@OblitusSum As the average wage for the self employed is falling faster than the "employed" your hope of increased revenue may be dragged down by those who are claiming "tax credits" to keep afloat. We will find out in January if the specific information is available.
It shows that over the last 12 months total employment has increased by 820K, self employment by 408K and actual employment by 447K. So the increase in self employment is roughly half of the story.
Some of this may be statistical manipulation. More, I suspect, is the ever increasing use of "self employment" by dodgy employers who seek to avoid Employers NI, employment rights and a range of other responsibilities. Many working in call centres, for example, are "self employed" and this is an increasing trend that really should be stopped by more aggressive recovery by HMRC.
"Self employment" is in these circumstances one step down from a zero hours contract. It is an abuse but it does not mean that people are not working. I have recently come across a company that was employing thousands of agency workers on a "self employment" basis so that their real employers could avoid NI. The sums involved were staggering and depressing.
They tried that with IR35. It utterly failed.
Not utterly. And the sums involved are huge. It undermines employers that play by the rules and is large scale fraud. Because something is difficult does not mean it should not be addressed.
IR35 failed because many in the Knowledge economy don't want full time employment with companies needing those skills.
These people working as self employed in a call centre don't have that luxury. They want a permanent job but the call centre / agency providing that call centre don't want to employ them that way. For that there is a really simple test which can be used:-
Ask the employee would you work there permanently given the choice...
Having seen some of the scams being used to avoid paying NI and employing people I really think something as crude as the above should be used to decide if someone is employed / "self-employed"...
As the average wage for the self employed is falling faster than the "employed"
Is it? Source, please.
I have to say that since my eyes went wonky last year my income has dropped very substantially and my interests have changed. So now I may be being paid thousands of pounds per annum for doing something different than I used to be paid tens of thousands for doing. I don't mind, though convincing HMRC that I wasn't trying to cheat them was a bit of a bugger.
I am still lost on how having people in self-employment is a more terrible idea than having those same people drawing the dole.
@HurstLlama "The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) released a report on Monday dubbing the UK “the self-employment capital of western Europe”. This may well be an important piece of the puzzle of strikingly good employment figures accompanied by flat productivity and falling real-terms wages. Two-fifths of all new jobs since 2010 have been self-employment. And self-employed incomes, according to figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, have fallen by 14%, compared with a 9% fall for those in regular employment."
The above is from the link I posted earlier, I assume either you haven't had time to read it, or are you disputing the figures?
It shows that over the last 12 months total employment has increased by 820K, self employment by 408K and actual employment by 447K. So the increase in self employment is roughly half of the story.
Some of this may be statistical manipulation. More, I suspect, is the ever increasing use of "self employment" by dodgy employers who seek to avoid Employers NI, employment rights and a range of other responsibilities. Many working in call centres, for example, are "self employed" and this is an increasing trend that really should be stopped by more aggressive recovery by HMRC.
"Self employment" is in these circumstances one step down from a zero hours contract. It is an abuse but it does not mean that people are not working. I have recently come across a company that was employing thousands of agency workers on a "self employment" basis so that their real employers could avoid NI. The sums involved were staggering and depressing.
They tried that with IR35. It utterly failed.
Not utterly. And the sums involved are huge. It undermines employers that play by the rules and is large scale fraud. Because something is difficult does not mean it should not be addressed.
IR35 failed because many in the Knowledge economy don't want full time employment with companies needing those skills.
These people working as self employed in a call centre don't have that luxury. They want a permanent job but the call centre / agency providing that call centre don't want to employ them that way. For that there is a really simple test which can be used:-
Ask the employee would you work there permanently given the choice...
Having seen some of the scams being used to avoid paying NI and employing people I really think something as crude as the above should be used to decide if someone is employed / "self-employed"...
Mr Eeek, you make a good point. IR35 was introduced to plug a loop hole, which had long needed plugging. Unfortunately, as we saw with the BBC scandals, it didn't actually work. So maybe poor drafting more than a poor idea.
If even half of that number are muslims then that means half of all the UK's muslims have some sympathy with IS..???
I thought the vast majority of moderate blah blah blah abhor IS.
Muslims are probably about 4% of British voters. I don't know what proportion support ISIS. A minority, probably, but not an insignificant minority.
That would mean most British supporters of ISIS are non-Muslim, and I would assume that they were extreme left. Wiping out Christians and fighting the West is something they'd side with radical Muslims on.
