I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
‘We are saying that one minor wrongdoing should not deter you from being an effective police officer. Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer, nor could a murderer.’
No, just wife-beaters, unarmed robbers and burglars. That's alright then.
The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.
Sadly Socrates didn't provide the full quote
Wilkinson said only “borderline cases” would be reconsidered: “Of course, an armed robber could not be a police officer nor could a murderer but we are looking at each case. It is about the severity of that case and the length of time that has elapsed since that case,” he said.
But you quoted this
"Forces across England and Wales employ officers with convictions for offences including burglary, causing death by careless driving, robbery, supplying drugs, domestic violence, forgery and perverting the course of justice."
You're confusing two different things
1)The police hiring people with spent convictions for minor offences that occurred a long time ago
2) Serving police officers who are convicted of serious offences whilst they are serving
I'm off the opinion 2) should be dismissed from their jobs
No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.
I have to say that's weasel words in extremis. The Government may not provide public services but it funds those Agencies which do and a significant reduction in the funding of those Agencies inevitably impacts on the level of service provided whether it's the Armed Forces or the provision of school catering.
As to whether central Government "should" have such financial control, I agree it's not desirable. Perhaps if we saw as much enthusiasm among Conservatives for the repatriation of financial and other powers from Westminster to elected and accountable local authorities as we do foe repatriating powers from Brussels and Strasbourg I'd have more confidence in your comments.
In addition, the Coalition has (regrettably) done nothing to lift the regulatory and reporting burden from local authorities. There are hundreds of reports and statistics requested by central Government which take up vast quantities of officer time along with an FOI legislative framework which empowers companies and students to ask Councils to do their market research or thesis research respectively for them.
My first chance to comment for a couple of days. Arguably the biggest crisis in Education at the moment is the desperate shortage of places. Within the school construction sector, I've never known it so frantic - new schools are being built at a frenetic rate while existing ones are being extended and re-extended to try and cram in the new intake.
At the same time, local authorities are frantically scouring for new sites (and finding themselves in competition with other Agencies looking for land for new housing or new sites for residential facilities for vulnerable adults or children). The demand for land is something I've never seen working in this sector for more than twenty years and we desperately need to loosen up some of the planning constraints under which Councils and developers are forced to operate.
Successive Governments have totally failed on this and I don't recall Michael Gove saying anything constructive (so to speak). It's all very well being concerned about what goes on in the classroom but we actually need the classrooms in the first place.
That's interesting - but I suspect location (or secondary) specific. By way of contrast I am a Governor of a Primary School in the northern end of Lambeth and we have a noticeably reduced intake for September (17 or so confirmed out of 30 places rather than the normal 24/25 at this stage). Other local primaries have similar, although less extreme, issues so it is not just a case of being school specific.
(As an aside, I wonder if people don't take into account the fact that people move location a lot - and so see on the census of 4 years ago that there was a much larger number of 0-3 year olds than existing reception year places, without recognizing that a large proportion of those then move before the child becomes 5. Clearly this means that there needs to be school building in the areas that they move to, but this is much less obvious in the data and so is likely to more frantic and last minute)
So the state of play is that we have a Govt sidelining an unpopular Minister because he maybe affecting how a tiny % of the voters will vote at the next GE. We also have an opposition with an unpopular Leader (even among its own supporters) who will have a much larger drag on the number of voters who choose Labour. This is all mote (Con) and beam (Labour), eye stuff.
Integrity is essential in a police officer. Someone who has a conviction for forgery or perverting the course of justice simply does not have - no matter how long ago the offence was - the integrity necessary for a police officer.
If Dame Butler-Sloss had to resign from the child abuse inquiry because of the risk of a perception that she might not be even-handed given the role of her late brother, even though no-one questioned her personal integrity, then how can a serving police officer be someone convicted of a serious offence such as perverting the course of justice?
Still, at least Andy Coulson has a career option open to him in due course, eh!
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 and Paddy close accounts?
They've both been very generous with me (apart from Paddy's ludicrous online limits on pol bets)
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
On the question of tax and very much in the light of today's figures on wages, the key to this observer has less been the increase in personal allowances (hugely welcome and to be applauded) but the issue of the threshold at which higher rate tax is paid.
Even with sluggish wage increases (or not so sluggish depending on who you read and believe) more people are being dragged into the higher rate simply by dent of the threshold not rising.
There seem therefore to be two options - one is to reduce the higher rate of tax, the other is to raise the threshold at which said higher rate becomes payable. I would prefer the latter, I expect George Osborne to prefer the former.
If I were part of the Labour Treasury Team I would be crunching the numbers to see what an increase in the threshold to say £35k (after personal allowance) would mean.
George Osborne being George Osborne (ie: a shrewd, heavily political, clever operator), I think he's keeping the higher-rate tax threshold for either his final conference speech or his final budget speech.
Raising the 40p threshold by, say, £5k would be a hugely popular move.
I've always earned a decent wage working in commercial print but being on the salary I'm on, with a company car and all the little add ons, I've certainly been squeezed over the past 10 years.
I'm not complaining about it, just saying. I bet there are loads of people in my income bracket, mid 30s, with kids and a tough mortgage who have been hurt by the 40p threshold (plus rises in all the other stealthy taxes). People who would welcome help in this range are probably all voters too.
The Met thought that Ali Dizaei's making death threats to his girlfriend was no bar to further promotion.
Given the number of lobbies that have backed the met into a corner, I'm starting to wonder if central London is policeable at all.
Of course it is, Mr. Taffys, just the same as Sussex or Dyfed Powys is policeable. You just have to junk the PC crap and get back the to rule of law, you know, one law applicable to everyone - and the skin colour, wealth or position don't matter. That seems to be beyond our ACPO trained apparatchiks though.
The idea that I think Labour would be any better did not enter my head. I don't. Like the Tories they are rabbits in headlights when it comes to outsourcing of public services. My original point was about huge cuts. The Tories believe in a smaller state anyway. And if you combine that with light hand regulation of private sector public service providers who will always be looking for savings in order to drive profits the direction of travel is clear. For the likes of you and me - who do not need the state for very much - it will be business as usual. For many millions of our countrymen, perhaps less so.
