I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
We can also note that in that article, the pro-EU side gets eight sentences of quotes, plus a video, while the anti-EU side gets no coverage at all.
So in a story about a eurosceptic report, the pro-EU side gets more space, and in a story about a pro-EU report, the pro-EU side gets ALL of the space. It all makes sense at the Beeb. I'm being forced to pay taxes to pump out propaganda against my views.
You only have to pay for the BBC if you watch, or record, live broadcasts on TV. That is a choice. You are not forced to do so. I do not pay the licence fee, because I do not watch live broadcasts of TV.
No. You have to pay if you watch live broadcasts from any provider not just the BBC. More over you have to pay if you have a TV in the house capable of receiving the live broadcasts - whether you watch or not.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one Quote: You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder. Endquote
I may not, for instance (as a non-licensee) watch PMQs live on my PC. I don't think it's not allowed to have a TV in the house, but I can't imagine wanting one. Certainly half a dozen or so of my friends agree.
You can declare that you do not watch live TV (and for example only use your TV to watch DVDs.) but you may then get a visit from the licensing people. If they find your TV is capable of receiving live transmissions then they will tell you you must have a licence. This happened to a neighbour who tried it and they insisted she needed a licence.
"In all cases, we may need a couple of minutes of your time As it is our duty to ensure that everyone in the UK who needs a licence has one, we may visit your address to check that no licence is required. It's unfortunately necessary to do this, as when we make contact on these visits, almost one in five people are found to need a TV Licence. Please be assured that this is a routine visit, and will take no more than a few minutes. If we find during the visit that you do in fact need a licence, you'll need to pay the full licence fee, and you could risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."
Mr. Me, imagine if anyone buying any book had to give me £140 a year, even if they never bought any of my books?
.....
It sounds like a wonderful system!
I suppose the analogy would be paying a library licence fee to be allowed to buy books. It would at least save libraries from funding cuts imposed by local councils...
Mr. Tyndall, is that correct? I thought if you had a television as, for example, a decorative item that was never used you didn't have to pay.
Mr. Me, the referendum on Europe would be wanted by his backbenchers.
The law's a mess. I certainly recognise the scenario Mr Tyndall mentions, and allegedly it was no good even if the plug had been cut off - you'd still get done.
But Wiki says:
TV Licensing offers the following advice to those who have a TV but 'who wish to make it clear that they do not need a licence':[34]
remove the television from the aerial; cover the aerial socket so that it can't be used; ensure that when channels on the television are selected no television signal is received.
Regardless, the TV licence fee does not have a long-term future in its current form, for all the reasons I've given passim. Their first stabs at proposing changes - for instance funding it from general taxation, a tax per house, or a subscription service - all have fundamental problems. IVSTR reading somewhere that if you only used the TV for radio channels you didn't need a TV licence.
We can also note that in that article, the pro-EU side gets eight sentences of quotes, plus a video, while the anti-EU side gets no coverage at all.
So in a story about a eurosceptic report, the pro-EU side gets more space, and in a story about a pro-EU report, the pro-EU side gets ALL of the space. It all makes sense at the Beeb. I'm being forced to pay taxes to pump out propaganda against my views.
You only have to pay for the BBC if you watch, or record, live broadcasts on TV. That is a choice. You are not forced to do so. I do not pay the licence fee, because I do not watch live broadcasts of TV.
No. You have to pay if you watch live broadcasts from any provider not just the BBC. More over you have to pay if you have a TV in the house capable of receiving the live broadcasts - whether you watch or not.
I did not specify BBC broadcasts. Since the digital switchover it is relatively easy to have a TV on which you can watch DVDs, etc, that is not capable of receiving live broadcasts (from the BBC or otherwise).
As an example, this means that I have been choosing to pay money to an online streaming service for access to their extensive back catalogue of films and TV shows, without having to pay a licence fee.
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
Boundary reform if he can squeeze it in.
No chance.
No chance he'd do it or no chance he could squeeze it in ?
Mr. Brooke, that'd look like gerrymandering and could be reversed after the election.
Are you saying not changing the boundaries isn't gerrymandering ?
Ask yourself, what would labour do ?
Any changes would not be ready in time for 2015, and constitutionally, the Scot MPs are perfectly entitled to vote until secession. He won't have his theoretical majority, Ed would not allow it and use the Scots to block.
Mr. Brooke, that'd look like gerrymandering and could be reversed after the election.
Are you saying not changing the boundaries isn't gerrymandering ?
Ask yourself, what would labour do ?
Any changes would not be ready in time for 2015, and constitutionally, the Scot MPs are perfectly entitled to vote until secession. He won't have his theoretical majority, Ed would not allow it and use the Scots to block.
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
Boundary reform if he can squeeze it in.
No chance.
No chance he'd do it or no chance he could squeeze it in ?
Both counts I reckon. And Ed's Scots would block it.
Would expect you to receive Tory literature sometime this week to coincide with the distribution of postal votes. That's when we have been advised to deliver, so I'm out soon hitting the streets. What joy.
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
You know this because?
It's not out with the bounds of possibility that a PB Mod saw the comments for themselves?
Ah, but then Nats would be denied a victim of Unionist conspiracy!
Er, 'cos the mods told me that was the case?
Fair enough - tho I prefer Malcolm's "insult you to your face" than Pork's "insult you behind your back"....
I'm sure Mick will be happy to return to full frontal mode.
Mr. Socrates, the Commission might just be incompetent. Don't forget they claimed they couldn't be expected to deal with such high turnouts last time (I forget the precise figure but turnout was under 70%).
Well, the incompetence seems to be aligning in an anti-UKIP direction for at least two important cases. There's two more coming up: whether UKIP will be excluded from being a major party despite outpolling the Lib Dems, and whether Farage will be allowed in the debates. If the Electoral Commission rules against UKIP in all four cases, it will be quite clear a deliberate anti-UKIP mentality exists at the place.
