OGH, you are missing the point. "Threat" is a forward looking term.
The damage has already been done to the Tories: the next 5% from them will be progressively harder to secure because you are coming up against the likes of Mr Nabavi who, I suspect, is unlike to be a natural UKIP supporter.
The next targets are those tribal loyal Labour voters that EdM doesn't enthuse plus those former Labour voter who have given up voting for anyone. One is a direct challenge to Labour, the other is competing with Labour for a similar pool of voters.
I doubt R Nabavi is in the 'next' 5%. With all respect he's probably 90-95th percentile least likely to switch. Avery Limp Pole I'd put at 95-100 least likely.
• The only decrease was in electricity, gas, steam & air conditioning output, which decreased by 8.8% between February 2013 and February 2014. This was attributed to the average temperature in February 2014 being warmer than February 2013.
The government understandably blamed the snow in December 2010 for a dip in economic growth, for which they were often ridiculed.
One expects that they will be privately thanking the Weather Gods for the mildness of this past winter. Though this mild weather also came with record levels of rainfall any prolonged period of cold weather this winter would have boosted Miliband's energy price freeze policy. As it was, the winter just past was the 12th warmest on record and the warmest since 2006-7 (using the Central England Temperature record back to 1659).
• The only decrease was in electricity, gas, steam & air conditioning output, which decreased by 8.8% between February 2013 and February 2014. This was attributed to the average temperature in February 2014 being warmer than February 2013.
The government understandably blamed the snow in December 2010 for a dip in economic growth, for which they were often ridiculed.
One expects that they will be privately thanking the Weather Gods for the mildness of this past winter. Though this mild weather also came with record levels of rainfall any prolonged period of cold weather this winter would have boosted Miliband's energy price freeze policy. As it was, the winter just past was the 12th warmest on record and the warmest since 2006-7 (using the Central England Temperature record back to 1659).
The warm weather is also accredited with helping the NHS avoid the much predicted "Winter A&E Crisis".
As I understand it, all orthopaedic surgeons spent the dark months posting on internet blogs rather than patching up broken limbs.
The remarkable figure though was 0.2% growth in the mining and quarrying sub-sector. This is almost wholly North Sea oil and gas extraction has been tumbling at up to 15% annually earlier in this term. So a positive figure is a blessing for all.
That's rather oversimplified. Its easy to think of scenarios where this is far from simple: *) You spend most nights in a one-bed flat in central London for work purposes. *) Meanwhile, your family spend their time in your bigger house in the constituency.
Which is the main home then? The one you spend the most nights in, or the one you are more likely to think of as home, the one where your family are?
I've known a fair few engineers who live long distances away (in one case France), and who spend the week in this area, before travelling back 'home' for the weekend. Some rent a flat in this area, and I think one owns a small bungalow in an outlying village because of the amount of work he gets in this area.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
Thinking about your household's food and grocery shopping, are you personally responsible for selecting half or more of the items to be bought from supermarkets and food shops?
Thinking about your household's food and grocery shopping, are you personally responsible for selecting half or more of the items to be bought from supermarkets and food shops?
84% of men say Yes, and 94% of women say yes.
We shop seperately in our household. GF is a veggie.
Thinking about your household's food and grocery shopping, are you personally responsible for selecting half or more of the items to be bought from supermarkets and food shops?
84% of men say Yes, and 94% of women say yes.
We shop seperately in our household. GF is a veggie.
Even so, one of you must be buying more than half the items your household buys. Obviously there are plenty of single-person households (though plenty of >2 as well).
I have yet to meet a kipper sympathiser who can articulate coherent ideas on anything and that includes leaving the EU.
That's true in most cases, but not all. For instance, Richard Tyndall at least seems to be asking the right questions about Brexit. He's coherent, knowledgeable and often persuasive. Whilst I disagree with him on some things (e.g. Cameron offering a referendum after the Lisbon Treaty) his views on the EU are always worth listening to IMHO.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Is that actually a correct use of the word though? AIUI, a fissiparous organism is one that propagates by separating itself, like a lot of plants. Animals in contrast are typically oviparous, i.e. they propagate by incubating eggs in some way.
Is the EU fissiparous? If it were it would surely mean that it went from 12 to 27 members by means of the original 12 splitting themselves into 27. I don't see that it has done that. The Soviet Union became fissiparous, as did a number of central European states, but I would have thought that Scotland would be first such intra-EU instance. Even then it's unclear that it could be called fissiparous because it would still have 27 members and be the same size in every respect, Scotland being essentially a rounding error.
Backed PSG to win tonight at 15/4 with Bet365, also backed Chelsea to qualify at 3/1 with Coral.
Obviously this means Chelsea will win tonight, but not qualify.
21% PSG Win. 25% Chelsea qualify.
Other odds
14/5 draw = 26.3%. Chelsea win 17/20 = 54%.
1/3 PSG Qualify (Skybet) = 75%.
100% and 101.3% best books - not too shabby.
Oooh.
Any tips on the Masters?
Dunno, lay Rory Mcilroy at 11.0 ?
Edit He is 12.5 - Truth is I have no idea.
Golf events always seem quite random to me.
6/5 looks a fair price for My Tent or Yours with 888 for the Scottish Champion Hurdle though. He's the best horse by a mile but he'll be giving away a fair bit of weight. 1 Point on.
Enjoyed Sean T's article on indyref in the Telelgraph. Spot on about Devo Max. Both Labour and the Tories have gambled on denying people the chance of Devo Max (albeit for different reasons) and the lack of a third option on the paper will push many towards Yes.
Err... we Yessers told you all that at the time, but we were told that David Cameron was a genius and that denying Scots the Devo Max option was a masterstroke and a knockout blow from which FM Salmond would never recover.
How many more Cameron "masterstrokes" can the No campaign take before it implodes?
Rather an important article in the FT today. It potentially shows a radically different picture of Britain from what we'd understood and possibly solves a few puzzles:
"For the first time in 15 years, the Office for National Statistics is preparing to rip up the way it measures Britain’s economy, with the new techniques showing a huge increase in the size of the economy, a higher level of public debt and a much increased savings ratio. There is also a good chance that the statisticians will significantly revise up growth recorded in the economy in 2012 and last year."
"The reforms will have the potential both to overturn Britain’s reputation as a spendthrift nation and significantly improve the poor productivity performance of the past few years."
"ONS officials also highlighted that their preliminary measures of spending in 2012 were much stronger than the existing national accounts suggest, raising the possibility of a large upward revision to 2012 growth.
One possibility for a rise in spending not showing up in income, officials said, was a rise in the grey economy with the growing numbers of self-employed doing more work for cash. The suggestion comes as new research by Morgan Stanley suggested a rise in cash used in the economy was a sign of a growing informal economy and tax evasion.