Southam, that is quite brilliantly revealing: "private sector public service providers who will always be looking for savings in order to drive profits". YES. Exactly. That is precisely why the private sector has produced, year after year, incremental productivity improvements which cumulatively are quite extraordinary, whilst maintaining or often improving quality, whereas the public sector hasn't.
You have stated, in a nutshell, why we need to make more use of private provision, and why that is an essential part of the way forward for getting back to sane levels of public spending (say, those we had in 2003 as a proportion of GDP), without loss of quality of services. It can't be done quickly, but it absolutely needs to be done.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 and Paddy close accounts?
They've both been very generous with me (apart from Paddy's ludicrous online limits on pol bets)
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Dunno, but come GE2015 I'm either planning on being barred or a most welcome customer... one of the two...
Right, I know I'm going to say something controversial.
Ignore the Westminster VI polling for the next 3 months.
The next couple of months are going to be a bit hectic
1) We've got the North Britain plebiscite dominating for the next two months
2) Then straight after that we go into the party conference season, when polling can be volatile.
I just have feeling we're going to have more outliers than normal between now and Mid October.
The outliers are the most fun!
I want ten pictures of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich for the outlier that has Labour ten points ahead.
It's amazing how close the Independence Referendum is, though. And about half of the remaining campaign time is school holidays. One side or the other is going to face an enormous psychological shock once the result is announced.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
On the question of tax and very much in the light of today's figures on wages, the key to this observer has less been the increase in personal allowances (hugely welcome and to be applauded) but the issue of the threshold at which higher rate tax is paid.
Even with sluggish wage increases (or not so sluggish depending on who you read and believe) more people are being dragged into the higher rate simply by dent of the threshold not rising.
There seem therefore to be two options - one is to reduce the higher rate of tax, the other is to raise the threshold at which said higher rate becomes payable. I would prefer the latter, I expect George Osborne to prefer the former.
If I were part of the Labour Treasury Team I would be crunching the numbers to see what an increase in the threshold to say £35k (after personal allowance) would mean.
George Osborne being George Osborne (ie: a shrewd, heavily political, clever operator), I think he's keeping the higher-rate tax threshold for either his final conference speech or his final budget speech.
Raising the 40p threshold by, say, £5k would be a hugely popular move.
I've always earned a decent wage working in commercial print but being on the salary I'm on, with a company car and all the little add ons, I've certainly been squeezed over the past 10 years.
I'm not complaining about it, just saying. I bet there are loads of people in my income bracket, mid 30s, with kids and a tough mortgage who have been hurt by the 40p threshold (plus rises in all the other stealthy taxes). People who would welcome help in this range are probably all voters too.
Ukip are going to raise the 40p threshold I believe
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Is the opinion on Gove a case of the public doing what they are told to by conventional - or widely reported - opinion? The school academies are popular. People - parents - want to start and support them. They want achieving schools. The 'story' is Gove is unpopular and that story is what gets repeated. But the reality is he is a turn off for the voters. That may not reflect well on the voters but its a fact that has to be faced.
Right, I know I'm going to say something controversial.
Ignore the Westminster VI polling for the next 3 months.
The next couple of months are going to be a bit hectic
1) We've got the North Britain plebiscite dominating for the next two months
2) Then straight after that we go into the party conference season, when polling can be volatile.
I just have feeling we're going to have more outliers than normal between now and Mid October.
The outliers are the most fun!
I want ten pictures of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich for the outlier that has Labour ten points ahead.
It's amazing how close the Independence Referendum is, though. And about half of the remaining campaign time is school holidays. One side or the other is going to face an enormous psychological shock once the result is announced.
There's a real disconnect with the betting and the polling, which is always good.
The worse thing that could happen though, is if it gets closer, and we start seeing some pollsters showing a lead for Yes, and some for No.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Here's one of them, wish I had stuck on more than a fiver
Thanks to @Ladbrokes turned £5 in £205 today, with Skrtel as 1st scorer.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Hmm Bookies don't often beat Betfair though, cricket is something I do 100% on Betfair
Political betting and the horses (Each Way, BOG, Early prices) are better suited to traditional bookies.
I worry about the pitch at Lords, it is the most corporate of corporate test crowds, and they'll want it to go the whole 5 days. Please God not another Trent Bridge
It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.
No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.
I certainly recognise the distinction and specifically chose the term I used. The Tories believe in a smaller state. In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.
I'd be grateful if public service providers could match the efficiency of the private sector. And when it comes to 'caring' - sadly many in the public sector apply that term to the employees more than the customers.
That's interesting - but I suspect location (or secondary) specific. By way of contrast I am a Governor of a Primary School in the northern end of Lambeth and we have a noticeably reduced intake for September (17 or so confirmed out of 30 places rather than the normal 24/25 at this stage). Other local primaries have similar, although less extreme, issues so it is not just a case of being school specific.
(As an aside, I wonder if people don't take into account the fact that people move location a lot - and so see on the census of 4 years ago that there was a much larger number of 0-3 year olds than existing reception year places, without recognizing that a large proportion of those then move before the child becomes 5. Clearly this means that there needs to be school building in the areas that they move to, but this is much less obvious in the data and so is likely to more frantic and last minute)
I tend to deal with County and Unitary authorities around London rather than the London Boroughs. The crisis in school places actually began in the recession when parents could no longer afford public school fees and we suddenly found huge demand in places where there had been none previously.
The demographics are fascinating - it's a point I need to look into more as to whether we have or are seeing a shift in population from inner London (more singles/childless couples) to suburban and outside London which are seen as more "family friendly". That has huge implications for more than just education.
That said, and not wishing to pour petrol on a good fire by using the "i"-word, all the primaries and the local Academy in my neck of the woods (East Ham) are increasing capacity this year. One is an ageing Victorian primary barely fir for purpose (I would guess) but well located. It is increasing its capacity by 25% this autumn and I don't know how they are going to do it. You'll soon see a lot of building work starting at schools if it hasn't already done so.
Worth noting that the proportion of people who dislike George Osborne is exactly the same as the proportion that dislike Michael Gove.The number that dislike their policies is also almost identical (49% and 51%). If Gove has been fired for unpopularity...?
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
I'm allowed £2857.14 on England to win the test @ 7-4 btw...
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Here's one of them, wish I had stuck on more than a fiver
Thanks to @Ladbrokes turned £5 in £205 today, with Skrtel as 1st scorer.