What we're all ignoring a bit is what might happen to the polls themselves as we see more of the Eds and their policies in the run up to the GE. That's when 99% of the population tune their 'once every 5 years' antenna onto politics. There is a real risk for Labour of polling meltdown when it becomes clear to all and not just politics anoraks that Labour are led by a drooling moron and have an incoherent ruinous mess of a manifesto. Be in no doubt - Labour are in for a serious monstering in a year's time.
You posted almost daily about the coming Brown epiphany in 2010.
It didn't happen in 2010, so you are going to have to come up with a really good reason why it will happen in 2015 for Miliband and Balls.
No I don't. But I have changed my opinion from 35/35 to something more like 37/32 in favour of Dave in recent weeks. The tone of reporting on all things Miliband seems more innately hostile lately and whereas I thought his opportunistic bandwagons would create enough traction among the stupid before I don't really think they will quite so much now. How this plays in the marginals is another question. Dave will win the popular vote for sure IMHO, but that's not the same thing as MPs.
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
Boundary reform if he can squeeze it in.
No chance.
No chance he'd do it or no chance he could squeeze it in ?
Both counts I reckon. And Ed's Scots would block it.
As I said that's not a bad card to have. Scots interfering in rUK affairs at a time when we're negotiating a divorce and Ed on the back foot if he's stupid enough to do so.
I watched the match in a Merseyside pub last night, and I'd like to say how gracious the Liverpool supporters were after the three goal setback (I suppose that's like saying Culloden was a setback for the Jacobite cause).
"Good on that Tony Pulis, his half-time talk must have been magnificent." and "Those Eagles are a good footballing side, it's a pleasure to be held by such a team." and "Congratulation to City, they thoroughly deserved it this season."
I'd like to say it, but obviously I made up that last paragraph. Still, you've got to feel a teensy bit sorry for the Reds.
We can also note that in that article, the pro-EU side gets eight sentences of quotes, plus a video, while the anti-EU side gets no coverage at all.
So in a story about a eurosceptic report, the pro-EU side gets more space, and in a story about a pro-EU report, the pro-EU side gets ALL of the space. It all makes sense at the Beeb. I'm being forced to pay taxes to pump out propaganda against my views.
You only have to pay for the BBC if you watch, or record, live broadcasts on TV. That is a choice. You are not forced to do so. I do not pay the licence fee, because I do not watch live broadcasts of TV.
No. You have to pay if you watch live broadcasts from any provider not just the BBC. More over you have to pay if you have a TV in the house capable of receiving the live broadcasts - whether you watch or not.
I did not specify BBC broadcasts. Since the digital switchover it is relatively easy to have a TV on which you can watch DVDs, etc, that is not capable of receiving live broadcasts (from the BBC or otherwise).
As an example, this means that I have been choosing to pay money to an online streaming service for access to their extensive back catalogue of films and TV shows, without having to pay a licence fee.
Like I said, it is entirely your choice.
I'd disagree with that a little. You're correct that you have a choice, but it's not easy to actually exercise your right to make that choice. I could quite easily never watch any BBC output, ever again, as we as a family don't actually watch a lot of "terrestrial" TV at all. We tend to watch Sky (Atlantic, Living, One, Arts), music channels, use Netflix and LoveFilm or use YouTube. Mostly, we record things we want to watch, and then watch them delayed so we can fast forward through the adverts, but we watch music channels, news, sport and films "live". To watch TV like this, we have to have a TV licence, even if we never watch BBC output. I'm not anti BBC, I just don't want to have to pay for it, to have the "right" to watch other commercial broadcasts "live".
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
Mr. Brooke, that'd look like gerrymandering and could be reversed after the election.
Are you saying not changing the boundaries isn't gerrymandering ?
Ask yourself, what would labour do ?
Any changes would not be ready in time for 2015, and constitutionally, the Scot MPs are perfectly entitled to vote until secession. He won't have his theoretical majority, Ed would not allow it and use the Scots to block.
Using Scottish MPs to block English only legislation after a Yes vote may backfire if used injudiciously and for party advantage. There may not be much of a mood to accept "Scots telling us what we can or can't do" when their country has just voted for a divorce.
For the good of everyone, I think Cameron would be well advised to get the negotiations over quickly and get Scotland away by May 2015. It ought to be possible to do, the administrative details (e.g. DVLA) can be worked out later between the two countries. The big issues (e.g. Faslane and currency don't need long drawn out negotiations).
Everyone else no doubt feels that it is perfectly reasonable. If there's some work available, claimants should be encouraged to take it, for their own good and out of fairness to the taxpayer.
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
Boo Hoo Hoo. Did someone else force Porky to make those comments? No? Quit whining.
All the same, even though I'm a right wing tory I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of zero hours contracts. There should be decent protections for workers.
All the same, even though I'm a right wing tory I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of zero hours contracts. There should be decent protections for workers.
Certainly there should not a clause in the contract specifying that the worker cannot work elsewhere, that is clearly anti-competitive and unreasonable.
"Political parties in Haringey came together to campaign against a record number of UKIP candidates being fielded in the borough at this month’s elections.
Members of the Liberal Democrats, Labour and Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition handed out Stand Up to UKIP campaign leaflets in Crouch End, one of the controversial party’s target wards. "
Mr. Antifrank, just checked it. The Saxon Shore? A shade modern, but Roman references are always good, and I hadn't heard of it before.
Hmm. Given its third century I wonder if that was the Roman or the Gallic Empire arranging things...
As spring is here, I'd recommend a visit to the better preserved ones. Portchester Castle most of all perhaps - a huge Roman fortress on the upper reaches of Portsmouth harbour with a Norman keep tucked into the corner. Haven't been to Pevensey though (which apparently was modified in WW2 for anti-Unternehmen Seeloewe defences in 1940-1).
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
You are classifying it as internet bullying? Really?
All the same, even though I'm a right wing tory I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of zero hours contracts. There should be decent protections for workers.
Certainly there should not a clause in the contract specifying that the worker cannot work elsewhere, that is clearly anti-competitive and unreasonable.
