is justifiable but not necessarily correct. The current process also closes off the option of the wealthy maverick paying for a lectern - is that right or justifiable in a democratic process ?
"Child Tax allowance is lost", but there hasn't been a child tax allowance for donkey's years - it was replaced long before the coalition came to power and those new arrangements are still in place, at least according to HMRC web-site they are. The increase in VAT of 2.5% would need a total VATable spend of, of the top of my head £2,000 pcm to reach £50. Where does this £50 - £100 pcm come from?
Is your complaint that you earn enough to be caught in the 40% tax bracket. Fair enough, welcome to the club?
Just waiting for one market to appear.
Perhaps "Jonathan" is really Ed Balls? The technique matches up.
The sensible answer surely is to have four debates, two with Ukip, the Lib Dems and the Greens as well as Dave and Ed, and then two as a direct face-off between the two main parties as to who will be Prime Minister.
I know the Greens aren't polling anywhere near Ukip, but they have an MP and are an established national party. Ukip shouldn't really object to them participating, because if Farage's call for a people's army is so strong it'll hardly be dilluted by Caroline Lucas or Jenny Jones bleating on, and it may even help them as Farage will really have something to get his teeth into. It would also rather nicely balance the debate - you'd have the two mainstream left and right-wing options, plus the two more extreme alternatives and Nick Clegg, wherever on the political spectrum he decides he is that day. It may even be good for David Cameron as it would give the Greens a bit of publicity (and possibly pick off some ultra-left votes from Labour) when they've largely been forgotten outside Brighton.
A one-on-one debate would be fantastic - a real chance to see both leaders try and dismantle each others' arguments without the third man for it to filter through, saying he thinks both are half right.
In their heart-of-hearts kippers should accept it to - if there were a political earthquake large enough to elevate Farage to the level of Cameron and Miliband in terms of GE votes and likely MPs then it won't matter very much that he doesn't get to debate with them. The exposure in the larger debates would also probably help Ukip achieve their realistic aim - getting a handful of MPs.
The problem will be the Lib Dems - who despite having no hope of providing a PM form part of the government and are unlikely to stomach a demotion to the status of a minor party, even if that's where the polls tell us they are. The SNP and Plaid don't really have a case - Alex Salmond and Leanne Wood aren't even in theory running to become Prime Minister and so can debate with either their respective opposition leaders or the ministers responsible for their parts of the country.
How it would work legally I don't know, but it seems fair to everyone (except perhaps the Lib Dems, on previous performance rather than their current horror show) and would have the added bonus of giving us a real head-to-head debate between prospective Prime Ministers.
Even though the figures available are incomplete, we are satisfied that there is sufficient independent evidence to support Mrs Miller's assertion that up until the year 2008-09 she did not claim for the interest on any increases to her mortgage after her election.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstandards/1179/117903.htm#a11
Or is a measure only an electoral bribe when introduced by Labour, when it's the Coalition doing it it's responsible by definition?
The sensible compromise to my mind is to require both. So if a new party does establish a strong track record within a parliament, in both opinion polling and at the ballot box in other elections (locals, Europeans, by-elections etc), then that should be a route in. Likewise, just because a party did well last time, it shouldn't guarantee participation a maintenance of Major Party status if they collapse in between. That said, there's a case that if a party doesn't have a track record at previous general elections, the barriers should be higher for interim performance than for those that have proven themselves in the most demanding electoral circumstances i.e. a general election.
I don't see how allowing people to keep more of their own money could be defined as such.
And when you add voters like Jonathan who fabricate numbers without evidence just to make partisan points you're basically doomed.
But I do know that simple providing a free 1 bed flat in London is going to be the worst option for MP's with young families, and in particular for female MP's. It would just make becoming an MP even more a rich man's choice. We have to allow for more flexibility when it comes to the accommodation needs of MP's while they attend Parliament during the week, but the onus should be on them picking up that tab for their choices.
Article up soon, no tip.
Families to be £1,800 a year worse off by 2015, IFS says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22765940
http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/another-great-zionist-selected.html
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/bahrain-pre-qualifying.html
When challenged you now summarise an article from the biased BBC quoting a left wing group using just eight words.
Not exactly the Oxford Union in here today, is it.
Although surely any profession where you are supposed to be simultaneously based in two places that could be a couple of hundred miles apart, is not really suitable for anyone with a young family. And personally I'd prefer it if there were more single MPs, those of us who are evolutionary dead ends are an important constituency that is not well served.
We have gay marriage, and that used to be against the rules too!
Amen to that!
As for being "challenged" by you. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed.
When the IFS (regularly) criticises the Government they do it based on an assumption that the best way of "helping" the poor is by giving them cash. That's not neutrality - that's a slanted, controversial and leftist attitude.
But they are really irritated that they have to differentiate themselves from the OBR, so tend to be more critical of the government in order to get media coverage
HurstLlama did.
A future taxpayer owned and maintained constituency home with the incumbent MP paying for their own accommodation needs whilst in London is the most flexible way to go. And if the MP already has a home in the constituency they can have the flexibility of renting it out or selling it too. I think that you are forgetting that we currently have a system where our elected Prime Minister and Chancellor both have to move out of their family homes and into London based flats paid for by the taxpayer above the shop. If that system is good enough for the PM and the chancellor, then it should be good enough for all MP's.
Virtually all policy decisions in Westminster that change English policies affect the budget allocation/costs and therefore also the Barnett formula. Which gives the Scots and Welsh MPs a legitimate locus.
How many, really, how many votes are there where the above does not apply? I recently saw a count by someone for, I think, 2011 and the number was minimal - and much of it was for the Much Hadham (Waterworks) (Consolidation) Act or similar local stuff.
And it is the unionist parties not the SNP who insist on making their Scottish (and Welsh, remember) MPs vote on purely English matters. Yes, the ones with HQs in London. To do that and then complain about it is perhaps just a wee bittie inconsistent.
There's also the issue of devolution. You have a devolved Parliament. We don't. That's clearly unfair.
Also, it would daft if an incumbent was barred from participating in their own re-election.
Good luck to those PBers betting on the outcome.
FWIW, I've followed St John's tip, Alvarado
(1) Standing candidates in atleast half of all UK constituencies
(2) Currently holding atleast 10% of all seats in the House of Commons
(3) Has an average of 10% or above in all opinion polls in the 12 months prior to election
So, under such criteria, Farage would get a place if he could keep UKIP's poll ratings above 10% until next spring, while also giving a justifiable basis for excluding the Greens and the SNP.
There's no getting around the fact it would look absurd for Clegg to be included and Farage not if UKIP are still outpolling the Lib Dems.
On devolution: is it so unfair? Only relatively speaking. It would have been much worse for us not to have devolution, it could be argued.
But to come back to the WLQ - is it really a problem? The odd, and in this case very high profile vote aside. It was so unusual, IIRC, that even our token Tory MP abstained from the vote as a matter of principle.
He was my second string but great odds. Fine payday! :-)
(I think Stodge gave it too.)