The idea that I think Labour would be any better did not enter my head. I don't. Like the Tories they are rabbits in headlights when it comes to outsourcing of public services. My original point was about huge cuts. The Tories believe in a smaller state anyway. And if you combine that with light hand regulation of private sector public service providers who will always be looking for savings in order to drive profits the direction of travel is clear. For the likes of you and me - who do not need the state for very much - it will be business as usual. For many millions of our countrymen, perhaps less so.
Southam, that is quite brilliantly revealing: "private sector public service providers who will always be looking for savings in order to drive profits". YES. Exactly. That is precisely why the private sector has produced, year after year, incremental productivity improvements which cumulatively are quite extraordinary, whilst maintaining or often improving quality, whereas the public sector hasn't.
You have stated, in a nutshell, why we need to make more use of private provision, and why that is an essential part of the way forward for getting back to sane levels of public spending (say, those we had in 2003 as a proportion of GDP), without loss of quality of services. It can't be done quickly, but it absolutely needs to be done.
It is being done already, sub-optimally in so many cases. That is the issue. As someone who works in the private sector, I have no problem at all with private sector provision. My issue is with how poorly it is regulated when the temptation is always to put profit before service, given the monopoly nature of so many of the services that have been outsourced. And I see nothing from the Tories to indicate they are wiling to use a stronger hand. Why on earth is SERCO allowed anywhere near any government bidding process, for example? And that is before we even begin to look at utility companies.
Worth noting that the proportion of people who dislike George Osborne is exactly the same as the proportion that dislike Michael Gove.The number that dislike their policies is also almost identical (49% and 51%). If Gove has been fired for unpopularity...?
That is your tactical "Anti-conservative" block right there.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Hmm Bookies don't often beat Betfair though, cricket is something I do 100% on Betfair
Political betting and the horses (Each Way, BOG, Early prices) are better suited to traditional bookies.
I worry about the pitch at Lords, it is the most corporate of corporate test crowds, and they'll want it to go the whole 5 days. Please God not another Trent Bridge
But betfair don't have Money Back Specials, so sometimes the bookie is the "better" value.
The only betting guidance I have at the moment is appropriate to this forum. I've had an e/w saver in the Irish Oaks on Saturday on a filly called VOTE OFTEN on offer at 16s.
It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.
No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.
I certainly recognise the distinction and specifically chose the term I used. The Tories believe in a smaller state. In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.
I'd be grateful if public service providers could match the efficiency of the private sector. And when it comes to 'caring' - sadly many in the public sector apply that term to the employees more than the customers.
It is true that the private care home sector has shown itself to be extremely efficient and extraordinarily caring.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
I'm allowed £2857.14 on England to win the test @ 7-4 btw...
£28.57!
To be fair I spent a lot of time going massive on the under over runs quotes one t20 matches with every bookie... Sometimes you can back 5/6 either side with a 8-10 run middle... Ridiculous value... They rumbled it and limited to £6 from £600
Throw in a few each way FGS bets and the account is naused!
Worth noting that the proportion of people who dislike George Osborne is exactly the same as the proportion that dislike Michael Gove.The number that dislike their policies is also almost identical (49% and 51%). If Gove has been fired for unpopularity...?
Then again have you seen Ed's figures on the comparable questions?
Osborne and Gove rank better than Ed!
Is 57% for Ed, compared to 49 and 51 for Ozzy and Gove
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Here's one of them, wish I had stuck on more than a fiver
Thanks to @Ladbrokes turned £5 in £205 today, with Skrtel as 1st scorer.
On the question of tax and very much in the light of today's figures on wages, the key to this observer has less been the increase in personal allowances (hugely welcome and to be applauded) but the issue of the threshold at which higher rate tax is paid.
Even with sluggish wage increases (or not so sluggish depending on who you read and believe) more people are being dragged into the higher rate simply by dent of the threshold not rising.
There seem therefore to be two options - one is to reduce the higher rate of tax, the other is to raise the threshold at which said higher rate becomes payable. I would prefer the latter, I expect George Osborne to prefer the former.
If I were part of the Labour Treasury Team I would be crunching the numbers to see what an increase in the threshold to say £35k (after personal allowance) would mean.
George Osborne being George Osborne (ie: a shrewd, heavily political, clever operator), I think he's keeping the higher-rate tax threshold for either his final conference speech or his final budget speech.
Raising the 40p threshold by, say, £5k would be a hugely popular move.
I've always earned a decent wage working in commercial print but being on the salary I'm on, with a company car and all the little add ons, I've certainly been squeezed over the past 10 years.
I'm not complaining about it, just saying. I bet there are loads of people in my income bracket, mid 30s, with kids and a tough mortgage who have been hurt by the 40p threshold (plus rises in all the other stealthy taxes). People who would welcome help in this range are probably all voters too.
There isn't enough incremental political gain from raising the 40p threshold. People in the 40p rate are more likely to vote Tory anyway so giving them a tax cut isn't going to make enough of them more likely to do so. No the tax cuts will be aimed at the working classes and working poor where the Tories are lagging behind Labour in terms of vote share. It's more important for them to stay in power than it is to give their natural supporters a bung.
Michael Gove, the new chief whip, has lost his first vote in the Commons. Labour MPs staged a surprise vote on a 10-minute rule bill motion proposing that the Office for Budget Responsibility should be allowed to audit opposition spending plans. Labour won by 203 votes to 16. The vote will have no practical impact, but it is mildly embarrassing for Gove.
There isn't enough incremental political gain from raising the 40p threshold. People in the 40p rate are more likely to vote Tory anyway so giving them a tax cut isn't going to make enough of them more likely to do so. No the tax cuts will be aimed at the working classes and working poor where the Tories are lagging behind Labour in terms of vote share. It's more important for them to stay in power than it is to give their natural supporters a bung.
I completely and totally disagree. We're not talking about those who earn £150k or more but those who earn £40-£45k and I suspect there are a lot of them in London, the SE and the Midlands and particularly in the marginal seats.
The "win" is raising the threshold for them to take them out of the 40p band not to scrap the 45p band or increase that threshold where your comments would be valid.
On the question of tax and very much in the light of today's figures on wages, the key to this observer has less been the increase in personal allowances (hugely welcome and to be applauded) but the issue of the threshold at which higher rate tax is paid.
