Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
Leave aside outside earnings, anyone on 40% income tax is going to be doing self-assessment and if they are not employing someone to help them they are daft.
I pay 40% and am not doing self-assessment. I imagine most people working in the London professional or financial sector are the same.
I pay 40% and have to do SA.
This is thanks to that bungling fool Ozzy and his crackpot child benefit cockup.
I fell into the higher tax bracket and hence self-assessment (or what ever they called it in those days) in the 1980s, solely then on PAYE earnings and I haven't managed to escape it since. Your attempt to blame citizens having the right to pay only what they owe on Osborne is, therefore, total bollocks.
Just a thought re the Spanish abdication, it is 411 years since the last time an Elizabeth in England faced a Phillip in Spain.
It's 456 years since England since had a Spanish King Phillip as reigning monarch.
Hang on! Wasn't a condition of their marriage that Phillip specifically could not be styled King of England?
Utterly incorrect.
On marriage by Act of Parliament as King Philip I he enjoyed all the rights and dignities as joint sovereign during his marriage to Queen Mary. On her death he ceased to be King of England :
Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.
Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.
Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?
If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.
Greens outpolled the LDs last week.
Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.
In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.
The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.
Debate involvement should depend on how far the board is tilted in your favour rather than how many votes you receive ?
I suppose it's consistent with FPTP, and true.
But slightly troubling nonetheless.
Its no more and no less than vested interests keeping out a competitor by any means and flies in the face of their "progressive" views on everything else
Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.
Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.
Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?
If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.
Greens outpolled the LDs last week.
Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.
In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.
The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.
Debate involvement should depend on how far the board is tilted in your favour rather than how many votes you receive ?
I suppose it's consistent with FPTP, and true.
But slightly troubling nonetheless.
Pulpie
The establishment, like a ship's decanter, should be designed not to spill blood even in the roughest sea storm.
I find Susanna rather foxy although I'd never watch a TV programme on that basis.
Probably I have watched three TV programmes in total in the last 15 years and I really don;t miss it.
She's like someone's really hot Mum when you're a teenager. Cougar. GMB - garbage like the other side. Peebee for brekkie, not Susanna Reid.
Highly technical question (and not in fact the start of a joke): What's the difference between a milf and a cougar?
A MILF is an attractive older woman (especially a mother) who younger men want to sleep with. A Cougar is an older woman who actively pursues younger men (especially if she is attractive).
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
I hope that the principal ground for the petition was unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
I hope that the principal ground for the petition was unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery.
Every divorce petition should be for unreasonable behaviour, only vindictive idiots would stick adultery down.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
I hope that the principal ground for the petition was unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery.
It was.
Without giving too much away of the particulars it related to the time at which the respondent returned home, the condition he was in on arrival and the location in which he discharged his evening's intake.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
HA! I have no intention or need to get my todger out in open court (if he was RSM at Knightsbidge then he was Household Cavalry and therefore suspect). All I ask is that you stop this moustacheophobe nonsense.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!
The PBers jostling to explain the difference between a milf and a cougar reminds me of that Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch where Rowan Atkinson's fogey judge hearing a shoplifting case didn't know what a calculator or a digital watch were, but could describe all the key features of the de luxe model inflatable sex doll...
Ofcom doesn't operate on the vagaries of opinion polls that may change month to month but on past performance of actual votes/MP's in that respective election.
Accordingly and correctly Ukip were given major status for the Euro election but correctly not for the general election where they enjoy no support in the House of Commons.
Essentially actual bums on seats not transitory farts from pollsters.
The OfCom policy, and the application of that policy, are only lawful if they are rational for the purposes of public law. It might be argued that a policy which ensured a party who, say, was consistently polling 40% with all pollsters but had no seats in the Commons, was not represented in the debates was prima facie irrational, and a protection for incumbents rather than a fair distribution of coverage. Once that is conceded, UKIP could mount a plausible argument for their inclusion. This will likely be settled by the courts. It will be an uphill struggle, but there is a possibility that a judicial review might succeed.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!