There's been a sharp increase in recent years in so-called 'zero-hours' contracts, as employers try to find cost-effective ways of meeting short-term staffing needs.
Zero-hours contracts effectively provide employers with a pool of people who are 'on-call' and can be used when the need arises.
"Specifically, there is an exclusivity clause which stipulates that the zero hours worker may not look for work elsewhere whilst with the current employer. Clearly, this limits the flexibility of the worker. The CIPD evidence shows that about 40% of employers use this clause."
Exclusivity in a ZH contract should be illegal. Tbh if it got to court I'd expect the ruling to be in favour of the employee if they were say dismissed for not being available.
The CIPD evidence shows that about 40% of employers use this clause.
HHMMM. if you look at the citizens advice website, it says that workers on ZH contracts have every right to look for other work and turn down offers of work if they wish.
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
I am afraid I do not share your optimism of Labour and Lib Dem MP's having any principles.
Mr. Tyndall, is that correct? I thought if you had a television as, for example, a decorative item that was never used you didn't have to pay.
Mr. Me, the referendum on Europe would be wanted by his backbenchers.
If it is capable of receiving transmissions then you have to pay. If you ripped out the insides then I presume you could get away with it.
Richard, not sure you are correct there, think it is only if you watch live programmes and presume that could be on a computer. If it is sitting with no mains plug what could they do even assuming you let them enter your premises. I have previously told them to take a hike when they came to the door regarding TV licence, I had no TV in any event but chased them.
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
You are classifying it as internet bullying? Really?
Josias - interesting debate on CiF the other day quoting Prof Robert Jupe saying the subsidy post privatisation to the railway is four to five times that under BR. Apparently BR was the most cost efficient railway in Europe when Major launched his much-regretted fudged privatisation. Thoughts?
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
Mr. Antifrank, just checked it. The Saxon Shore? A shade modern, but Roman references are always good, and I hadn't heard of it before.
Hmm. Given its third century I wonder if that was the Roman or the Gallic Empire arranging things...
As spring is here, I'd recommend a visit to the better preserved ones. Portchester Castle most of all perhaps - a huge Roman fortress on the upper reaches of Portsmouth harbour with a Norman keep tucked into the corner. Haven't been to Pevensey though (which apparently was modified in WW2 for anti-Unternehmen Seeloewe defences in 1940-1).
Porchester is a terrific place, dripping with history from the Romans down to WW2 and a splendid church, ex monastery, in the grounds. A full day out on its own. No point in recommending it to Mr Dancer, though - he is a chronic sufferer of YMS (Yorkshire Male Syndrome) which makes it impossible to travel further South than about Junction 30 on the M1.
On the zero hours thing, I wonder if the employers insisting on exclusivity are in effect trying it on, and have no legal right to do this or enforce it.
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
You are classifying it as internet bullying? Really?
Look at some of the Nat activities and treatment of others on the Internet, and breathe in the rich stench of hypocrisy.
The Tories may not be taking the fight to #UKIP, but the Lib Dems are. Letter to @TheTimes from @emcmillanscott pic.twitter.com/NlIVVFQlln
What about taking the fight to the main opposition party(labour),who are favourites to win the European elections,idiots.
Because that's less newsworthy - UKIP are the shiny prize? Because Labour aren't favourites to win according to the polls, bookmakers and pundits? Because they disagree with UKIP more than Labour? Because disagreeing with UKIP helps put their coalition partners in an awkward spot and helps the Lib Dems differentiation strategy, but disagreeing with Labour doesn't?
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
Mr. Tyndall, is that correct? I thought if you had a television as, for example, a decorative item that was never used you didn't have to pay.
Mr. Me, the referendum on Europe would be wanted by his backbenchers.
If it is capable of receiving transmissions then you have to pay. If you ripped out the insides then I presume you could get away with it.
Richard, not sure you are correct there, think it is only if you watch live programmes and presume that could be on a computer. If it is sitting with no mains plug what could they do even assuming you let them enter your premises. I have previously told them to take a hike when they came to the door regarding TV licence, I had no TV in any event but chased them.
They say in the piece I quoted that in 1 in 5 of the properties they visit as part of the checks after people claim they are exempt, they find a licence was needed. I suspect that in reality a lot of these cases where people think they do not need a licence for exactly the reasons we are discussing on here they find them selves to be in the wrong.
On the zero hours thing, I wonder if the employers insisting on exclusivity are in effect trying it on, and have no legal right to do this or enforce it.
To someone without the money for a legal team, it makes no difference. I suspect the latter though I'm not an expert.
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
You can tell us when Better Together win in September.
Exclusivity in a ZH contract should be illegal. Tbh if it got to court I'd expect the ruling to be in favour of the employee if they were say dismissed for not being available.
Zero hours. They don't have to dismiss anyone just don't give them any hours.
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
No, but you're likely to die of embarrassment...
tsk Mr Charles you don't know your cars.
In a past life I was a major supplier to Skoda with a factory in CZ. Skoda had Audi technologies on some of their models before Audi because of VW Group's platform strategy. Pure badge engineering.
If you want a crap car buy a french one they always come bottom of the user surveys, Skoda's usually well towards the top.
Worth noting that the leaked letter says job seekers will not be required to sign up to an exclusivity clause.
Exclusivity clauses should be illegal. Period. If you want to corner someone's services, f8cking employ them. Labour have a good point here.
I'm doubtful whether many such clauses in a zero hours contract would bear the scrutiny of a tribunal or court in practice already. It's not as though they look on other restrictive covenants with much favour.
Perhaps a union could do something useful and find a test case to bring?
Josias - interesting debate on CiF the other day quoting Prof Robert Jupe saying the subsidy post privatisation to the railway is four to five times that under BR. Apparently BR was the most cost efficient railway in Europe when Major launched his much-regretted fudged privatisation. Thoughts?
I can't remember if it was you or someone else I've discussed this with before, but it depends on how you measure it. Certainly the figures from Christian Wolmar's book a few years back are rather suspect, especially when used nowadays.