Even with sluggish wage increases (or not so sluggish depending on who you read and believe) more people are being dragged into the higher rate simply by dent of the threshold not rising.
There seem therefore to be two options - one is to reduce the higher rate of tax, the other is to raise the threshold at which said higher rate becomes payable. I would prefer the latter, I expect George Osborne to prefer the former.
If I were part of the Labour Treasury Team I would be crunching the numbers to see what an increase in the threshold to say £35k (after personal allowance) would mean.
George Osborne being George Osborne (ie: a shrewd, heavily political, clever operator), I think he's keeping the higher-rate tax threshold for either his final conference speech or his final budget speech.
Raising the 40p threshold by, say, £5k would be a hugely popular move.
I've always earned a decent wage working in commercial print but being on the salary I'm on, with a company car and all the little add ons, I've certainly been squeezed over the past 10 years.
I'm not complaining about it, just saying. I bet there are loads of people in my income bracket, mid 30s, with kids and a tough mortgage who have been hurt by the 40p threshold (plus rises in all the other stealthy taxes). People who would welcome help in this range are probably all voters too.
There isn't enough incremental political gain from raising the 40p threshold. People in the 40p rate are more likely to vote Tory anyway so giving them a tax cut isn't going to make enough of them more likely to do so. No the tax cuts will be aimed at the working classes and working poor where the Tories are lagging behind Labour in terms of vote share. It's more important for them to stay in power than it is to give their natural supporters a bung.
Of course you can raise the tax free limit without dragging down the 40p limit - tax cut for all.
I am often confounded by the fact that so many people on here never seem to have a losing bet, but still have accounts with bet365 and paddy power, but nevertheless, here is a petition gamblers should sign
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB) 16/07/2014 13:36 sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
Do bet365 close accounts?
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Because they don't want to tell shareholders they have fewer accounts active, a lot of bookies don't "close" but effectively close by offering maximum bets of 10p... Hills do this as do Fred, tote, Lads...
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
I've had a couple of 40/1 winners with Ladbrokes this year. So I should be afraid!
Maybe!
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Here's one of them, wish I had stuck on more than a fiver
Thanks to @Ladbrokes turned £5 in £205 today, with Skrtel as 1st scorer.
There isn't enough incremental political gain from raising the 40p threshold. People in the 40p rate are more likely to vote Tory anyway so giving them a tax cut isn't going to make enough of them more likely to do so. No the tax cuts will be aimed at the working classes and working poor where the Tories are lagging behind Labour in terms of vote share. It's more important for them to stay in power than it is to give their natural supporters a bung.
I completely and totally disagree. We're not talking about those who earn £150k or more but those who earn £40-£45k and I suspect there are a lot of them in London, the SE and the Midlands and particularly in the marginal seats.
The "win" is raising the threshold for them to take them out of the 40p band not to scrap the 45p band or increase that threshold where your comments would be valid.
Interesting snippets from table 3 of the data tables.
Net Conservative to Labour swing voters = 6 in Labour's favour Net Lib Dem to Labour swing voters - Net Lib Dem to Conservative swing voters = 12 in Labour's favour.
Since swing voters from the Conservatives count double for Labour in most seats then the direct swing voters are as important as the 2010 Lib Dems for improving Labour's position on 2010 in this poll.
So if Labour are picking up Conservative swing voters, why did the Tories have a lead in this poll?
Voters lost to UKIP: Conservatives = 12 Labour & Lib Dems = 13
Voters lost to the Green Party Conservatives = 0 Labour & Lib Dems = 11
Voters lost to UKIP & Greens combined Conservatives = 12 Labour = 15 Lib Dems = 9
This poll has the Green Party on 21% in the key 18-24 age segment (based on 21 respondents), which the Tories win by 34% to Labour's 22%.
Take home message appears to be that Miliband is failing to rally the anti-Tory vote to his banner. It appears to be splintering every which way. But, he can appeal to 2010 Tory voters.
It is not Labour policy to increase taxes for middle income earners, so to claim that it is is clearly a misrepresentation. However, I largely agree with you. Osborne will not put up taxes after 2015, he will instead make very deep cuts to public services and to welfare.
No, he (or his Conservative successor, if he moves to the Foreign Office) will make further cuts to public spending, not to public services. A massive distinction, and one which the Left not only don't recognise, but actively refuse to even consider might be possible or desirable.
I certainly recognise the distinction and specifically chose the term I used. The Tories believe in a smaller state. In addition to which, I do not have confidence in the willingness of a Tory administration to hold private sector providers of public services to the highest standards.
I'd be grateful if public service providers could match the efficiency of the private sector. And when it comes to 'caring' - sadly many in the public sector apply that term to the employees more than the customers.
It is true that the private care home sector has shown itself to be extremely efficient and extraordinarily caring.
You mean as caring as Stafford hospital? We can all play that silly game. There is good and bad in both sectors.
There isn't enough incremental political gain from raising the 40p threshold. People in the 40p rate are more likely to vote Tory anyway so giving them a tax cut isn't going to make enough of them more likely to do so. No the tax cuts will be aimed at the working classes and working poor where the Tories are lagging behind Labour in terms of vote share. It's more important for them to stay in power than it is to give their natural supporters a bung.
I completely and totally disagree. We're not talking about those who earn £150k or more but those who earn £40-£45k and I suspect there are a lot of them in London, the SE and the Midlands and particularly in the marginal seats.
The "win" is raising the threshold for them to take them out of the 40p band not to scrap the 45p band or increase that threshold where your comments would be valid.
There are about 4.6 million people who earn above the 40p threshold. If all of them vote - which perhaps allows for some of them not voting and some of them having stay-at-home/low-earning spouses with the same economic concerns - then they would constitute about 17% of the electorate.
It is unlikely that this is an election-winning demographic.
However, my mother always told me that Thatcher won her elections by convincing people to vote in favour of tax cuts for people richer than themselves, on the basis that these people aspired to be those rich people some day. In the words of Del Boy, they believed that "one day we'll be millionaires!"
You might think that the stagnation in real earnings over recent years would make it harder to perform the same trick - but people's capacity for self-delusion knows few bounds.