Comrade Sunilsky
It is only one of his numerous failings.
And curiously the only material difference from his model, College.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!
And that is greatly to be regretted. Like John Major, he has the natural lip for it. Whether he could actually grow one worth the name is another matter and not something we are ever likely to discover.
Total garbage! He devised this insane system - the Child Benefit Tax - hence why I am now on SA despite being under PAYE!
It's the tragedy of the age. Forget food banks, the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and all the other measures taken to reduce the deficit that are causing real suffering. It's the removal of the subsidy of middle class children's piano lessons that are the greatest evil caused by this government.
Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?
At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.
Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.
Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.
Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.
Mr. Llama
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!
And that is greatly to be regretted. Like John Major, he has the natural lip for it. Whether he could actually grow one worth the name is another matter and not something we are ever likely to discover.
Thanks to the bbc,they provided him one ;-) bbc said it was a glitch.
Hmm the Hill bet and the Betfair movements suggest a good Newark Ashcroft for the Tories... what chance a leak?
Could be a leak, but bear in mind also that the place would have been crawling with canvassers over the weekend, so hundreds of people will be getting a feel for the lie of the land.
Total garbage! He devised this insane system - the Child Benefit Tax - hence why I am now on SA despite being under PAYE!
It's the tragedy of the age. Forget food banks, the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and all the other measures taken to reduce the deficit that are causing real suffering. It's the removal of the subsidy of middle class children's piano lessons that are the greatest evil caused by this government.
BobaFett is complaining of an even greater injustice: that he has to fill in a simple form once a year. Oh, the horror!
malcolmg - I fail to see how an independent Scotland could charge different fees to students from rUK or the rest of the EU (if Scotland stays in). Either they'd have to introduce fees for all or have it free for all.
Frank, Not sure myself but still of little consequence to the vote overall. Must be some way I am sure but if not I would rather have independence and English students getting free education than being shackled to Westminster and not having democracy.
That's certainly the decent thing - though it smacks of being morally obliged to feed one's neighbour's starving children. The only way round it that has been offered on here is to charge everyone fees but give pro rata tax relief from later salaries in Scottish taxes (which also helps retain useful immigrants, I now realise).
However, the No campaign seem to have gone quiet on this issue of late no doubt because it requires both Scotland and EWNI to be in the EU - and with Mr Farage now part of the No Campaign, at least in his view if not Mr Darling's, I doubt it will be revived.
Total garbage! He devised this insane system - the Child Benefit Tax - hence why I am now on SA despite being under PAYE!
It's the tragedy of the age. Forget food banks, the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and all the other measures taken to reduce the deficit that are causing real suffering. It's the removal of the subsidy of middle class children's piano lessons that are the greatest evil caused by this government.
BobaFett is complaining of an even greater injustice: that he has to fill in a simple form once a year. Oh, the horror!
Which you can do online even! And if you do online, you have until the end of January 2015, not October 2014 as with a paper form!
Hmm the Hill bet and the Betfair movements suggest a good Newark Ashcroft for the Tories... what chance a leak?
Could be a leak, but bear in mind also that the place would have been crawling with canvassers over the weekend, so hundreds of people will be getting a feel for the lie of the land.
The real clue is that the UKIP heavy hitters didn't pile on yesterday.
Total garbage! He devised this insane system - the Child Benefit Tax - hence why I am now on SA despite being under PAYE!
Calm down. Why is what I said "garbage"? I started off into the wonderful world of tax assessment in the 1980s when, as a person wholly under PAYE, I crossed the boundary into the higher rate. That was a long time before Osborne became chancellor, was it not?
Try taking the party political blinkers off, Mr Fett. Oh, and on a non-political basis, do get yourself an accountant, unless you already have one of course.
Hmm the Hill bet and the Betfair movements suggest a good Newark Ashcroft for the Tories... what chance a leak?