It's not just "The West".
Islam also has an "Eastern Front" - India (Kashmir), China (Xinjiang), Burma (the Rohingas), Thailand (Malay borderlands), Indonesia (eg. Molucca Islands) and the Philippines (Mindanao Islands).
If even half of that number are muslims then that means half of all the UK's muslims have some sympathy with IS..???
I thought the vast majority of moderate blah blah blah abhor IS.
Muslims are probably about 4% of British voters. I don't know what proportion support ISIS. A minority, probably, but not an insignificant minority.
That would mean most British supporters of ISIS are non-Muslim, and I would assume that they were extreme left. Wiping out Christians and fighting the West is something they'd side with radical Muslims on.
It's not just "The West".
Islam also has an "Eastern Front" - India (Kashmir), China (Xinjiang), Burma (the Rohingas), Thailand (Malay borderlands), Indonesia (eg. Molucca Islands) and the Philippines (Mindanao Islands).
Time has come to re-read Samuel Huntingdon's Clash of Civilisations. From what I remember this was exactly what he predicted (caveat: it's been 10 years since I read it).
@isam - I think you'd find it interesting. More thoughtful and less emotional an Enoch Powell. Much more global in perspective as well.
(But first I need to finish Chris Skidmore's excellent history of the run up to Bosworth, and then the biography of the Koch Brothers that is waiting patiently in line)
Watching the news today from Iraq makes me agree with SeanT that IS need to be dealt with, swiftly and harshly.
Just read this from the Speccie blog comments, have to say I agree with most of it but I expect I will get denounced on here:
You reap what you sow. 50 years of mass immigration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, leftwing infestation of the schools and media, white liberal colonial guilt, 'diversity is our strength' nonsense, appeasement of Muslims and minority groups, political correctness, free speech restrictions, 'hate speech' prosecutions (only of native, white, English speaking British citizens), ethnic ghettoes, refusal to enforce the borders and on and on. But the elites who brought this upon us and think they are protected by their leafy suburbs and gated communities will have their heads on pikes soon enough once their beloved enrichers take over.
He had his faults, as we all do. He was nearly as acerbic as you sometimes, and didn't tolerate fools lightly. But he faithfully served his country for all his adult life, while also finding time to be a theologian and philosopher.
Still a bit harsh on Enoch though, but if he was like me he cannot have been a bad sort.
He served in government and in Heath's shadow Cabinet with Powell, and they spent more than 35 years in parliament together. He had insights into Powell's character that normal people like you and I don't. (Of course there may have been personal issues of which I am not aware that coloured his judgement)
Mr Eeek, you make a good point. IR35 was introduced to plug a loop hole, which had long needed plugging. Unfortunately, as we saw with the BBC scandals, it didn't actually work. So maybe poor drafting more than a poor idea.
I believe IR35 was introduced because the government simply does not understand the concept of the knowledge economy.. It's initial purpose was to attack those who left on Friday and returned via a service company on the Monday, instead it was used to attack anyone working through a service company (which the agencies act of 1978 forced upon me).
The real problem is the age old one. We fix the current problem by adding a sticky plaster to the previous problem creating a bigger mess each time.. When the only real solution is to look at the bigger picture and identify how we can accurately stop employers and employees abusing "self employment" while allowing those in the knowledge economy to work without harrassment..
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The poll on ISIS was conducted by ICM Research and the tables can be found here. The fieldwork was conducted between July 11th and July 13th. The relevant data are on p. 2, table 2. The question posed was:
From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as ISIS?
The number of those with a favourable view of ISIS in Great Britain was 7%, in Germany 2% and in France 16%. An extraordinary indictment of the British public.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
I suspect that if the question asked had been something like this:
"Do you support the objective of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIS, which is to murder every non-muslim who refuses to convert?"... Get a grip people. You are not about to be murdered in your beds by one of millions of British Jihadists. Keep Calm and Carry On.
That is not the policy of the Caliphate. Christians and Jews are nominally tolerated if they give allegiance to the Islamic State, accept dhimmi status, and pay the jiyza. Understandably, very few Christians or Jews have been prepared or able to fulfil these conditions. It is not a question about whether many British people are about to be murdered in their beds by the soldiers of the Prince of the Faithful. The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects.
"The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects."