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 16/07/2014 14:54 Tories and Labour vote in favour of Lithuania joining the Euro - without a referendum votewatch.eu/en/term8-adopt…
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
Nice of Labour to keep this rumbling on - must be in the holiday mood.
What does the * mean in an ICM poll with 1% underneath.
I assume its not good news if you get an * in a crosstab ?
I think it means where the figure is between 0 and 1. This might seem to be impossible, but it can happen due to weighting.
Say the only person who says they will vote Lib Dem in Scotland is in a demographic that is over-represented in the sample (say AB voters). They have to have their weighted contribution reduced to less than 1, so they end up as a * in the cross-tabs. Similarly, in one of the tables ICM will have adjusted the numbers on the basis of likelihood to vote - so if your single respondent said they were only 6 out of 10 likely to vote they will have had their contribution reduced by another fraction.
What does the * mean in an ICM poll with 1% underneath.
I assume its not good news if you get an * in a crosstab ?
I think it means where the figure is between 0 and 1. This might seem to be impossible, but it can happen due to weighting.
Say the only person who says they will vote Lib Dem in Scotland is in a demographic that is over-represented in the sample (say AB voters). They have to have their weighted contribution reduced to less than 1, so they end up as a * in the cross-tabs. Similarly, in one of the tables ICM will have adjusted the numbers on the basis of likelihood to vote - so if your single respondent said they were only 6 out of 10 likely to vote they will have had their contribution reduced by another fraction.
I wish some Scottish polls were done tbh, and not just the indy ref.
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
Nice of Labour to keep this rumbling on - must be in the holiday mood.
And employing the 'she's a big-hearted woman' defence
What does the * mean in an ICM poll with 1% underneath.
I assume its not good news if you get an * in a crosstab ?
I think it means where the figure is between 0 and 1. This might seem to be impossible, but it can happen due to weighting.
Say the only person who says they will vote Lib Dem in Scotland is in a demographic that is over-represented in the sample (say AB voters). They have to have their weighted contribution reduced to less than 1, so they end up as a * in the cross-tabs. Similarly, in one of the tables ICM will have adjusted the numbers on the basis of likelihood to vote - so if your single respondent said they were only 6 out of 10 likely to vote they will have had their contribution reduced by another fraction.
I wish some Scottish polls were done tbh, and not just the indy ref.
If Scotland votes for Independence there will probably be more Scotland-only opinion polls commissioned...
What does the * mean in an ICM poll with 1% underneath.
I assume its not good news if you get an * in a crosstab ?
I think it means where the figure is between 0 and 1. This might seem to be impossible, but it can happen due to weighting.
Say the only person who says they will vote Lib Dem in Scotland is in a demographic that is over-represented in the sample (say AB voters). They have to have their weighted contribution reduced to less than 1, so they end up as a * in the cross-tabs. Similarly, in one of the tables ICM will have adjusted the numbers on the basis of likelihood to vote - so if your single respondent said they were only 6 out of 10 likely to vote they will have had their contribution reduced by another fraction.
I wish some Scottish polls were done tbh, and not just the indy ref.
If Scotland votes for Independence there will probably be more Scotland-only opinion polls commissioned...
As well as piling on Labour in East Dunbartonshire @1-2 I've had a stake saver on the SNP @ 50-1. It is fully intended to cover the Indy "Yes" scenario.
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
I could suspect that in the Uk postal votes could be "collected" - but actual fraudulent counting ? Woah.
This seems like a fairly key pararaph:
"I asked him for examples of the evidence he’d gathered to back up that claim. He said that wasn’t possible at this stage because he wanted to protect people’s identities. So I asked him to provide the calculations behind his estimate and how he extrapolated to that number. He still hasn’t answered."
There are about 4.6 million people who earn above the 40p threshold. If all of them vote - which perhaps allows for some of them not voting and some of them having stay-at-home/low-earning spouses with the same economic concerns - then they would constitute about 17% of the electorate.
It is unlikely that this is an election-winning demographic.
However, my mother always told me that Thatcher won her elections by convincing people to vote in favour of tax cuts for people richer than themselves, on the basis that these people aspired to be those rich people some day. In the words of Del Boy, they believed that "one day we'll be millionaires!"
You might think that the stagnation in real earnings over recent years would make it harder to perform the same trick - but people's capacity for self-delusion knows few bounds.
Now it's your turn to miss the point. Where are these 4.6 million (and rising) going to be living ? In the south and the Midlands I would argue and perhaps disproportionately in Conservative marginals facing a Labour challenge.
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
I could suspect that in the Uk postal votes could be "collected" - but actual fraudulent counting ? Woah.
My parents both worked in the public sector in tower hamlets between 1984 and 2007. Neither are in the slightest bit surprised at any of this, I would go as far as to say they are way past surprised/outraged and now shrug their shoulders and accept that's just how that part of London is.
Mentioning it just causes trouble, best off accepting it and moving on. Street names are in Bengali, as are council notices... Don't mention it on here, it's for tourism apparently.
The schools, almost all full of Muslim kids, are doing well though... Just like the ones in Birmingham.
Must be the London Challenge...
Probably be an Isis state in 50 years time, and the area to the east willresemble Palestine
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
I could suspect that in the Uk postal votes could be "collected" - but actual fraudulent counting ? Woah.
My parents both worked in tower hamlets between 1984 and 2007. Neither are in the slightest bit surprised at any of this, I would go as far as to say they are way past surprised/outraged and now shrug their shoulders and accept that's just how that part of London is.
Mentioning it just causes trouble, best off accepting it and moving on. Street names are in Bengali, as are council notices... Don't mention it on here, it's for tourism apparently.
The schools, almost all full of Muslim kids, are doing well though... Just like the ones in Birmingham.
Must be the London Challenge...
Probably be an Isis state in 50 years time, and the area to the east willresemble Palestine
What, if anything, does any of this have to do with specific (if rather ridiculous looking) accusations of electoral fraud?
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
I could suspect that in the Uk postal votes could be "collected" - but actual fraudulent counting ? Woah.
My parents both worked in the public sector in tower hamlets between 1984 and 2007. Neither are in the slightest bit surprised at any of this, I would go as far as to say they are way past surprised/outraged and now shrug their shoulders and accept that's just how that part of London is.