1) Subsidies varied wildly year-on-year, even before privatisation. Picking a low year then with a high year now can give a false picture. For instance, on the chart above compare 1992-3 and 1995-6.
2) Some subsidy figures include new projects: for instance the £9-10 billion WCML Upgrade a few years ago, and Crossrail now. Just one such project can add one or two billion onto the figures, skewing them severely. If you want to compare-like-by-like (especially if trying to make a point about efficiency), then these really need to be stripped out. For instance, "in 2012-13 capital spending on Crossrail accounted for £1,205 million of other elements of government spending."
3) Passenger numbers have doubled since privatisation, and freight has increased. Not only does this improve subsidy-per-passenger-mile figures, but also needs massive investment to cope with the increase. It is widely acknowledged that BR was starved of funds (and did a good job despite that), but it was managing a shrinking network and usage. You cannot double passenger numbers without investing.
But until I see Prof. Jupe's figures, that's all I can say. As ever with such things, it is massively complex. If his statement is as simple as given above, then it is very disingenuous.
However the massive growth in traffic since privatisation after decades of managed decline is a good indication that privatisation has worked. Not that that means it is the best model going forward ...
@HurstLlama - Further to our exchange about Moet & Chandon a few days ago, I have carried out the research as I promised (as you would expect of a good Cameroon). Selflessly, I opened a bottle of Moet and served it to some guests over the weekend.
Unfortunately the reports that Moet is much improved turned out to be exaggerated. In fact, it tasted exactly as I remember it always tasting. Full marks to Moet for consistency of style, but the style is consistently mediocre IMO.
So the Nabavi guide to non-vintage Grandes Marques remains unchanged:
For an elegant apéritif: Taittinger For consistent top-notch quality and finesse: Pol Roger For celebratory occasions: Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger For those with more money than sense: Louis Roederer For those with lots of money and lots of sense: Krug
And, top tip: For the best possible quality at a very reasonable price, get yourself to your local Waitrose where the superb Duval Leroy, Fleur de Champagne is again on special offer at £21.99.
Exclusivity in a ZH contract should be illegal. Tbh if it got to court I'd expect the ruling to be in favour of the employee if they were say dismissed for not being available.
Zero hours. They don't have to dismiss anyone just don't give them any hours.
The exclusivity debate in ZH is as old as the hills. Several Burger King employees successfully claimed pay under the national minimum wage act for time spent waiting, in uniform, on the premises, to be called upon. That is one approach. The other is to merely strike down the exclusivity part itself and entitle those on a zero hours contract to work elsewhere.
Normally the claimant struggles because they fall through the cracks in terms of classification: there is a tendency for employment lawyers to consider that if the claimant is not a worker (and thus entitled to the NMW) in respect of waiting around, then he or she has no contractual basis at all. That is, of course, far from the truth, and the exclusivity provision in their contract (being neither a contract of employment nor a contract of personal service) is just as damaging.
They don't need exclusivity clauses. All they need to do is say "you can work for someone else but if we ring up and you're not available then etc etc" so it's up to 60 hours of waiting by the phone for maybe 26 hours pay or 16 or 6.
Amazes me how hatred of the political class hasn't boiled over yet.
The Tories may not be taking the fight to #UKIP, but the Lib Dems are. Letter to @TheTimes from @emcmillanscott pic.twitter.com/NlIVVFQlln
What about taking the fight to the main opposition party(labour),who are favourites to win the European elections,idiots.
Because that's less newsworthy - UKIP are the shiny prize? Because Labour aren't favourites to win according to the polls, bookmakers and pundits? Because they disagree with UKIP more than Labour? Because disagreeing with UKIP helps put their coalition partners in an awkward spot and helps the Lib Dems differentiation strategy, but disagreeing with Labour doesn't?
Well it's really worked for them in the euro polls,the lib dems are steaming up them polls.The lib dems need to get they vote back which as mainly gone to labour.
Do you think that anyone considering voting ukip would listen to anything the pro EU fanatic party as to say,the lib dems are talking to themselves,just pathetic really.
@HurstLlama - Further to our exchange about Moet & Chandon a few days ago, I have carried out the research as I promised (as you would expect of a good Cameroon). Selflessly, I opened a bottle of Moet and served it to some guests over the weekend.
Unfortunately the reports that Moet is much improved turned out to be exaggerated. In fact, it tasted exactly as I remember it always tasting. Full marks to Moet for consistency of style, but the style is consistently mediocre IMO.
So the Nabavi guide to non-vintage Grandes Marques remains unchanged:
For an elegant apéritif: Taittinger For consistent top-notch quality and finesse: Pol Roger For celebratory occasions: Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger For those with more money than sense: Louis Roederer For those with lots of money and lots of sense: Krug
And, top tip: For the best possible quality at a very reasonable price, get yourself to your local Waitrose where the superb Duval Leroy, Fleur de Champagne is again on special offer at £21.99.
Mr N, I tried your Duval last year and it didn't really do much for me I'm afraid . I do however come across the occasional bottle of Jacquart which can be quite good. However all champagne fits in the category of more money than sense. More badge engineering.
Another slant on Zero Hours contract is to look at it from the employees perspective, and not every employee wants lots of hours. For example when I packed up full time work in 2006 I was approached by a company who offered me a ZH contract - the deal was I would work for them two days a week as a general rule, but if the work wasn't there they had the right to tell me not to turn up and not to pay me. Tax was dealt with by PAYE deductions and I had the responsibility of reconciling my accounts with HMRC. That suited me very nicely as it fitted in with all the other things I wanted to do (write, research, teach etc.). It all went wrong when they kept asking me to work more hours - two days a week, became three, then could you also just... . Too much so we had to part ways.
OK, I hear you say, you had a pension and were doing it for fun. Yes and no. Yes I had a pension, yes I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't enjoyed the work, but I was doing it for the money. In this day and age lots of people do not actually want the sort of life that I was expected to have when I left school. 9 to 5 Monday to Friday is not necessarily the most interesting way of spending ones life, and a lot of, particularly, youngsters have worked this out. For example, a friend of my son's, nice lad, nice family, goodish education, works three nights a week stacking shelves in a supermarket. Why because, night work pays a premium and 3 days is all needs to pay his board and lodging and have enough left over to pay for his pleasures and still give him enough time to do the things he enjoys.