Charles Goodhart, an adviser to Morgan Stanley and former Bank of England chief economist, said rises in VAT rates made it “almost certain that the grey economy has expanded at a faster rate than have official recorded data”.
If statisticians find corroborating evidence, they will revise the growth numbers up, suggesting the economy did not stagnate in Olympics year after all and growth has been higher than official data suggests."
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That's rather oversimplified. Its easy to think of scenarios where this is far from simple: *) You spend most nights in a one-bed flat in central London for work purposes. *) Meanwhile, your family spend their time in your bigger house in the constituency.
Which is the main home then? The one you spend the most nights in, or the one you are more likely to think of as home, the one where your family are?
I've known a fair few engineers who live long distances away (in one case France), and who spend the week in this area, before travelling back 'home' for the weekend. Some rent a flat in this area, and I think one owns a small bungalow in an outlying village because of the amount of work he gets in this area.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
It’s also unfair. The extreme examples would be the MP’s for Orkney & Shetland vs that for Cities of London & Westminster. Or would the transport costs equalise the situation?
Enjoyed Sean T's article on indyref in the Telelgraph. Spot on about Devo Max. Both Labour and the Tories have gambled on denying people the chance of Devo Max (albeit for different reasons) and the lack of a third option on the paper will push many towards Yes.
Err... we Yessers told you all that at the time, but we were told that David Cameron was a genius and that denying Scots the Devo Max option was a masterstroke and a knockout blow from which FM Salmond would never recover.
How many more Cameron "masterstrokes" can the No campaign take before it implodes?
'We Yessers'? From that comment you assumed I was BT? I might have been tempted by Devo Max, had it been there, but it isn't so I'll be voting Yes.
Cameron was bricking it that Devo Max would split the vote to allow Yes through, so he gambled on in or out and it doesn't seem to be playing out too well. Darling looked so haunted on Marr that I assume internal polling numbers are even more bleak than published polling.
It is certainly a puzzle that someone who talks so much good sense is a Liberal Democrat.
I fail to see why an estuarial airport for London should be associated with one political ideology rather than another. A lot of social democrats wanted one in the 1970s and maybe some still do.
His "liberalism" seems to consist of a desire for schools to be run for profit. Do you know, I'll support that if he applies it to the public schools we already have - I'd be happy to buy a few shares in Eton, especially if that gave my (unborn) granddaughter a better shot at the entrance exam. Seriously, he's saying "let's pull up the drawbridge, too many poor people getting educated these days."
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
"Backed PSG to win tonight at 15/4 with Bet365, also backed Chelsea to qualify at 3/1 with Coral."
As well as Chelsea to win by only one goal, I think I'm right in saying your risk is Chelsea to win 4-2, 5-3, etc. (very unlikely), or any draw (much more likely).
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
The PQ's problem is that it's got Anglophone Canada on each side of it. Scotland only borders England on one side.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
There are other issues with such a plan - it would mean that you were effectively paying an MP representing Penzance a lot less than one representing Kensington and Chelsea, as the latter MP would not have to spend so much of their salary on travel and accommodation costs.
You don't really want to create the sense that it is more desirable for MPs to seek to represent London constituencies, because they will be paid more for doing so.
I agree that the system could be vastly simplified. I would favour Parliament buying a number of houses and flats in London which could be offered to MPs representing distant constituencies. This would be consistent with the way in which the PM is currently housed in Number 10, and so would be a fairly British solution to the problem, by building on an existing arrangement, rather than creating something entirely new.
Similarly, one could simply give MPs a public transport pass, entitling them to free standard class travel on the train and bus network, in a similar way to which the employees of rail and bus companies are also given free travel. This way if they want to pay extra to travel in first class that is entirely up to them, and likewise with choosing to travel by car instead, etc.
This would remove most of the scope for abuse and controversy that exists within the present system.
"Backed PSG to win tonight at 15/4 with Bet365, also backed Chelsea to qualify at 3/1 with Coral."
As well as Chelsea to win by only one goal, I think I'm right in saying your risk is Chelsea to win 4-2, 5-3, etc. (very unlikely), or any draw (much more likely).
What proportions did you back them?
£10.88 on Chelsea to qualify, and £20 on PSG to win.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
It rather looks, on a skim through Canadian papers on line, that the killers to the PQ were a) another referendum and b) signing up a rightwing traditionalist employer as a major figure.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Is that actually a correct use of the word though? AIUI, a fissiparous organism is one that propagates by separating itself, like a lot of plants. Animals in contrast are typically oviparous, i.e. they propagate by incubating eggs in some way.
Is the EU fissiparous? If it were it would surely mean that it went from 12 to 27 members by means of the original 12 splitting themselves into 27. I don't see that it has done that. The Soviet Union became fissiparous, as did a number of central European states, but I would have thought that Scotland would be first such intra-EU instance. Even then it's unclear that it could be called fissiparous because it would still have 27 members and be the same size in every respect, Scotland being essentially a rounding error.
I think SeanT's argument about the EU encouraging nations to fragment as the quasi-federal superstate gives them a security blanket, thus allowing them to assert their own identity can be described as fissiparous (inclined to cause or undergo division into separate parts or groups.) He is not arguing that the EU grows by separation, but that the EU allows/encourages the trend in the states that it comprises. So yes, in this context, it is a correct use of the word.
Is his argument right? Now that is a different question.
I note the fairly witty bait about Scotland being a rounding error. Props to you.
Rather an important article in the FT today. It potentially shows a radically different picture of Britain from what we'd understood and possibly solves a few puzzles:
"For the first time in 15 years, the Office for National Statistics is preparing to rip up the way it measures Britain’s economy, with the new techniques showing a huge increase in the size of the economy, a higher level of public debt and a much increased savings ratio. There is also a good chance that the statisticians will significantly revise up growth recorded in the economy in 2012 and last year."
"The reforms will have the potential both to overturn Britain’s reputation as a spendthrift nation and significantly improve the poor productivity performance of the past few years."
"ONS officials also highlighted that their preliminary measures of spending in 2012 were much stronger than the existing national accounts suggest, raising the possibility of a large upward revision to 2012 growth.
One possibility for a rise in spending not showing up in income, officials said, was a rise in the grey economy with the growing numbers of self-employed doing more work for cash. The suggestion comes as new research by Morgan Stanley suggested a rise in cash used in the economy was a sign of a growing informal economy and tax evasion.
Charles Goodhart, an adviser to Morgan Stanley and former Bank of England chief economist, said rises in VAT rates made it “almost certain that the grey economy has expanded at a faster rate than have official recorded data”.
If statisticians find corroborating evidence, they will revise the growth numbers up, suggesting the economy did not stagnate in Olympics year after all and growth has been higher than official data suggests."