Mentioning it just causes trouble, best off accepting it and moving on. Street names are in Bengali, as are council notices... Don't mention it on here, it's for tourism apparently.
The schools, almost all full of Muslim kids, are doing well though... Just like the ones in Birmingham.
Must be the London Challenge...
Probably be an Isis state in 50 years time, and the area to the east willresemble Palestine
You can mention what you like on here. But don't expect everyone to agree with what you claim or with your analysis.
I dont see how your post adds anything to the argument about fraud determining the outcome of this election. I can see it potentially causing problems for OGH though!
On the subject of a post-election Coalition (and I write as a LD Party member but only in that capacity).
After the last GE, there was in truth only one stable Government on offer and that was what we got (a Conservative minority COULD have been formed and might have survived for a while but would have been inherently unstable).
If, as seems probable, there are fewer LD MPs after the next election, the range of Coalition becomes narrower but the possibilities become greater especially if (as seems likely) any gains by the Conservatives from the LDs are likely to be balanced by losses to Labour.
If the LDs fall to 30 seats and the Conservatives finish at 300 (let's say) there could be a second Coalition - the numbers would work- but it wouldn't be the same as before as Nick Clegg would be dealing from a weaker hand. The chances are it would (rightly) be a more Conservative-dominated Government.
One of the aspects of this week's reshuffle seems to be to present a new, younger, more dynamic and arguably more right-wing Cabinet full of the children of Thatcher and Blair but that's a gamble because the gamble is the Manifesto backing that team and the team has to win a majority or very close to it.
The corollary is IF they fail, will it be possible for any LD leader (whether a damaged Nick Clegg or whoever) to support a Government running on such a Manifesto ? In 2010, as I've said before, there was a degree of convergence on some issues between the Conservatives and LDs which made the Coalition possible. That has now diverged and I suspect the Conservative Manifesto of 2015 will contain much that I (as a Liberal Democrat) could not support. That's my problem but it will be the Conservatives' problem if they try in any Coalition negotiations to insist on these policies as a red line.
The main red line is a referendum.
Try and oppose that one.
Oh, and boundary reform. But we want that signature in blood ;-)
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
I could suspect that in the Uk postal votes could be "collected" - but actual fraudulent counting ? Woah.
My parents both worked in the public sector in tower hamlets between 1984 and 2007. Neither are in the slightest bit surprised at any of this, I would go as far as to say they are way past surprised/outraged and now shrug their shoulders and accept that's just how that part of London is.
Mentioning it just causes trouble, best off accepting it and moving on. Street names are in Bengali, as are council notices... Don't mention it on here, it's for tourism apparently.
The schools, almost all full of Muslim kids, are doing well though... Just like the ones in Birmingham.
Must be the London Challenge...
Probably be an Isis state in 50 years time, and the area to the east willresemble Palestine
You can mention what you like on here. But don't expect everyone to agree with what you claim or with your analysis.
I don't expect everyone to agree, can only say as I see it, and how I hear it from people working there
This Blog is fast becoming the home for deluded Tories,led by TSE. Perhaps a spell at doing his job,I presume he is employed,will help improve impartiality on the Blog,at the same time helping his employers receive some small return on their investment in him
Monsieur Enfant, TSE is a lawyer and one, what is more, that can multi-task. Your comments are therefore misplaced. Mind you, I did ask on here last week how so many people in apparently well paying jobs can afford to spend so much time on here during the working day. Of answers came there none.
Cos if you have an office based job with two screens you can keep PB up on one and everytime your eyes need a rest...
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
Another tactical error from Labour HQ. They are really having a bad few weeks.
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
Nice of Labour to keep this rumbling on - must be in the holiday mood.
Labour are now saying that they want to cut taxes for those on lower and middle incomes. I'm confused. Their policy of introducing a new 10p tax rate will increase tax for those on the lowest incomes unless Labour's policy is to keep the existing level of tax free income and then have a 10p starting rate. Is this the case?
What taxes on middle income earners are Labour proposing to cut?
ICM say Lib Dems are on 1% in Scotland..... That is very funny.
I know somebody who won't find that remotely funny. In fact, he'll be along in a minute to do his standard impersonation of Mr Angry. Always worth a chortle.
I dont see how your post adds anything to the argument about fraud determining the outcome of this election. I can see it potentially causing problems for OGH though!
Well it's deleted now... Apols to OGH I didn't realise me saying that could land him in trouble.
If you don't accept the experience of someone who worked at the council involved an food knows the culture and attitude that surrounds it, then fair enough. It doesn't fit with what you want to believe and I'm sure I'd be the same, in fact I am the same, when people I admire are criticised.
Aha Mr Dickson, quick question - I've had a saver on the SNP @ 50-1 in East Dunbartonshire - is it worth doing so on Conservatives at 100-1 (Maxed out on Labour there).
I don't think its an SNP gain but essentially I'm laying the Lib Dems there...
On the subject of a post-election Coalition (and I write as a LD Party member but only in that capacity).
After the last GE, there was in truth only one stable Government on offer and that was what we got (a Conservative minority COULD have been formed and might have survived for a while but would have been inherently unstable).
If, as seems probable, there are fewer LD MPs after the next election, the range of Coalition becomes narrower but the possibilities become greater especially if (as seems likely) any gains by the Conservatives from the LDs are likely to be balanced by losses to Labour.
If the LDs fall to 30 seats and the Conservatives finish at 300 (let's say) there could be a second Coalition - the numbers would work- but it wouldn't be the same as before as Nick Clegg would be dealing from a weaker hand. The chances are it would (rightly) be a more Conservative-dominated Government.
One of the aspects of this week's reshuffle seems to be to present a new, younger, more dynamic and arguably more right-wing Cabinet full of the children of Thatcher and Blair but that's a gamble because the gamble is the Manifesto backing that team and the team has to win a majority or very close to it.
The corollary is IF they fail, will it be possible for any LD leader (whether a damaged Nick Clegg or whoever) to support a Government running on such a Manifesto ? In 2010, as I've said before, there was a degree of convergence on some issues between the Conservatives and LDs which made the Coalition possible. That has now diverged and I suspect the Conservative Manifesto of 2015 will contain much that I (as a Liberal Democrat) could not support. That's my problem but it will be the Conservatives' problem if they try in any Coalition negotiations to insist on these policies as a red line.