Work is changing and ZH contracts are part of that.
Mr Miliband said he felt he had the “conviction” to become prime minister. He also claimed he had “more intellectual self confidence” than David Cameron.
Supposing there is a YES vote for Scottish independence, it would leave Cameron with a majority of 19 when excluding Scottish constituencies (and Sinn Fein, would be increased to 21 if the Tories hold Newark, as Mercer has been sitting as an independent).
I can't see the House of Commons passing any laws that relate to Scotland after a YES vote on independence, and so it also seems incomprehensible that MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies would vote on laws for a country they would be shortly leaving.
What could Cameron do with a ~6 month period where he doesn't need to rely on Lib Dem coalition support?
I am afraid I do not share your optimism of Labour and Lib Dem MP's having any principles.
Of course they do!
And if you don't like the current set, they've got others......
Mr Miliband said he felt he had the “conviction” to become prime minister. He also claimed he had “more intellectual self confidence” than David Cameron.
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
No, but you're likely to die of embarrassment...
If you want a crap car buy a french one they always come bottom of the user surveys, Skoda's usually well towards the top.
German engineering and technology built by Czech salaries - what's not to like?
Mr Miliband said he felt he had the “conviction” to become prime minister. He also claimed he had “more intellectual self confidence” than David Cameron.
Mr. Antifrank, just checked it. The Saxon Shore? A shade modern, but Roman references are always good, and I hadn't heard of it before.
Hmm. Given its third century I wonder if that was the Roman or the Gallic Empire arranging things...
As spring is here, I'd recommend a visit to the better preserved ones. Portchester Castle most of all perhaps - a huge Roman fortress on the upper reaches of Portsmouth harbour with a Norman keep tucked into the corner. Haven't been to Pevensey though (which apparently was modified in WW2 for anti-Unternehmen Seeloewe defences in 1940-1).
Porchester is a terrific place, dripping with history from the Romans down to WW2 and a splendid church, ex monastery, in the grounds. A full day out on its own. No point in recommending it to Mr Dancer, though - he is a chronic sufferer of YMS (Yorkshire Male Syndrome) which makes it impossible to travel further South than about Junction 30 on the M1.
Oh, that's interesting - WW2? Anything in particular?
Unless it counts as aftertiming, I was going to mention the Norman church too - but a monastery? I didn't know that. My main reason was because I thought James Lind of lemon juice and scurvy was buried there, but on reflection I held fire on the matter till I had checked which generation he was. Indeed it is the vitamin-C-but-he-didn't-know-it chappie -
Must go back there. I have promised to take my partner (for whom Lind is a hero) to see it and Fishbourne Roman Palace, as well as the usual new-fangled stuff like Priddy's Hard armament depot (Gosport) and Fort Nelson (one of the Palmerstn forts, on the hill above Portchester).
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
No, but you're likely to die of embarrassment...
Perhaps 20 years ago. The Skodas of today are excellent cars. I have a Superb - which it is!
Mr Miliband said he felt he had the “conviction” to become prime minister. He also claimed he had “more intellectual self confidence” than David Cameron.
Mr. Antifrank, just checked it. The Saxon Shore? A shade modern, but Roman references are always good, and I hadn't heard of it before.
Hmm. Given its third century I wonder if that was the Roman or the Gallic Empire arranging things...
As spring is here, I'd recommend a visit to the better preserved ones. Portchester Castle most of all perhaps - a huge Roman fortress on the upper reaches of Portsmouth harbour with a Norman keep tucked into the corner. Haven't been to Pevensey though (which apparently was modified in WW2 for anti-Unternehmen Seeloewe defences in 1940-1).
Porchester is a terrific place, dripping with history from the Romans down to WW2 and a splendid church, ex monastery, in the grounds. A full day out on its own. No point in recommending it to Mr Dancer, though - he is a chronic sufferer of YMS (Yorkshire Male Syndrome) which makes it impossible to travel further South than about Junction 30 on the M1.
Oh, that's interesting - WW2? Anything in particular?
Unless it counts as aftertiming, I was going to mention the Norman church too - but a monastery? I didn't know that. My main reason was because I thought James Lind of lemon juice and scurvy was buried there, but on reflection I held fire on the matter till I had checked which generation he was. Indeed it is the vitamin-C-but-he-didn't-know-it chappie -
Must go back there. I have promised to take my partner (for whom Lind is a hero) to see it and Fishbourne Roman Palace, as well as the usual new-fangled stuff like Priddy's Hard armament depot (Gosport) and Fort Nelson (one of the Palmerstn forts, on the hill above Portchester).
Done all of those, and they're all good. Priddy's Hard (it was called Explosion! when I visited) has a large number of weapons. Even the relatively pacifist Mrs J enjoyed Fort Nelson, and especially the beautifully engraved Chinese and Japanese cannon.
But I can also recommend Buckler's Hard, a short distance away in the New Forest. A small village that has hardly changed from when they built wooden warships there, and in a beautiful setting. There's a good footpath there from Beaulieu, although the motor museum deserves a day on its own.
@HurstLlama - Further to our exchange about Moet & Chandon a few days ago, I have carried out the research as I promised (as you would expect of a good Cameroon). Selflessly, I opened a bottle of Moet and served it to some guests over the weekend.
Unfortunately the reports that Moet is much improved turned out to be exaggerated. In fact, it tasted exactly as I remember it always tasting. Full marks to Moet for consistency of style, but the style is consistently mediocre IMO.
So the Nabavi guide to non-vintage Grandes Marques remains unchanged:
For an elegant apéritif: Taittinger For consistent top-notch quality and finesse: Pol Roger For celebratory occasions: Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger For those with more money than sense: Louis Roederer For those with lots of money and lots of sense: Krug
And, top tip: For the best possible quality at a very reasonable price, get yourself to your local Waitrose where the superb Duval Leroy, Fleur de Champagne is again on special offer at £21.99.