I agree it is an important article. The stunning success in job creation at a time of apparently no growth will be at least partly explained and the implications for productivity will be very positive too.
The quality of statistics available to governments is a continuing concern. I have little doubt that less of the deficit reduction would have been deferred until after the next election if the economy had been seen to be growing in 2012 rather than flatlining.
Still, unlike Lamont Osborne has been smart enough to get his revisions in history in before his potential departure from office.
That's rather oversimplified. Its easy to think of scenarios where this is far from simple: *) You spend most nights in a one-bed flat in central London for work purposes. *) Meanwhile, your family spend their time in your bigger house in the constituency.
Which is the main home then? The one you spend the most nights in, or the one you are more likely to think of as home, the one where your family are?
I've known a fair few engineers who live long distances away (in one case France), and who spend the week in this area, before travelling back 'home' for the weekend. Some rent a flat in this area, and I think one owns a small bungalow in an outlying village because of the amount of work he gets in this area.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
It’s also unfair. The extreme examples would be the MP’s for Orkney & Shetland vs that for Cities of London & Westminster. Or would the transport costs equalise the situation?
Yep, it's unfair (although I can see travel expenses as being relatively straightforward if allowable only between London and constituency).
The problem is that the media witch hunts are also unfair, and even this new system (tbf, Miller's problems were under the old system) will lead to either fraud or misrepresentation by the press.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
Credible: They were elected. Successful: They were re-elected on a landslide Popular: They remain well positioned in the polls
Yes politics changes and so do governments. Non of the above are set in stone, but they are true now.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
There are other issues with such a plan - it would mean that you were effectively paying an MP representing Penzance a lot less than one representing Kensington and Chelsea, as the latter MP would not have to spend so much of their salary on travel and accommodation costs.
You don't really want to create the sense that it is more desirable for MPs to seek to represent London constituencies, because they will be paid more for doing so.
I agree that the system could be vastly simplified. I would favour Parliament buying a number of houses and flats in London which could be offered to MPs representing distant constituencies. This would be consistent with the way in which the PM is currently housed in Number 10, and so would be a fairly British solution to the problem, by building on an existing arrangement, rather than creating something entirely new.
Similarly, one could simply give MPs a public transport pass, entitling them to free standard class travel on the train and bus network, in a similar way to which the employees of rail and bus companies are also given free travel. This way if they want to pay extra to travel in first class that is entirely up to them, and likewise with choosing to travel by car instead, etc.
This would remove most of the scope for abuse and controversy that exists within the present system.
Good ideas Mr. Me. I'd add one extra point the houses and flats should all be in the worst areas of London, the grottiest bits with the highest crime, the highest drug problem, the worst school and pre-school provision. Not only would it save the taxpayer money but those areas would soon get cleaned up.
I agree it is an important article. The stunning success in job creation at a time of apparently no growth will be at least partly explained and the implications for productivity will be very positive too.
The quality of statistics available to governments is a continuing concern.
Hmm. In this case the suggestion is not that the statisticians botched the job of measuring the economy, but that the increase in the rate of VAT encouraged tax evasion.
One of the differences between Britain and Greece, say, is that a lot of people in Britain voluntarily follow the tax rules, and if that starts to break down we're in big trouble. I did warn of this on here a few years ago, though I made the point that widespread tax avoidance by big business and the very wealthy would encourage tax evasion by the wider population.
Whether it's an increase in the VAT rate or wider society learning lessons from their wealthier compatriots, it's a bit unfair to have a go at the statisticians rather than the politicians for the problem.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
There are other issues with such a plan - it would mean that you were effectively paying an MP representing Penzance a lot less than one representing Kensington and Chelsea, as the latter MP would not have to spend so much of their salary on travel and accommodation costs.
You don't really want to create the sense that it is more desirable for MPs to seek to represent London constituencies, because they will be paid more for doing so.
I agree that the system could be vastly simplified. I would favour Parliament buying a number of houses and flats in London which could be offered to MPs representing distant constituencies. This would be consistent with the way in which the PM is currently housed in Number 10, and so would be a fairly British solution to the problem, by building on an existing arrangement, rather than creating something entirely new.
Similarly, one could simply give MPs a public transport pass, entitling them to free standard class travel on the train and bus network, in a similar way to which the employees of rail and bus companies are also given free travel. This way if they want to pay extra to travel in first class that is entirely up to them, and likewise with choosing to travel by car instead, etc.
This would remove most of the scope for abuse and controversy that exists within the present system.
I agree (I've come up with similar plans myself). But all are complex, and most would lead to various accusations. If we increase the salary enough, then such unfairnesses will become less important.
I think I#ll modify my initial statement: travel should be on expenses.
And there's another point. We keep on being told that MPs are public servants. Complaints of "he's getting more than me" when their income will be high will just seem pitiful.
Any 'fair' system with such a complex arrangement of separated workplaces and working hours would soon become filled with loopholes and be massively complex to run. Which seems to be exactly what happened on the run-up to the expenses scandal.
It is worth pointing out that a marked increase in the growth rate in 2012 will also have knock on implications for 2013 as well. The reason that the annual growth figures for 2013 were so much lower than the cumulo of the quarterly growth was the flat comparator of the year before. If that changes the annual growth figure will change too.
Will this make any difference? Probably not much but it seems likely that Osborne's reputation as a highly competent Chancellor will shine even brighter. I was speaking to a Labour supporter yesterday who can't stand the man but reluctantly admitted he was doing a good job. No way will that change that vote but there will be more marginal voters.
What was damaging politically was the image of the government being not of control of its economic policy rather than the beneficial effects that the forced change to its economic policy brought.
Yep - this. The Tories got no credit for the recovery because it wasn't their doing, nor was it the result of their economic policy. Their policy was 10 to 15% interest rates to maintain an overvalued pound. Black Wednesday destroyed this policy and the recovery happened despite their policy not because of it.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
I agree it is an important article. The stunning success in job creation at a time of apparently no growth will be at least partly explained and the implications for productivity will be very positive too.
The quality of statistics available to governments is a continuing concern.
Hmm. In this case the suggestion is not that the statisticians botched the job of measuring the economy, but that the increase in the rate of VAT encouraged tax evasion.
One of the differences between Britain and Greece, say, is that a lot of people in Britain voluntarily follow the tax rules, and if that starts to break down we're in big trouble. I did warn of this on here a few years ago, though I made the point that widespread tax avoidance by big business and the very wealthy would encourage tax evasion by the wider population.
Whether it's an increase in the VAT rate or wider society learning lessons from their wealthier compatriots, it's a bit unfair to have a go at the statisticians rather than the politicians for the problem.