The main red line is a referendum. Try and oppose that one. Oh, and boundary reform. But we want that signature in blood ;-)
Another thought on the Harriet tax business: it's more difficult for the reds than the blues because it plays into prejudice and underlying opinions, which are very deep-rooted. Usually they tell more against the Conservatives (essentially for being horrid), but people are very willing to believe, I would suggest, that Labour want to increase taxation.
Voting against a £26,000 limit on benefits was the kind of crackers decision which deepens the redness of Ed.
If you don't accept the experience of someone who worked at the council involved an food knows the culture and attitude that surrounds it, then fair enough. It doesn't fit with what you want to believe and I'm sure I'd be the same, in fact I am the same, when people I admire are criticised.
You'll have to excuse me for preferring to have actual evidence before accepting accusations of this nature.
If you don't accept the experience of someone who worked at the council involved an food knows the culture and attitude that surrounds it, then fair enough. It doesn't fit with what you want to believe and I'm sure I'd be the same, in fact I am the same, when people I admire are criticised.
You'll have to excuse me for preferring to have actual evidence before accepting accusations of this nature.
Comments
Traders Decision (@BookiesDontLayB)
16/07/2014 13:36
sign up to the cause ow.ly/zaATc pic.twitter.com/Ml1q6eMAWI
1)The police hiring people with spent convictions for minor offences that occurred a long time ago
2) Serving police officers who are convicted of serious offences whilst they are serving
I'm off the opinion 2) should be dismissed from their jobs
As to whether central Government "should" have such financial control, I agree it's not desirable. Perhaps if we saw as much enthusiasm among Conservatives for the repatriation of financial and other powers from Westminster to elected and accountable local authorities as we do foe repatriating powers from Brussels and Strasbourg I'd have more confidence in your comments.
In addition, the Coalition has (regrettably) done nothing to lift the regulatory and reporting burden from local authorities. There are hundreds of reports and statistics requested by central Government which take up vast quantities of officer time along with an FOI legislative framework which empowers companies and students to ask Councils to do their market research or thesis research respectively for them.
(As an aside, I wonder if people don't take into account the fact that people move location a lot - and so see on the census of 4 years ago that there was a much larger number of 0-3 year olds than existing reception year places, without recognizing that a large proportion of those then move before the child becomes 5. Clearly this means that there needs to be school building in the areas that they move to, but this is much less obvious in the data and so is likely to more frantic and last minute)
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/07/lord-hill-commission-eu-nominee-owns-shares/
If Dame Butler-Sloss had to resign from the child abuse inquiry because of the risk of a perception that she might not be even-handed given the role of her late brother, even though no-one questioned her personal integrity, then how can a serving police officer be someone convicted of a serious offence such as perverting the course of justice?
Still, at least Andy Coulson has a career option open to him in due course, eh!
They've both been very generous with me (apart from Paddy's ludicrous online limits on pol bets)
The only ones that I know do so are Victor and Stan James
Raising the 40p threshold by, say, £5k would be a hugely popular move.
I've always earned a decent wage working in commercial print but being on the salary I'm on, with a company car and all the little add ons, I've certainly been squeezed over the past 10 years.
I'm not complaining about it, just saying. I bet there are loads of people in my income bracket, mid 30s, with kids and a tough mortgage who have been hurt by the 40p threshold (plus rises in all the other stealthy taxes). People who would welcome help in this range are probably all voters too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9796803/Lord-Hill-faces-conflict-of-interest-claim-over-shares.html
You have stated, in a nutshell, why we need to make more use of private provision, and why that is an essential part of the way forward for getting back to sane levels of public spending (say, those we had in 2003 as a proportion of GDP), without loss of quality of services. It can't be done quickly, but it absolutely needs to be done.
Education Secretary In 'Typical Man' Email Jibe
Nicky Morgan told one of her constituents to "watch what I do" when she was questioned about her role as Women's Minister.
http://news.sky.com/story/1302091/education-secretary-in-typical-man-email-jibe
I want ten pictures of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich for the outlier that has Labour ten points ahead.
It's amazing how close the Independence Referendum is, though. And about half of the remaining campaign time is school holidays. One side or the other is going to face an enormous psychological shock once the result is announced.
With Fred I am in the ludicrous situation where they offer me a % of what I ask for and if I accept they say it's below minimum stake so no bet!
Actually I think Lads close, the account in my name is closed. Coral close too, I backed a 40/1 winner and they closed the account, six months later I realised they hadn't sent the money! Those were the days
Bet 365 just offer 1-5% of your usual stake to see you on your way
She's the elected Labour Deputy Leader.
But the reality is he is a turn off for the voters. That may not reflect well on the voters but its a fact that has to be faced.
The worse thing that could happen though, is if it gets closer, and we start seeing some pollsters showing a lead for Yes, and some for No.
Just logged into b365 for the first time in years and they let me have £100@2/5 on a tennis player and £30@13/8 England to win 2nd test, so not as bad as I made out
Allowed £16@3/1 India and £36@11/8 the draw... Basically allowed to win around £50 a bet
I was betting a lot bigger than that a few years ago so when they reduced the bet max I just didn't bother.". Again, them were the days!
Didn't actually have a bet btw just seeing what I was allowed
Britain First 'battalion' invades mosque demanding removal of 'sexist' entrance signs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-first-battalion-invades-mosque-demanding-removal-of-sexist-entrance-signs-9607978.html
Thanks to @Ladbrokes turned £5 in £205 today, with Skrtel as 1st scorer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf9ZoupCYAEKKBW.jpg
(Central forecast)
Con vote lead 6.1%
Con seat lead 38 seats
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 90.0%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 84.6%
Chance of a Tory majority: 15.4%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0% [actually 0.02% or 4999 to 1]
Political betting and the horses (Each Way, BOG, Early prices) are better suited to traditional bookies.
I worry about the pitch at Lords, it is the most corporate of corporate test crowds, and they'll want it to go the whole 5 days. Please God not another Trent Bridge
What next? Muslims invading the COE and Catholic places of worship, demanding an end to cannibalism?
The demographics are fascinating - it's a point I need to look into more as to whether we have or are seeing a shift in population from inner London (more singles/childless couples) to suburban and outside London which are seen as more "family friendly". That has huge implications for more than just education.