Could be a leak, but bear in mind also that the place would have been crawling with canvassers over the weekend, so hundreds of people will be getting a feel for the lie of the land.
Newark's full of blue rosette immigrants right now.
The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?
Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.
Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Yes, it is ideological zeal rather than fairness which is the motivating force. As I said, in practice it primarily benefits couples who are both lawyers or who both hold other highly-paid jobs. I suspect it has been quite a big driver of growing inequality.
It won't be reversed, of course, because in 2014 this particular ideology is dominant. Cameron's proposal for a transferable tax allowance would help alleviate the unfairness a bit.
The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?
Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.
Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.
It seemed to when I was dealing with the council tax system !
The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?
Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.
Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.
Because they're not just "living together". I'm speaking about married couples with children, whose assets would be treated as community assets in a divorce. Apparently its all joint when you split up, but they're independent when you're living together. Complete nonsense.
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Yes, it is ideological zeal rather than fairness which is the motivating force. As I said, in practice it primarily benefits couples who are both lawyers or who both hold other highly-paid jobs. I suspect it has been quite a big driver of growing inequality.
It won't be reversed, of course, because in 2014 this particular ideology is dominant. Cameron's proposal for a transferable tax allowance would help alleviate the unfairness a bit.
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.
Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.
Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?
If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.
Greens outpolled the LDs last week.
Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.
In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.
The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.
Debate involvement should depend on how far the board is tilted in your favour rather than how many votes you receive ?
I suppose it's consistent with FPTP, and true.
But slightly troubling nonetheless.
My view is that the Lib Dems would do better WITHOUT any debates - look what happened in the Euros
Cameron doesn't want debates. Clegg shouldn't want them either. Perhaps we should just ditch the election campaign entirely.
Because they're not just "living together". I'm speaking about married couples with children, whose assets would be treated as community assets in a divorce. Apparently its all joint when you split up, but they're independent when you're living together. Complete nonsense.
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid
Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.
Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.
Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?
If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.
Greens outpolled the LDs last week.
Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.
In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.
The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.
Do the LDs still maintain their principled support for PR?
Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.
Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.
Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?
If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.
Ofcom doesn't operate on the vagaries of opinion polls that may change month to month but on past performance of actual votes/MP's in that respective election.
Accordingly and correctly Ukip were given major status for the Euro election but correctly not for the general election where they enjoy no support in the House of Commons.
Essentially actual bums on seats not transitory farts from pollsters.
Hang on a minute. The entire argument for First Past the Post is that we don't elect parties we elect individual MPs. Yet when it comes to media coverage, we've supposedly voted for parties again? What a joke. If you are worried about opinion polls being volatile, then use a twelve month average. Don't double down on the unfairness in the electoral system.
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.
Oh, I see. Didn't realise you were agreeing with me!
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid
Not sure I understand the "flapping" bit. Looks like the party chairman doing his job to me.
I think the common consent is that the tories ran a rather successful Euro campaign and did better than expected. I have no idea who is entitled to the credit but there are numerous indications that the somewhat languorous tory election machine has gone up a gear or two in recent times. This looks like more of the same to me.
The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid
Similar emails have gone out several times in recent weeks, hardly evidence of flapping.
There is no doubt that the Tories have sharpened up their act over the last year or two. Although I'm no great fan of Grant Shapps as a presenter of Conservative policies, it does look as though he deserves a lot of credit for making the campaigning much more focused and professional.
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.
Oh, I see. Didn't realise you were agreeing with me!
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.
It is a sad truth that it is mainly lawyers who find other lawyers interesting.
How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?
None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.
Oh, I see. Didn't realise you were agreeing with me!
Yes, for once!
I think MyBurningEars disagreed, however, which was confusing me...
@FrankBooth My contention is that we still need to wait till after Newark before the polls will settle down to "normal". The value they have at present is only in the "yar boo" arguments we have on here.