I think you are mixing up cause and effect. The cause of the increase in tax evasion is the absurdly high level of VAT and that is the politicians fault. The incentive to pay in cash is too great for many to resist.
The effect is what the statisticians have to measure and they don't seem to have done a very good job.
In fact this government has (understandably given the desperate shortage of cash) been tougher on tax evasion than almost any in our history with treaties reducing bank secrecy, extremely aggressive (and well justified) attacks on outrageous tax avoidance schemes, the limitations on pension contributions, the provisions re companies holding residential property, the GAAP and now the obligation to pay the tax in a disputed scheme until the courts uphold it.
The proportion of tax paid by the top earners is at record levels. So is inequality of course and this is very bad news but this government has done a lot to make tax evasion and even doubtful tax avoidance look morally reprehensible as well as unprofitable.
Daily Mirror columnist on Twitter attempting to resuscitate a story from 2009 about Cameron and second homes. Papers not letting go. Miller gone by Friday?
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
That is a shocking leaflet. And what's worse is that it doesn't even make it clear that it is a labour party attack job
I agree (I've come up with similar plans myself). But all are complex, and most would lead to various accusations. If we increase the salary enough, then such unfairnesses will become less important. ... Any 'fair' system with such a complex arrangement of separated workplaces and working hours would soon become filled with loopholes and be massively complex to run. Which seems to be exactly what happened on the run-up to the expenses scandal.
This sounds a bit like the saying that you can have something possess two attributes out of cheap, good and quick, but not all three at once.
We agree that we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest.
It would be fair to say that my proposal emphasises being fair and honest at the expense of some complexity - Parliament would have to manage a large property portfolio and allocate it to MPs, etc.
You favour simplicity and honesty over fairness between MPs located within or without commuting distance of Westminster.
Unless someone can achieve the impossible and devise a system that combines all three of the desirable attributes, our disagreement is at a fundamental and hard to resolve level.
I can't say that you are necessarily wrong to favour a simple system over a fair system. I just disagree.
What I would say about the old system of expenses is that it spectacularly failed to be either simple or honest, and so it should at least be possible to devise a system that is better than that, if not perfect.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
As a matter of defamation, "in a free and democratic society it was contrary to the public interest to permit those who held office in government or were responsible for public administration to sue in defamation including a political party putting itself forward for office or to govern" (I paraphrase), Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997]. Recourse would have to be sought to either any defamatory claim that was or could be understood as targetted at individuals, or, more likely (as you say), some rule of electoral (mal)practice. But I wouldn't know anything about that.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
As a matter of defamation, "in a free and democratic society it was contrary to the public interest to permit those who held office in government or were responsible for public administration to sue in defamation including a political party putting itself forward for office or to govern" (I paraphrase), Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997]. Recourse would have to be sought to either any defamatory claim that was or could be understood as targetted at individuals, or, more likely, some rule of electoral (mal)practice. But I wouldn't know anything about that.
Labour's could call on the following as evidence
Disgusting remarks made about South African president and murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence 'reveal true face of party' Controversial remarks were made on the party's internal online forum Mocked Mr Lawrence as 'Saint Stephen' and said his mother was 'boring' Another said some people were 'intended by nature' to be slaves One said: 'I actually agree with the EDL on what they protest about'
but Ukip voters were consistently the most intolerant group after the BNP.
Our survey featured just one item on Islam, but additional evidence is available from a survey of Ukip supporters conducted by Matthew Goodwin and Jocelyn Evans earlier this year. Our survey asked whether voters felt that Islam posed a threat to Western civilization - 64% of Ukip supporters agreed that it was. This is lower than the 79% of BNP supporters who felt this way, but much higher than agreement among mainstream party supporters, which ranged from 31% (Lib Dems) to 49% (Conservatives).
Goodwin and Evans additionally asked their survey respondents whether they would feel uncomfortable if a mosque was built in their neighbourhood - 84% said they would be. Again, lower than the 94% figure for BNP supporters but much higher than the 54% figure for the general population. On Islam, as on immigration, Ukip supporters are more negative than supporters of any other party - except the BNP.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
That is a shocking leaflet. And what's worse is that it doesn't even make it clear that it is a labour party attack job
Apparently it Hope Not Hate leaflet which is being distributed by Labour
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
There are other issues with such a plan - it would mean that you were effectively paying an MP representing Penzance a lot less than one representing Kensington and Chelsea, as the latter MP would not have to spend so much of their salary on travel and accommodation costs.
You don't really want to create the sense that it is more desirable for MPs to seek to represent London constituencies, because they will be paid more for doing so.
Don't forget the cost of living is lower in Penzance than in Kensington, so to some extent this would be self-correcting
I agree (I've come up with similar plans myself). But all are complex, and most would lead to various accusations. If we increase the salary enough, then such unfairnesses will become less important. ... Any 'fair' system with such a complex arrangement of separated workplaces and working hours would soon become filled with loopholes and be massively complex to run. Which seems to be exactly what happened on the run-up to the expenses scandal.
This sounds a bit like the saying that you can have something possess two attributes out of cheap, good and quick, but not all three at once.
We agree that we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest.
It would be fair to say that my proposal emphasises being fair and honest at the expense of some complexity - Parliament would have to manage a large property portfolio and allocate it to MPs, etc.
You favour simplicity and honesty over fairness between MPs located within or without commuting distance of Westminster.
Unless someone can achieve the impossible and devise a system that combines all three of the desirable attributes, our disagreement is at a fundamental and hard to resolve level.
I can't say that you are necessarily wrong to favour a simple system over a fair system. I just disagree.
What I would say about the old system of expenses is that it spectacularly failed to be either simple or honest, and so it should at least be possible to devise a system that is better than that, if not perfect.
In my line of work we use: On Time, To Budget, To Spec - Pick two
I agree, it seems a mighty tough ask to devise a system that will please everybody, so naturally we now have a system that pleases nobody.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
Labour calling another party racist ?
Phil Woolas' pot calling the kettle WHITE springs to mind !
One possibility for a rise in spending not showing up in income, officials said, was a rise in the grey economy with the growing numbers of self-employed doing more work for cash. The suggestion comes as new research by Morgan Stanley suggested a rise in cash used in the economy was a sign of a growing informal economy and tax evasion.
The fact that Tesco thought in 2007 there were 77 million people living here strongly argues that the UK economy is much larger than is thought.
Anecdotally, I have a cleaner, a gardener, a bloke who cleans the bins, a decorator and a tutor for my daughter. All are paid wholly or partly in cash.
You would have thought someone would be making the argument that the growth in the grey / black economy (where tax is low), versus the official economy (where it is anaemic), is a consequence of and argument for lower taxes.
If you raised the personal allowance for self employed people to £50,000pa, on the grounds that it's already that much anyway through evasion, you'd not lose a penny but would stimulate a great deal of entrpreneurialism.