That said, and not wishing to pour petrol on a good fire by using the "i"-word, all the primaries and the local Academy in my neck of the woods (East Ham) are increasing capacity this year. One is an ageing Victorian primary barely fir for purpose (I would guess) but well located. It is increasing its capacity by 25% this autumn and I don't know how they are going to do it. You'll soon see a lot of building work starting at schools if it hasn't already done so.
"sadly many in the public sector apply that term to the employees more than the customers."
Whereas, the private sector's main duty is to its shareholders? That doesn't seem to fit your ideal very well either?
Back to the drawing board.
To be fair I spent a lot of time going massive on the under over runs quotes one t20 matches with every bookie... Sometimes you can back 5/6 either side with a 8-10 run middle... Ridiculous value... They rumbled it and limited to £6 from £600
Throw in a few each way FGS bets and the account is naused!
Osborne and Gove rank better than Ed!
Is 57% for Ed, compared to 49 and 51 for Ozzy and Gove
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2693392/England-fear-Lords-pitch-Alastair-Cook-Co-hope-livelier-surface-second-Test-against-India.html
The "win" is raising the threshold for them to take them out of the 40p band not to scrap the 45p band or increase that threshold where your comments would be valid.
Not my money obv but a percentage of profit
Net Conservative to Labour swing voters = 6 in Labour's favour
Net Lib Dem to Labour swing voters - Net Lib Dem to Conservative swing voters = 12 in Labour's favour.
Since swing voters from the Conservatives count double for Labour in most seats then the direct swing voters are as important as the 2010 Lib Dems for improving Labour's position on 2010 in this poll.
So if Labour are picking up Conservative swing voters, why did the Tories have a lead in this poll?
Voters lost to UKIP:
Conservatives = 12
Labour & Lib Dems = 13
Voters lost to the Green Party
Conservatives = 0
Labour & Lib Dems = 11
Voters lost to UKIP & Greens combined
Conservatives = 12
Labour = 15
Lib Dems = 9
This poll has the Green Party on 21% in the key 18-24 age segment (based on 21 respondents), which the Tories win by 34% to Labour's 22%.
Take home message appears to be that Miliband is failing to rally the anti-Tory vote to his banner. It appears to be splintering every which way. But, he can appeal to 2010 Tory voters.
I assume its not good news if you get an * in a crosstab
http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/john-biggs-suggests-organised-fraud-by-council-staff-in-the-actual-counting-of-votes-for-lutfur-rahman/
It is unlikely that this is an election-winning demographic.
However, my mother always told me that Thatcher won her elections by convincing people to vote in favour of tax cuts for people richer than themselves, on the basis that these people aspired to be those rich people some day. In the words of Del Boy, they believed that "one day we'll be millionaires!"
You might think that the stagnation in real earnings over recent years would make it harder to perform the same trick - but people's capacity for self-delusion knows few bounds.
Labour call PM a 'liar':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28331810
Given the ambiguity, I think that's both too strong and a mistake. It'll also give him and the Conservatives generally the perfect excuse to repeat the claim.
16/07/2014 14:54
Tories and Labour vote in favour of Lithuania joining the Euro - without a referendum votewatch.eu/en/term8-adopt…
My mum worked at Tower Hamlets council for years... Every knows its a fit up
Say the only person who says they will vote Lib Dem in Scotland is in a demographic that is over-represented in the sample (say AB voters). They have to have their weighted contribution reduced to less than 1, so they end up as a * in the cross-tabs. Similarly, in one of the tables ICM will have adjusted the numbers on the basis of likelihood to vote - so if your single respondent said they were only 6 out of 10 likely to vote they will have had their contribution reduced by another fraction.
"I asked him for examples of the evidence he’d gathered to back up that claim. He said that wasn’t possible at this stage because he wanted to protect people’s identities. So I asked him to provide the calculations behind his estimate and how he extrapolated to that number. He still hasn’t answered."
"This time next year, we'll be millionaires!"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVQYhnacwPo
Mentioning it just causes trouble, best off accepting it and moving on. Street names are in Bengali, as are council notices... Don't mention it on here, it's for tourism apparently.
The schools, almost all full of Muslim kids, are doing well though... Just like the ones in Birmingham.
Must be the London Challenge...
Probably be an Isis state in 50 years time, and the area to the east willresemble Palestine
I dont see how your post adds anything to the argument about fraud determining the outcome of this election. I can see it potentially causing problems for OGH though!
I now have the same degree as Tony Blair.
On the other hand,
I now have the same degree as Tony Blair.
Congratulations, anyway!
Please exercise more care in future.
SNP 34 MPs (+28)
SLab 17 MPs (-24)
SCon 7 MPs (+6)
LD zero MPs (-11)
Oth 1 MP (+1) (Orkney&Shetland)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=21&LAB=24&LIB=1&NAT=34®ion=AllScotland&boundary=2010&seat=All+Scotland+seats+majority-sorted
But do try not to go on ill-considered military exploits.
Try and oppose that one.
Oh, and boundary reform. But we want that signature in blood ;-)
That is very funny.
What taxes on middle income earners are Labour proposing to cut?
And how are they going to pay for it all?
What happened to the theory that EdM's ratings would improve when voters got to know more about him?
If you don't accept the experience of someone who worked at the council involved an food knows the culture and attitude that surrounds it, then fair enough. It doesn't fit with what you want to believe and I'm sure I'd be the same, in fact I am the same, when people I admire are criticised.
Scottish Labour on just 24% (-18), only 3 points ahead of Ruth Davidson's bunch. That Baxters as:
SNP 34 MPs (+28)
SLab 17 MPs (-24)
SCon 7 MPs (+6)
LD zero MPs (-11)
Oth 1 MP (+1) (Orkney&Shetland)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.pl?CON=21&LAB=24&LIB=1&NAT=34®ion=AllScotland&boundary=2010&seat=All+Scotland+seats+majority-sorted
Aha Mr Dickson, quick question - I've had a saver on the SNP @ 50-1 in East Dunbartonshire - is it worth doing so on Conservatives at 100-1 (Maxed out on Labour there).
I don't think its an SNP gain but essentially I'm laying the Lib Dems there...
Voting against a £26,000 limit on benefits was the kind of crackers decision which deepens the redness of Ed.