Dang! Conversations on changing working hours, railways and champagne, and all at the same time. Its famine or feast on this site. Go for the most important things first - Champagne (sorry Mr. Jessop, but age does change priorities).
Mr. Nabavi, Thanks for your recommendation of the Duval Leroy. Herself is going to Waitrose this afternoon and so I shall send her a text message to pick up a couple of bottles. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
As you for comments on the other brands I tend to agree with your analysis. As an aside, a chum of mine who makes his money in Russia drinks nothing but Cristal because that is all that the old Sovs drink - I think its rubbish, but there you go. A further thought, the sagacious AlanBrooke makes the point about brand engineering. I do think he is correct, which is why we in the Llama household tend, when going for fizz, to stay with local wines (RidgeView in particular) - might not be the cheapest but definitely the best value.
“I look at David Cameron across the dispatch box and I think to myself, I’m the one with the intellectual self-confidence because I actually know what I believe and I don’t need Lynton Crosby to tell me.” He says Cameron is avoiding election TV debates because “he obviously doesn’t have the confidence”.
I'm sure TSE has seen the funny side in it being the Eagles biting his footie team on the bum?
In the interest of TSE's sanity please do not mention Liverpool's humiliating performance against Palace last night when they threw away a 0-3 lead and saw their premiership hopes reduced to tatters
Against PALACE ?!?
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
Is being run over by a Skoda less painful than other makes
No, but you're likely to die of embarrassment...
tsk Mr Charles you don't know your cars.
In a past life I was a major supplier to Skoda with a factory in CZ. Skoda had Audi technologies on some of their models before Audi because of VW Group's platform strategy. Pure badge engineering.
If you want a crap car buy a french one they always come bottom of the user surveys, Skoda's usually well towards the top.
I agree today. My Skoda jokes date back to the early 90s.
Mr. Antifrank, just checked it. The Saxon Shore? A shade modern, but Roman references are always good, and I hadn't heard of it before.
Hmm. Given its third century I wonder if that was the Roman or the Gallic Empire arranging things...
As spring is here, I'd recommend a visit to the better preserved ones. Portchester Castle most of all perhaps - a huge Roman fortress on the upper reaches of Portsmouth harbour with a Norman keep tucked into the corner. Haven't been to Pevensey though (which apparently was modified in WW2 for anti-Unternehmen Seeloewe defences in 1940-1).
Porchester is a terrific place, dripping with history from the Romans down to WW2 and a splendid church, ex monastery, in the grounds. A full day out on its own. No point in recommending it to Mr Dancer, though - he is a chronic sufferer of YMS (Yorkshire Male Syndrome) which makes it impossible to travel further South than about Junction 30 on the M1.
Oh, that's interesting - WW2? Anything in particular?
Unless it counts as aftertiming, I was going to mention the Norman church too - but a monastery? I didn't know that. My main reason was because I thought James Lind of lemon juice and scurvy was buried there, but on reflection I held fire on the matter till I had checked which generation he was. Indeed it is the vitamin-C-but-he-didn't-know-it chappie -
Must go back there. I have promised to take my partner (for whom Lind is a hero) to see it and Fishbourne Roman Palace, as well as the usual new-fangled stuff like Priddy's Hard armament depot (Gosport) and Fort Nelson (one of the Palmerstn forts, on the hill above Portchester).
Done all of those, and they're all good. Priddy's Hard (it was called Explosion! when I visited) has a large number of weapons. Even the relatively pacifist Mrs J enjoyed Fort Nelson, and especially the beautifully engraved Chinese and Japanese cannon.
But I can also recommend Buckler's Hard, a short distance away in the New Forest. A small village that has hardly changed from when they built wooden warships there, and in a beautiful setting. There's a good footpath there from Beaulieu, although the motor museum deserves a day on its own.
Exactly, thanks - I want to see the new developments at these places and to take my partner up to Fort Nelson to see the oxlips or perhaps cowslips on the glacis (her scene, well the flowers are).
It appears to be a day for people who have elevated opinions of themselves:
68 per cent of those who favour the Lib Dems think they are cleverer than the average Briton. Respondents who vote for Ukip, Labour or the Conservative Party were roughly equivalent to the national average.
Gove is appointing a bunch of toadies group of up-standing citizens as "Regional Schools Commissioners", and he has thus defined eight regions to divide England into.
Bizarrely, he has managed to divide both London and Yorkshire between three different regions each, with just two regions - the South-West and the West Midlands - not containing either a piece of Yorkshire or a piece of London.
It's hard to see what the logic is behind these regions, unless it's all just divide and rule.
All quiet on the IndyRef front today so guess my YESNP friends are still hungover from the excitement of the Sunday Herald coming out in favour because both its readers say YES.
It's quiet because it's getting to the point where there'll only be a couple of 'YESNP'ers on here. Mick Pork has had his posting rights suspended because some little sneak has clyped to the moderators about MP saying 'insulting' things about PB & OGH on another site.
The three internet behaviours I really despise are aftertiming, trying to get fellow posters banned and grassing up fellow posters on the sly. Perhaps the PB super snitch would like to fess up to their activities so that they're only one-down on the ****er quotient.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
You are classifying it as internet bullying? Really?
Look at some of the Nat activities and treatment of others on the Internet, and breathe in the rich stench of hypocrisy.
You still not found your other brain cell to allow you to post something sensible then.
SNP ministers have finally admitted carrying out research into their flagship childcare policy - but say it would be against “the public interest” to publish it.
SNP ministers have finally admitted carrying out research into their flagship childcare policy - but say it would be against “the public interest” to publish it.