It's a bit like the "legalise drugs" argument in a way. People who are current or former dopers always argue that like themselves everyone does it and we'd all gain if it were legal, so their own offending should be legalised.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
To say somebody is a "numpty" because they "know next to nothing about public life in Scotland" is surely like saying someone is a numpty because they know nothing about the sex lives of Galapagos anemones, or the uniforms of the retreat from Moscow.
Surely it’s not so much the paying of income tax which is the problem, more around paying VAT. If the turnover limit was raised significantly then a lot more people would not have to keep the books and wouldn’t be tempted to avoid it.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
That is a shocking leaflet. And what's worse is that it doesn't even make it clear that it is a labour party attack job
Apparently it Hope Not Hate leaflet which is being distributed by Labour
While my natural libertarian instincts are to say "anything goes", I find anonymous smears incredibly distasteful.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
People will have forgotten about Miller in 2015. But Dave should really drop a hint to her about writing him the "Dear Dave" letter.
I'm reminded of the very firs Thick of It episode where Malcolm Tucker explains to the Minister that although he retains the full backing of the PM, that's precisely why he needs to resign.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
That is a shocking leaflet. And what's worse is that it doesn't even make it clear that it is a labour party attack job
Apparently it Hope Not Hate leaflet which is being distributed by Labour
While my natural libertarian instincts are to say "anything goes", I find anonymous smears incredibly distasteful.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
The usual problem with libertarianism - anything goes, except the things I happen not to like. At least Paul Staines has more honesty: he proposed not the abolition of gun control laws, but that he should be specially exempted from them.
That's truly outrageous. I would have thought that leaflet breached some electoral commission law or another. Can you really just call another party with racist in your election materials without evidence?
As a matter of defamation, "in a free and democratic society it was contrary to the public interest to permit those who held office in government or were responsible for public administration to sue in defamation including a political party putting itself forward for office or to govern" (I paraphrase), Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997]. Recourse would have to be sought to either any defamatory claim that was or could be understood as targetted at individuals, or, more likely, some rule of electoral (mal)practice. But I wouldn't know anything about that.
Labour's could call on the following as evidence
Disgusting remarks made about South African president and murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence 'reveal true face of party' Controversial remarks were made on the party's internal online forum Mocked Mr Lawrence as 'Saint Stephen' and said his mother was 'boring' Another said some people were 'intended by nature' to be slaves One said: 'I actually agree with the EDL on what they protest about'
but Ukip voters were consistently the most intolerant group after the BNP.
Our survey featured just one item on Islam, but additional evidence is available from a survey of Ukip supporters conducted by Matthew Goodwin and Jocelyn Evans earlier this year. Our survey asked whether voters felt that Islam posed a threat to Western civilization - 64% of Ukip supporters agreed that it was. This is lower than the 79% of BNP supporters who felt this way, but much higher than agreement among mainstream party supporters, which ranged from 31% (Lib Dems) to 49% (Conservatives).
Goodwin and Evans additionally asked their survey respondents whether they would feel uncomfortable if a mosque was built in their neighbourhood - 84% said they would be. Again, lower than the 94% figure for BNP supporters but much higher than the 54% figure for the general population. On Islam, as on immigration, Ukip supporters are more negative than supporters of any other party - except the BNP.
If Miller gives a stuff about her party she'd go now. She clearly doesn't. Cameron can't sack her because there will be dozens of similar stories waiting to drop. Nothing illegal (probably) but grotesquely profit making and once a precedent is set...... They're all greedy bastards, following the lead set by window cleaning paid for by the taxpayer Brown and his cash in hand cleaner deal with his brother, and she's the one that is going to have to fall on her sword to prevent another boring expenses scandal. Unfortunately the public view would appear to be pay them nothing and allow no expenses so that the ordinary man and woman is shut out of parliament permanently. Grubby.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
To say somebody is a "numpty" because they "know next to nothing about public life in Scotland" is surely like saying someone is a numpty because they know nothing about the sex lives of Galapagos anemones, or the uniforms of the retreat from Moscow.
Small matters merit small notice.
Fairly obvious bait but...
If you think that the future shape of the nation or the small matter of a complete shakeup of the constitutional settlement for both Scotland and the rest of the UK are small matters worthy of small notice, then you'll forgive me if I ignore everything you have to say about anything.
The fact that public life in Scotland will have a direct impact on the way people will vote in the referendum is so glaringly obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Given this fact you would think that the NO campaign would pay some heed to it wouldn't you?
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I paraphrased the judgment in Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1997] below (which I think is "that" Goldsmith) to this effect, applying to any "political party putting itself forward for office or to govern", although I should think in an appropriate case referendum campaigns would be covered. The line of authority starts (I think) with Derbyshire CC v Times, where it was held that central and local government cannot sue. In both cases it was recognised, however, that either explicitly or under the normal rules of defamation a statement made in the context of an organisation could defame individuals in it.
As a matter of language, I'm not sure whether it is still accurate to describe such a claim as "defamatory" - it may be simply that despite being defamatory the organisation cannot sue for it.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
I did like Miranda Gell's defence, saying it was down to immaturity and political inexperience.
Edit: Here's the story
A Labour councillor has been found guilty of falsely branding a Liberal Democrat rival a paedophile and telling electors he had sex with teenage boys.
Miranda Grell slurred gay Lib Dem candidate Barry Smith while campaigning for the Leyton ward in Waltham Forest Council, east London, in 2006.
Grell, 29, was convicted by magistrates of two counts of making false statements about another candidate.....
.... Grell put the mistake down to political immaturity and inexperience at campaigning.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
Lets not forget also that Labour have been to court to prove that any promises or ideas they have in their manifesto are a complete crock of pots.
This eclipses Sean's stories on Scotland, on a bad day mind you. NO are really losing it if this is what "Bringing the Legends out of the Lords " is going to add to the debate.
This man must be insane.
Scottish independence would weaken UK's global status, says ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson says yes vote would boost west's enemies and 'forces of darkness' and embolden dictators across the world Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato chief, has claimed that Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" effect on European and global stability by undermining the UK on the world stage. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/scottish-independence-lord-robertson-uk-global-status
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
I did like Miranda Gell's defence, saying it was down to immaturity and political inexperience.
Edit: Here's the story
A Labour councillor has been found guilty of falsely branding a Liberal Democrat rival a paedophile and telling electors he had sex with teenage boys.
Miranda Grell slurred gay Lib Dem candidate Barry Smith while campaigning for the Leyton ward in Waltham Forest Council, east London, in 2006.
Grell, 29, was convicted by magistrates of two counts of making false statements about another candidate.....
.... Grell put the mistake down to political immaturity and inexperience at campaigning.