Isn't changing the party chairman a year before the election a bad idea?
Yes and it won't be happening. As Mr Nabavi points out Shapps may fall down a little in terms of media performance but he is doing a very good job of sharpening the campaigning.
@anotherDave Esther McVey could prove interesting, She has a certain appeal with some, but I am not sure her "auto cue" style will stand up to close questioning. The caveat being of course, that she may change, having been freed from bedroom tax/subsidy straight jacket.
The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?
Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.
Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.
Because they're not just "living together". I'm speaking about married couples with children, whose assets would be treated as community assets in a divorce. Apparently its all joint when you split up, but they're independent when you're living together. Complete nonsense.
Apologies for confusion. Richard's "chattels" comment does get to the root justification of the current system even if he disagrees with it. My personal preference would be for taxation to be on as individual level as possible and the benefits system to take household level into account where necessary. It seems to me that the ever-closer interconnection of the benefits and taxation systems is a policy mistake that will become very hard to reverse, for similar reasons to the illogical persistence of NI.
Apologies for confusion. Richard's "chattels" comment does get to the root justification of the current system even if he disagrees with it. My personal preference would be for taxation to be on as individual level as possible and the benefits system to take household level into account where necessary. It seems to me that the ever-closer interconnection of the benefits and taxation systems is a policy mistake that will become very hard to reverse, for similar reasons to the illogical persistence of NI.
Why on Earth does it make sense for the divorce laws and the benefits system to be judged on household income/assets, yet taxation be based on an individual basis?
So far as I can tell the Newark polls haven't really moved a jot today, you could have probably traded 0.02 pips/0.2 Con/UKIP pips either way with some correct timing. Fundamentally, no change.
So farewell then Juan Carlos. You made your mark in history by understanding there was no future in the regime Franco had created and doing something about it. But it all got a bit messy towards the end of your reign. Your son will be the last King of Spain.
Looks to me like noone is prepared to put cash one way or t'other as people worried about others 'knowing' the polls means they will be at an information disadvantage.
Wow. That's a big deal. It means also, of course, that when the Sindy vote is a NO that all independent minded Scots should vote Tory in May! This is worth a thread on its own.
There is no doubt that the Tories have sharpened up their act over the last year or two. Although I'm no great fan of Grant Shapps as a presenter of Conservative policies, it does look as though he deserves a lot of credit for making the campaigning much more focused and professional.
That's why Tim (formerly of this site) used to attack & deride him continuously - way more effective that his opposite number...
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
Funny how a referendum to abolish monarchy would be a one time deal, but a referendum to kowtow to Brussels would just be run again and again until the right answer popped up.
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
I thought the people of the left didn't believe in referendums.
Funny how a referendum to abolish monarchy would be a one time deal, but a referendum to kowtow to Brussels would just be run again and again until the right answer popped up.
The EU is a very recent deal compared to most monarchys.
For the EU I'd have a perpetual referendum, once every 40 years.
The MP for Bootle has lost the trigger ballot process. Selection process now opened to new candidates. He can stand in the new selection process and has the right to be automatically shortlisted if he wants to try.
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
He's young, fairly popular in comparison to the rest of the family. His wife is glamorous and he has two young daughters. All this together with some careful reforms could put the monarchy in Spain back on track. That said I think of any nation likely to ditch monarchy Spain has to be top of the list.
Morality and money always throws up some interesting questions. I mentioned before that given the changes to JSA eligibility, the legalization of prostitution could in theory lead to "full employment" As with the legalization of recreational drugs, we have certain figures that provide a basis for analysis (like all economic figures these are based on broad assumptions)
The National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting millions of images a day for facial-recognition purposes, according to classified documents obtained from Edward Snowden by the New York Times.
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
He's young, fairly popular in comparison to the rest of the family. His wife is glamorous and he has two young daughters. All this together with some careful reforms could put the monarchy in Spain back on track. That said I think of any nation likely to ditch monarchy Spain has to be top of the list.
Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?
The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.
He's young, fairly popular in comparison to the rest of the family. His wife is glamorous and he has two young daughters. All this together with some careful reforms could put the monarchy in Spain back on track. That said I think of any nation likely to ditch monarchy Spain has to be top of the list.
Comments
You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.
The more you protest, the more you encourage!
And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.
I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.
The establishment, like a ship's decanter, should be designed not to spill blood even in the roughest sea storm.
Without giving too much away of the particulars it related to the time at which the respondent returned home, the condition he was in on arrival and the location in which he discharged his evening's intake.
"Who's in control – nation states or global corporations?"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/control-nation-states-corporations-autonomy-neoliberalism
It is only one of his numerous failings.
And curiously the only material difference from his model, College.
Total garbage! He devised this insane system
- the Child Benefit Tax - hence why I am now on SA despite being under PAYE!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/20/article-2427431-181F2A0C00000578-491_1024x615_large.jpg
However, the No campaign seem to have gone quiet on this issue of late no doubt because it requires both Scotland and EWNI to be in the EU - and with Mr Farage now part of the No Campaign, at least in his view if not Mr Darling's, I doubt it will be revived.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/file-online.htm
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/deadlines-penalties.htm#2
Their canvassing computers are saying "No".
Try taking the party political blinkers off, Mr Fett. Oh, and on a non-political basis, do get yourself an accountant, unless you already have one of course.
Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.
Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/432463.stm
Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.
It won't be reversed, of course, because in 2014 this particular ideology is dominant. Cameron's proposal for a transferable tax allowance would help alleviate the unfairness a bit.
http://order-order.com/2014/06/02/flapping-tories-threaten-candidates-in-last-ditch-newark-bid/
It's a dog's breakfast however you look at it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eric-pickles-given-task-wooing-3632045
I think the common consent is that the tories ran a rather successful Euro campaign and did better than expected. I have no idea who is entitled to the credit but there are numerous indications that the somewhat languorous tory election machine has gone up a gear or two in recent times. This looks like more of the same to me.
My contention is that we still need to wait till after Newark before the polls will settle down to "normal".
The value they have at present is only in the "yar boo" arguments we have on here.
Voodoo poll:
Preferred next PM
Farage 53%
Miliband 20%
Cameron 7%
Clegg 1%
Esther McVey could prove interesting, She has a certain appeal with some, but I am not sure her "auto cue" style will stand up to close questioning.
The caveat being of course, that she may change, having been freed from bedroom tax/subsidy straight jacket.
Con 1.29 >>
Looks to me like noone is prepared to put cash one way or t'other as people worried about others 'knowing' the polls means they will be at an information disadvantage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27656628
Wow. That's a big deal. It means also, of course, that when the Sindy vote is a NO that all independent minded Scots should vote Tory in May! This is worth a thread on its own.
Funny how a referendum to abolish monarchy would be a one time deal, but a referendum to kowtow to Brussels would just be run again and again until the right answer popped up.
For the EU I'd have a perpetual referendum, once every 40 years.
I mentioned before that given the changes to JSA eligibility, the legalization of prostitution could in theory lead to "full employment"
As with the legalization of recreational drugs, we have certain figures that provide a basis for analysis (like all economic figures these are based on broad assumptions)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27627132
The National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting millions of images a day for facial-recognition purposes, according to classified documents obtained from Edward Snowden by the New York Times.
http://time.com/2804898/snowden-nsa-facial-recognition/
Him: Hello , Can I speak to Dr XXXXXXXXX please?
Me : I am sorry but no, she died 19 months ago.
Him: I just want to speak to her for a minute or two on a confidential matter. She will know what I am talking about if you put me through.....
Me.. I just told you she had died..
Him: I only want to speak to her for a moment...
I put the phone down.
Perhaps we need to revisit the "ban the burqa" debate? ;-)