Comments
That's kind of like being run over by a Skoda
"In all cases, we may need a couple of minutes of your time
As it is our duty to ensure that everyone in the UK who needs a licence has one, we may visit your address to check that no licence is required. It's unfortunately necessary to do this, as when we make contact on these visits, almost one in five people are found to need a TV Licence. Please be assured that this is a routine visit, and will take no more than a few minutes. If we find during the visit that you do in fact need a licence, you'll need to pay the full licence fee, and you could risk prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12
Regardless, the TV licence fee does not have a long-term future in its current form, for all the reasons I've given passim. Their first stabs at proposing changes - for instance funding it from general taxation, a tax per house, or a subscription service - all have fundamental problems.
IVSTR reading somewhere that if you only used the TV for radio channels you didn't need a TV licence.
Ask yourself, what would labour do ?
I think I'd be able to provide a much better quality of book if I had guaranteed funding of £3bn a year.
As an example, this means that I have been choosing to pay money to an online streaming service for access to their extensive back catalogue of films and TV shows, without having to pay a licence fee.
Like I said, it is entirely your choice.
But I have changed my opinion from 35/35 to something more like 37/32 in favour of Dave in recent weeks. The tone of reporting on all things Miliband seems more innately hostile lately and whereas I thought his opportunistic bandwagons would create enough traction among the stupid before I don't really think they will quite so much now.
How this plays in the marginals is another question. Dave will win the popular vote for sure IMHO, but that's not the same thing as MPs.
Croydon
Hammersmith & Fulham Council
Stockport Council
Barnet
Merton
Redbridge
Trafford
I watched the match in a Merseyside pub last night, and I'd like to say how gracious the Liverpool supporters were after the three goal setback (I suppose that's like saying Culloden was a setback for the Jacobite cause).
"Good on that Tony Pulis, his half-time talk must have been magnificent." and "Those Eagles are a good footballing side, it's a pleasure to be held by such a team." and "Congratulation to City, they thoroughly deserved it this season."
I'd like to say it, but obviously I made up that last paragraph. Still, you've got to feel a teensy bit sorry for the Reds.
To watch TV like this, we have to have a TV licence, even if we never watch BBC output.
I'm not anti BBC, I just don't want to have to pay for it, to have the "right" to watch other commercial broadcasts "live".
If folk ever wonder why the Union broke, they could take a look at the issue of internet bullying. It might seem like a minor topic, but it is the tip of an iceberg.
For the good of everyone, I think Cameron would be well advised to get the negotiations over quickly and get Scotland away by May 2015. It ought to be possible to do, the administrative details (e.g. DVLA) can be worked out later between the two countries. The big issues (e.g. Faslane and currency don't need long drawn out negotiations).
Everyone else no doubt feels that it is perfectly reasonable. If there's some work available, claimants should be encouraged to take it, for their own good and out of fairness to the taxpayer.
All the same, even though I'm a right wing tory I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of zero hours contracts. There should be decent protections for workers.
There's been a sharp increase in recent years in so-called 'zero-hours' contracts, as employers try to find cost-effective ways of meeting short-term staffing needs.
Zero-hours contracts effectively provide employers with a pool of people who are 'on-call' and can be used when the need arises.
"Specifically, there is an exclusivity clause which stipulates that the zero hours worker may not look for work elsewhere whilst with the current employer. Clearly, this limits the flexibility of the worker. The CIPD evidence shows that about 40% of employers use this clause."
HHMMM. if you look at the citizens advice website, it says that workers on ZH contracts have every right to look for other work and turn down offers of work if they wish.
Something fishy here....
I have previously told them to take a hike when they came to the door regarding TV licence, I had no TV in any event but chased them.
http://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/2339-bleak-reading-for-all-but-big-law-in-latest-law-society-statistics-report
New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506
The Tories may not be taking the fight to #UKIP, but the Lib Dems are. Letter to @TheTimes from @emcmillanscott pic.twitter.com/NlIVVFQlln
What about taking the fight to the main opposition party(labour),who are favourites to win the European elections,idiots.
More generally, I'd assume that unless there is reasonable compensation for an exclusivity clause a court would deem it an unfair contract
Exclusivity clauses should be illegal. Period. If you want to corner someone's services, f8cking employ them. Labour have a good point here.
In a past life I was a major supplier to Skoda with a factory in CZ. Skoda had Audi technologies on some of their models before Audi because of VW Group's platform strategy. Pure badge engineering.
If you want a crap car buy a french one they always come bottom of the user surveys, Skoda's usually well towards the top.
Perhaps a union could do something useful and find a test case to bring?
It depends on where Prof. Jupe's figures come from. A basic chart is at:
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/bfee944f-5d61-42ee-a4ad-df41d02ef567
But you have to parse this with care:
1) Subsidies varied wildly year-on-year, even before privatisation. Picking a low year then with a high year now can give a false picture. For instance, on the chart above compare 1992-3 and 1995-6.
2) Some subsidy figures include new projects: for instance the £9-10 billion WCML Upgrade a few years ago, and Crossrail now. Just one such project can add one or two billion onto the figures, skewing them severely. If you want to compare-like-by-like (especially if trying to make a point about efficiency), then these really need to be stripped out. For instance, "in 2012-13 capital spending on Crossrail accounted for £1,205 million of other elements of government spending."
3) Passenger numbers have doubled since privatisation, and freight has increased. Not only does this improve subsidy-per-passenger-mile figures, but also needs massive investment to cope with the increase. It is widely acknowledged that BR was starved of funds (and did a good job despite that), but it was managing a shrinking network and usage. You cannot double passenger numbers without investing.
Fullfact have also covered this, and shows that subsidy as a percentage of total revenue has decreased, showing the increase in traffic. Their figures do not appear to exclude major projects:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391
But until I see Prof. Jupe's figures, that's all I can say. As ever with such things, it is massively complex. If his statement is as simple as given above, then it is very disingenuous.
However the massive growth in traffic since privatisation after decades of managed decline is a good indication that privatisation has worked. Not that that means it is the best model going forward ...
Unfortunately the reports that Moet is much improved turned out to be exaggerated. In fact, it tasted exactly as I remember it always tasting. Full marks to Moet for consistency of style, but the style is consistently mediocre IMO.