This eclipses Sean's stories on Scotland, on a bad day mind you. NO are really losing it if this is what "Bringing the Legends out of the Lords " is going to add to the debate.
This man must be insane.
Scottish independence would weaken UK's global status, says ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson says yes vote would boost west's enemies and 'forces of darkness' and embolden dictators across the world Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato chief, has claimed that Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" effect on European and global stability by undermining the UK on the world stage. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/scottish-independence-lord-robertson-uk-global-status
NO going with another sunshine message about staying with the UK. Mind you, it is the idiot Robertson.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
I did like Miranda Gell's defence, saying it was down to immaturity and political inexperience.
Edit: Here's the story
A Labour councillor has been found guilty of falsely branding a Liberal Democrat rival a paedophile and telling electors he had sex with teenage boys.
Miranda Grell slurred gay Lib Dem candidate Barry Smith while campaigning for the Leyton ward in Waltham Forest Council, east London, in 2006.
Grell, 29, was convicted by magistrates of two counts of making false statements about another candidate.....
.... Grell put the mistake down to political immaturity and inexperience at campaigning.
Still searching for the "Maria Miller scandal" is a disaster for Ed Miliband in the article.
In other words, the press will decide who goes, and when. Not the voters. Journalists, like politicians only scummier and without accountability to the electorate.
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
To say somebody is a "numpty" because they "know next to nothing about public life in Scotland" is surely like saying someone is a numpty because they know nothing about the sex lives of Galapagos anemones, or the uniforms of the retreat from Moscow.
Small matters merit small notice.
But sensible people do not pretend to know about anemones or uniforms. The BritNat idiots around here wax lyrical about the great affairs of public life in Scotland, yet they know bugger all about the topic.
At the rate NO are issuing bizarre threats of doom, we are one step away from voting yes damaging the health of babies and releasing paedophile genes into the Scottish atmosphere.
This eclipses Sean's stories on Scotland, on a bad day mind you. NO are really losing it if this is what "Bringing the Legends out of the Lords " is going to add to the debate.
This man must be insane.
Scottish independence would weaken UK's global status, says ex-Nato chief Lord Robertson says yes vote would boost west's enemies and 'forces of darkness' and embolden dictators across the world Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato chief, has claimed that Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" effect on European and global stability by undermining the UK on the world stage. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/scottish-independence-lord-robertson-uk-global-status
I thought Scotland was a rounding error, too small to make any difference, and that the UK would just carry on as before?
Difficult to disagree with the nominations for Blame Monkeys.
But I think you also have to give some credit to Salmond for making the SNP more than just a protest party, but actually a credible, successful and popular party of government.
Please do not expect the numpties around here to understand your point. They know next to nothing about public life in Scotland, and they care even less. The entire concept of "a credible, successful and popular party of government" is foreign to them.
That other separatist party PQ thought themselves a credible successful and popular party of government until the voters told them otherwise yesterday .
The voters get to cast their votes next month, so we'll soon see which party's supporters are smiling and which are bubbling: the SNP's or the Lib Dem's.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, there has been net migration since then, so if 77 million was right then, then 80m would be right now.
If the supermarket number is correct (and the source doesn't say it is Tesco, merely that it is a supermarket who was lobbying the government to allow its market share to rise), then there are one-third extra people in the UK, and around 66% more people of working age
However, it is not a number which chimes with any other data. VAT receipts have not risen accordingly. Total employment numbers have not increased accordingly. School rolls have increased only in-line with what we would have expected given headline TFRs and the 2001 census.
More damningly, outside London, housing prices have been very soft. Given that the additional 20 million people need to be housed (even if it it were to be at twice the average 'density', it would still require many millions of additional homes to be filled. If there were so many people additional people in the UK (an almost doubling of people of working age), surely house prices in the areas outside London, but commutable to London (i.e. Bedford, Southend, etc.) would be soaring. That they are not throws extreme doubt on the 77-80m number.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
I seem to recall that in law you can't defame a party, only identifiable individuals.
I'm sure you can't defame a political party.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Some years ago there was vicious in-fighting in the local BNP, when their local councillor fell out with the leadership. We were trying to squash the BNP in a by-election, so I asked a well-known cartoonist to do a sketch of a man and a woman (not depicting anyone in particular) wrestling, with a caption "The BNP is more interested in fighting each other than working for you" or something like that. It was spiked by the central legal department, who said it risked an expensive libel action with the BNP. We were too busy fighting the by-election (where the BNP ended up with some trivial vote anyway) so I shrugged it off. But it always seemed weird advice to me.
What's your view on the leaflet in question, Nick?
Comments
One expects that they will be privately thanking the Weather Gods for the mildness of this past winter. Though this mild weather also came with record levels of rainfall any prolonged period of cold weather this winter would have boosted Miliband's energy price freeze policy. As it was, the winter just past was the 12th warmest on record and the warmest since 2006-7 (using the Central England Temperature record back to 1659).
As I understand it, all orthopaedic surgeons spent the dark months posting on internet blogs rather than patching up broken limbs.
The remarkable figure though was 0.2% growth in the mining and quarrying sub-sector. This is almost wholly North Sea oil and gas extraction has been tumbling at up to 15% annually earlier in this term. So a positive figure is a blessing for all.
25% Chelsea qualify.
Other odds
14/5 draw = 26.3%.
Chelsea win 17/20 = 54%.
1/3 PSG Qualify (Skybet) = 75%.
100% and 101.3% best books - not too shabby.
*) You spend most nights in a one-bed flat in central London for work purposes.
*) Meanwhile, your family spend their time in your bigger house in the constituency.
Which is the main home then? The one you spend the most nights in, or the one you are more likely to think of as home, the one where your family are?
I've known a fair few engineers who live long distances away (in one case France), and who spend the week in this area, before travelling back 'home' for the weekend. Some rent a flat in this area, and I think one owns a small bungalow in an outlying village because of the amount of work he gets in this area.
Perhaps the simplest, and bravest, solution will be to massively increase MPs salary and remove *all* expenses systems. Scrapping most of IPSA should save a few million in running costs which can be redistributed directly to MPs.
But that's politically unacceptable.
Thinking about your household's food and grocery shopping, are you personally responsible for selecting half or more of the items to be bought from supermarkets and food shops?
84% of men say Yes, and 94% of women say yes.
Any tips on the Masters?
Is the EU fissiparous? If it were it would surely mean that it went from 12 to 27 members by means of the original 12 splitting themselves into 27. I don't see that it has done that. The Soviet Union became fissiparous, as did a number of central European states, but I would have thought that Scotland would be first such intra-EU instance. Even then it's unclear that it could be called fissiparous because it would still have 27 members and be the same size in every respect, Scotland being essentially a rounding error.
Edit He is 12.5 - Truth is I have no idea.
Golf events always seem quite random to me.
6/5 looks a fair price for My Tent or Yours with 888 for the Scottish Champion Hurdle though. He's the best horse by a mile but he'll be giving away a fair bit of weight. 1 Point on.
I believe he marshalls at Augusta and is hot on the form.
How many more Cameron "masterstrokes" can the No campaign take before it implodes?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/457b9332-be6c-11e3-b44a-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2yCSkKdNs
"For the first time in 15 years, the Office for National Statistics is preparing to rip up the way it measures Britain’s economy, with the new techniques showing a huge increase in the size of the economy, a higher level of public debt and a much increased savings ratio. There is also a good chance that the statisticians will significantly revise up growth recorded in the economy in 2012 and last year."
"The reforms will have the potential both to overturn Britain’s reputation as a spendthrift nation and significantly improve the poor productivity performance of the past few years."
"ONS officials also highlighted that their preliminary measures of spending in 2012 were much stronger than the existing national accounts suggest, raising the possibility of a large upward revision to 2012 growth.
One possibility for a rise in spending not showing up in income, officials said, was a rise in the grey economy with the growing numbers of self-employed doing more work for cash. The suggestion comes as new research by Morgan Stanley suggested a rise in cash used in the economy was a sign of a growing informal economy and tax evasion.
Charles Goodhart, an adviser to Morgan Stanley and former Bank of England chief economist, said rises in VAT rates made it “almost certain that the grey economy has expanded at a faster rate than have official recorded data”.
If statisticians find corroborating evidence, they will revise the growth numbers up, suggesting the economy did not stagnate in Olympics year after all and growth has been higher than official data suggests."
Cameron was bricking it that Devo Max would split the vote to allow Yes through, so he gambled on in or out and it doesn't seem to be playing out too well. Darling looked so haunted on Marr that I assume internal polling numbers are even more bleak than published polling.
His "liberalism" seems to consist of a desire for schools to be run for profit. Do you know, I'll support that if he applies it to the public schools we already have - I'd be happy to buy a few shares in Eton, especially if that gave my (unborn) granddaughter a better shot at the entrance exam. Seriously, he's saying "let's pull up the drawbridge, too many poor people getting educated these days."
As well as Chelsea to win by only one goal, I think I'm right in saying your risk is Chelsea to win 4-2, 5-3, etc. (very unlikely), or any draw (much more likely).
What proportions did you back them?
You don't really want to create the sense that it is more desirable for MPs to seek to represent London constituencies, because they will be paid more for doing so.
I agree that the system could be vastly simplified. I would favour Parliament buying a number of houses and flats in London which could be offered to MPs representing distant constituencies. This would be consistent with the way in which the PM is currently housed in Number 10, and so would be a fairly British solution to the problem, by building on an existing arrangement, rather than creating something entirely new.
Similarly, one could simply give MPs a public transport pass, entitling them to free standard class travel on the train and bus network, in a similar way to which the employees of rail and bus companies are also given free travel. This way if they want to pay extra to travel in first class that is entirely up to them, and likewise with choosing to travel by car instead, etc.
This would remove most of the scope for abuse and controversy that exists within the present system.
He is not arguing that the EU grows by separation, but that the EU allows/encourages the trend in the states that it comprises. So yes, in this context, it is a correct use of the word.
Is his argument right? Now that is a different question.
I note the fairly witty bait about Scotland being a rounding error. Props to you.
The quality of statistics available to governments is a continuing concern. I have little doubt that less of the deficit reduction would have been deferred until after the next election if the economy had been seen to be growing in 2012 rather than flatlining.
Still, unlike Lamont Osborne has been smart enough to get his revisions in history in before his potential departure from office.
The problem is that the media witch hunts are also unfair, and even this new system (tbf, Miller's problems were under the old system) will lead to either fraud or misrepresentation by the press.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rising-ukip-star-alexandra-swann-protests-her-own-partys-stance-on-immigration-9244746.html
You tell em Bojo....Miller must stay!!
Successful: They were re-elected on a landslide
Popular: They remain well positioned in the polls
Yes politics changes and so do governments. Non of the above are set in stone, but they are true now.
The article in the Independent is not only inaccurate but a non story. I clarified that I'm still a member and will still vote #UKIP 1/2
AlexandraLenin Swann @AlexandralSwann 12h
2/2 but that I no longer work in politics. I'm also disappointed that Emily ran with it; I asked her not to,I work in a different field now.
AlexandraLenin Swann @AlexandralSwann 1h
@WaddyBean @UKIP I haven't left UKIP. The article is a total hatchet job
This is just persecution, they should leave her be.
One of the differences between Britain and Greece, say, is that a lot of people in Britain voluntarily follow the tax rules, and if that starts to break down we're in big trouble. I did warn of this on here a few years ago, though I made the point that widespread tax avoidance by big business and the very wealthy would encourage tax evasion by the wider population.
Whether it's an increase in the VAT rate or wider society learning lessons from their wealthier compatriots, it's a bit unfair to have a go at the statisticians rather than the politicians for the problem.
I think I#ll modify my initial statement: travel should be on expenses.
And there's another point. We keep on being told that MPs are public servants. Complaints of "he's getting more than me" when their income will be high will just seem pitiful.
Any 'fair' system with such a complex arrangement of separated workplaces and working hours would soon become filled with loopholes and be massively complex to run. Which seems to be exactly what happened on the run-up to the expenses scandal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/216978759/ECJ-Press-Release-in-Digital-Rights-Ireland-Data-Retention-case
twitter.com/ThomasEvansUKIP/status/453309730484518912/photo/1
Will this make any difference? Probably not much but it seems likely that Osborne's reputation as a highly competent Chancellor will shine even brighter. I was speaking to a Labour supporter yesterday who can't stand the man but reluctantly admitted he was doing a good job. No way will that change that vote but there will be more marginal voters.
The effect is what the statisticians have to measure and they don't seem to have done a very good job.
In fact this government has (understandably given the desperate shortage of cash) been tougher on tax evasion than almost any in our history with treaties reducing bank secrecy, extremely aggressive (and well justified) attacks on outrageous tax avoidance schemes, the limitations on pension contributions, the provisions re companies holding residential property, the GAAP and now the obligation to pay the tax in a disputed scheme until the courts uphold it.
The proportion of tax paid by the top earners is at record levels. So is inequality of course and this is very bad news but this government has done a lot to make tax evasion and even doubtful tax avoidance look morally reprehensible as well as unprofitable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10751516/David-Camerons-handling-of-Maria-Miller-scandal-losing-party-votes.html
We agree that we'd like a system that was fair, simple and honest.