So the Nabavi guide to non-vintage Grandes Marques remains unchanged:
For an elegant apéritif: Taittinger
For consistent top-notch quality and finesse: Pol Roger
For celebratory occasions: Veuve Clicquot or Bollinger
For those with more money than sense: Louis Roederer
For those with lots of money and lots of sense: Krug
And, top tip: For the best possible quality at a very reasonable price, get yourself to your local Waitrose where the superb Duval Leroy, Fleur de Champagne is again on special offer at £21.99.
Normally the claimant struggles because they fall through the cracks in terms of classification: there is a tendency for employment lawyers to consider that if the claimant is not a worker (and thus entitled to the NMW) in respect of waiting around, then he or she has no contractual basis at all. That is, of course, far from the truth, and the exclusivity provision in their contract (being neither a contract of employment nor a contract of personal service) is just as damaging.
Amazes me how hatred of the political class hasn't boiled over yet.
http://t.co/JUg15lG6c4
(Mock ballot paper with Con, Lab, LD, party logos replaced by an EU flag)
Well it's really worked for them in the euro polls,the lib dems are steaming up them polls.The lib dems need to get they vote back which as mainly gone to labour.
Do you think that anyone considering voting ukip would listen to anything the pro EU fanatic party as to say,the lib dems are talking to themselves,just pathetic really.
OK, I hear you say, you had a pension and were doing it for fun. Yes and no. Yes I had a pension, yes I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't enjoyed the work, but I was doing it for the money. In this day and age lots of people do not actually want the sort of life that I was expected to have when I left school. 9 to 5 Monday to Friday is not necessarily the most interesting way of spending ones life, and a lot of, particularly, youngsters have worked this out. For example, a friend of my son's, nice lad, nice family, goodish education, works three nights a week stacking shelves in a supermarket. Why because, night work pays a premium and 3 days is all needs to pay his board and lodging and have enough left over to pay for his pleasures and still give him enough time to do the things he enjoys.
Work is changing and ZH contracts are part of that.
Mr Miliband said he felt he had the “conviction” to become prime minister. He also claimed he had “more intellectual self confidence” than David Cameron.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-ill-hit-the-owners-of-ghost-homes-9326410.html
And if you don't like the current set, they've got others......
Tom Gordon @ScottishPol 57 mins
Scottish Tories launch Scottish Euro manifesto illustrated with trawler from Devon http://tinyurl.com/pxgb5qf
Unless it counts as aftertiming, I was going to mention the Norman church too - but a monastery? I didn't know that. My main reason was because I thought James Lind of lemon juice and scurvy was buried there, but on reflection I held fire on the matter till I had checked which generation he was. Indeed it is the vitamin-C-but-he-didn't-know-it chappie -
http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/illustrating/articles/the-strange-disappearances-of-james-lind
Must go back there. I have promised to take my partner (for whom Lind is a hero) to see it and Fishbourne Roman Palace, as well as the usual new-fangled stuff like Priddy's Hard armament depot (Gosport) and Fort Nelson (one of the Palmerstn forts, on the hill above Portchester).
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. - Mark Twain
As I trust was the person responsible for this.......
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-yes-scotland-used-picture-1128070
He'll be going for additional tax on the profit from home sales next.
You have a gaping hole in your manifesto on the EU and your worried about a photo ?
http://www.labour.org.uk/with-this-scratchcard-youve-lost-already?source=14_05_06_ldscratchcard&subsource=labour_twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=labourUK&utm_campaign=14_05_06_ldscratchcard
But I can also recommend Buckler's Hard, a short distance away in the New Forest. A small village that has hardly changed from when they built wooden warships there, and in a beautiful setting. There's a good footpath there from Beaulieu, although the motor museum deserves a day on its own.
http://www.bucklershard.co.uk/
Mr. Nabavi, Thanks for your recommendation of the Duval Leroy. Herself is going to Waitrose this afternoon and so I shall send her a text message to pick up a couple of bottles. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
As you for comments on the other brands I tend to agree with your analysis. As an aside, a chum of mine who makes his money in Russia drinks nothing but Cristal because that is all that the old Sovs drink - I think its rubbish, but there you go. A further thought, the sagacious AlanBrooke makes the point about brand engineering. I do think he is correct, which is why we in the Llama household tend, when going for fizz, to stay with local wines (RidgeView in particular) - might not be the cheapest but definitely the best value.
Guido Fawkes ✔ @GuidoFawkes
Misplaced intellectual confidence would be why I watched Ed twice try to push open a door clearly marked "PULL" @elliotttimes @jameschappers
Let's face it all parties take photos off the shelf and will continue to do so and cock it up. Spad talk, but voters don't care.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/between-myself-and-cameron-i-am-the-one-with-much-more-intellectual-selfconfidence-ed-miliband-on-why-hes-ready-to-be-pm-9325924.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/between-myself-and-cameron-i-am-the-one-with-much-more-intellectual-selfconfidence-ed-miliband-on-why-hes-ready-to-be-pm-9325924.html
I don't drink champagne much - for same money you get much value from wine.
When I do: Tat or Giesler for every day, Veuvre for celebrations. Ruinart or Salon when I want something a little unusual.
68 per cent of those who favour the Lib Dems think they are cleverer than the average Briton. Respondents who vote for Ukip, Labour or the Conservative Party were roughly equivalent to the national average.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/study-shows-almost-nobody-in-britain-believes-they-are-more-stupid-than-the-average-briton-9326562.html
Gove is appointing a bunch of toadies group of up-standing citizens as "Regional Schools Commissioners", and he has thus defined eight regions to divide England into.
Bizarrely, he has managed to divide both London and Yorkshire between three different regions each, with just two regions - the South-West and the West Midlands - not containing either a piece of Yorkshire or a piece of London.
It's hard to see what the logic is behind these regions, unless it's all just divide and rule.
A boy pushing at a door marked pull. Trying to get into the School for the Intellectually Gifted.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/06/making-sense-ukips-surge/
http://scottishpol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secrecy-is-good-for-you.html