It would be fair to say that my proposal emphasises being fair and honest at the expense of some complexity - Parliament would have to manage a large property portfolio and allocate it to MPs, etc.
You favour simplicity and honesty over fairness between MPs located within or without commuting distance of Westminster.
Unless someone can achieve the impossible and devise a system that combines all three of the desirable attributes, our disagreement is at a fundamental and hard to resolve level.
I can't say that you are necessarily wrong to favour a simple system over a fair system. I just disagree.
What I would say about the old system of expenses is that it spectacularly failed to be either simple or honest, and so it should at least be possible to devise a system that is better than that, if not perfect.
twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/453466491044630528/photo/1
Disgusting remarks made about South African president and murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence 'reveal true face of party'
Controversial remarks were made on the party's internal online forum
Mocked Mr Lawrence as 'Saint Stephen' and said his mother was 'boring'
Another said some people were 'intended by nature' to be slaves
One said: 'I actually agree with the EDL on what they protest about'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537834/UKIPs-vile-Mandela-slave-rant-exposed-New-racism-storm-following-remarks-former-South-African-President-murdered-teenager-Stephen-Lawrence.html
or
but Ukip voters were consistently the most intolerant group after the BNP.
Our survey featured just one item on Islam, but additional evidence is available from a survey of Ukip supporters conducted by Matthew Goodwin and Jocelyn Evans earlier this year. Our survey asked whether voters felt that Islam posed a threat to Western civilization - 64% of Ukip supporters agreed that it was. This is lower than the 79% of BNP supporters who felt this way, but much higher than agreement among mainstream party supporters, which ranged from 31% (Lib Dems) to 49% (Conservatives).
Goodwin and Evans additionally asked their survey respondents whether they would feel uncomfortable if a mosque was built in their neighbourhood - 84% said they would be. Again, lower than the 94% figure for BNP supporters but much higher than the 54% figure for the general population. On Islam, as on immigration, Ukip supporters are more negative than supporters of any other party - except the BNP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robert-ford/are-ukip-supporters-racist_b_2193055.html
But the party of Phil Woolas really shouldn't go down this road.
I agree, it seems a mighty tough ask to devise a system that will please everybody, so naturally we now have a system that pleases nobody.
Phil Woolas' pot calling the kettle WHITE springs to mind !
Anecdotally, I have a cleaner, a gardener, a bloke who cleans the bins, a decorator and a tutor for my daughter. All are paid wholly or partly in cash.
You would have thought someone would be making the argument that the growth in the grey / black economy (where tax is low), versus the official economy (where it is anaemic), is a consequence of and argument for lower taxes.
If you raised the personal allowance for self employed people to £50,000pa, on the grounds that it's already that much anyway through evasion, you'd not lose a penny but would stimulate a great deal of entrpreneurialism.
It's a bit like the "legalise drugs" argument in a way. People who are current or former dopers always argue that like themselves everyone does it and we'd all gain if it were legal, so their own offending should be legalised.
Small matters merit small notice.
He has since moved to a hotel in Wandsworth, south London, charging £14 per night.
£14 a night o_O for a hotel room in London ? I never found that sort of deal on offer with laterooms.com ?!
It is surely defamatory: if you are going to say something about a political opponent, in print, then it should be defensible. If they cannot defend it, they must withdraw it and (ideally) pay recompense.
Cameron can't sack her because there will be dozens of similar stories waiting to drop. Nothing illegal (probably) but grotesquely profit making and once a precedent is set......
They're all greedy bastards, following the lead set by window cleaning paid for by the taxpayer Brown and his cash in hand cleaner deal with his brother, and she's the one that is going to have to fall on her sword to prevent another boring expenses scandal.
Unfortunately the public view would appear to be pay them nothing and allow no expenses so that the ordinary man and woman is shut out of parliament permanently.
Grubby.
If you think that the future shape of the nation or the small matter of a complete shakeup of the constitutional settlement for both Scotland and the rest of the UK are small matters worthy of small notice, then you'll forgive me if I ignore everything you have to say about anything.
The fact that public life in Scotland will have a direct impact on the way people will vote in the referendum is so glaringly obvious that it is hardly worth mentioning. Given this fact you would think that the NO campaign would pay some heed to it wouldn't you?
As a matter of language, I'm not sure whether it is still accurate to describe such a claim as "defamatory" - it may be simply that despite being defamatory the organisation cannot sue for it.
It might constitute an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (cf the Miranda Grell case) but I'd have to look that up.
Edit: Here's the story
A Labour councillor has been found guilty of falsely branding a Liberal Democrat rival a paedophile and telling electors he had sex with teenage boys.
Miranda Grell slurred gay Lib Dem candidate Barry Smith while campaigning for the Leyton ward in Waltham Forest Council, east London, in 2006.
Grell, 29, was convicted by magistrates of two counts of making false statements about another candidate.....
.... Grell put the mistake down to political immaturity and inexperience at campaigning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7006231.stm
This man must be insane.
Scottish independence would weaken UK's global status, says ex-Nato chief
Lord Robertson says yes vote would boost west's enemies and 'forces of darkness' and embolden dictators across the world
Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato chief, has claimed that Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" effect on European and global stability by undermining the UK on the world stage.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/scottish-independence-lord-robertson-uk-global-status
Mind you, it is the idiot Robertson.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100266788/maria-millers-leveson-threat-not-her-expenses-is-why-she-must-go/
Still searching for the "Maria Miller scandal" is a disaster for Ed Miliband in the article.
Online political ads test boundaries while electoral law lags behind
There is no requirement for parties to declare responsibility for campaign material circulated on the internet
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/07/online-political-ads-electoral-law
Unless I'm very much mistaken, there has been net migration since then, so if 77 million was right then, then 80m would be right now.
If the supermarket number is correct (and the source doesn't say it is Tesco, merely that it is a supermarket who was lobbying the government to allow its market share to rise), then there are one-third extra people in the UK, and around 66% more people of working age
However, it is not a number which chimes with any other data. VAT receipts have not risen accordingly. Total employment numbers have not increased accordingly. School rolls have increased only in-line with what we would have expected given headline TFRs and the 2001 census.
More damningly, outside London, housing prices have been very soft. Given that the additional 20 million people need to be housed (even if it it were to be at twice the average 'density', it would still require many millions of additional homes to be filled. If there were so many people additional people in the UK (an almost doubling of people of working age), surely house prices in the areas outside London, but commutable to London (i.e. Bedford, Southend, etc.) would be soaring. That they are not throws extreme doubt on the 77-80m number.
Those publically rallying against:
Right wing press
Cabinet wanabees
Mouthy Tory MP's
Ex-Tory MP's
Tory bloggers
Those For:
err......Boris Johnson and David Cameron
You have to be impressed with her resiliance.