I suspect that if the question asked had been something like this:
"Do you support the objective of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIS, which is to murder every non-muslim who refuses to convert?"... Get a grip people. You are not about to be murdered in your beds by one of millions of British Jihadists. Keep Calm and Carry On.
That is not the policy of the Caliphate. Christians and Jews are nominally tolerated if they give allegiance to the Islamic State, accept dhimmi status, and pay the jiyza. Understandably, very few Christians or Jews have been prepared or able to fulfil these conditions. It is not a question about whether many British people are about to be murdered in their beds by the soldiers of the Prince of the Faithful. The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects.
"The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects."
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
I suspect that if the question asked had been something like this:
"Do you support the objective of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIS, which is to murder every non-muslim who refuses to convert?"... Get a grip people. You are not about to be murdered in your beds by one of millions of British Jihadists. Keep Calm and Carry On.
That is not the policy of the Caliphate. Christians and Jews are nominally tolerated if they give allegiance to the Islamic State, accept dhimmi status, and pay the jiyza. Understandably, very few Christians or Jews have been prepared or able to fulfil these conditions. It is not a question about whether many British people are about to be murdered in their beds by the soldiers of the Prince of the Faithful. The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects.
"The issue is the support for, or indifference to a barbarous state built on a messianic totalitarian ideology, on the part of a substantial number of British subjects."
Is this comment about Israel or ISIL?
Congratulations! You win the "Moral Relativism: Whataboutery Award" of the evening.....
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
so you're saying the french are clueless thickies ?
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
More likely many people thought: "the question mentioned 'support' and 'Iraq'. We were just fighting there and utterly f'ed up. Of course I support them." without realising what was being mentioned was not the Iraqi state, but a bunch of ba@st@rds.
Don;'t forget many countries have weird titles, or 'Islamic' in their official titles. Brunei's is one of the best: "Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace"
As an aside, is there any research about reluctance to choose 'don't know' in such questions because of a fear of looking like an idiot by admitting you don't know?
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
"British extremists are among the most ‘most vicious and vociferous fighters’ in the Islamic State's ranks in Syria and Iraq, a jihadism expert has said.
Highly vociferous, and sometimes even downright rude.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He seems to know different things than he did 6 months ago.
Then: 'Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has led the biggest independent review of the North Sea oil and gas industry in its history, and said yesterday that production could increase by four billion barrels over coming years if major changes to the operation of the oil and gas sector are made.Such changes would put the UK in a “stronger position” to extract nearly all of the estimated 24 billion barrels still remaining underneath the North Sea....
At the high end, he said, total commitment to a new strategy by government and industry “will put the UK in a much stronger position to reach the 24bn boe potential”.'
Now: 'The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK. But Sir Ian Wood said that figure was 45% to 60% too high, and estimated production would be down to a sixth of the current levels by 2050. He believes there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left.'
You'd think that if it would provoke rather stronger opinions in either direction, eg people who were in favour of the re-establishment of the Caliphate being strongly in favour and people who opposed cutting off the heads of unbelievers to be strongly against. I suppose it's possible you see both points of view and can't emphatically support or oppose, but I think it's much more likely that a lot of the respondents are misunderstanding the question.
PS. If any pollsters are reading, it's could to see these multi-national polls done, but we really need to see the wording as the questions were actually asked rather than having everything translated into English. Maybe the British Polling Council could suggest this as a guideline.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
Don;'t forget many countries have weird titles, or 'Islamic' in their official titles. Brunei's is one of the best: "Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace"
The United Kingdom?
I suppose that "the" is probably uncontroversial, although it implies a singularity that isn't entirely accurate...
Number of 'moderate muslims' at the recent London rally protesting against ISIS?
I've just been reading the letters of moderate Muslim Osama bin Laden, some of which are sent to the various proto-ISIS organisations asking if they could tone things down a little. Among other things he complains that they're making Christians pay the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims which is supposed to be given in return for protection, without affording them any actual meaningful protection.
Number of 'moderate muslims' at the recent London rally protesting against ISIS?
I've just been reading the letters of moderate Muslim Osama bin Laden, some of which are sent to the various proto-ISIS organisations asking if they could tone things down a little. Among other things he complains that they're making Christians pay the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims which is supposed to be given in return for protection, without affording them any actual meaningful protection.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
In the most galling humiliation for Mr Salmond, Sir Ian said a separate Scotland may end up importing gas from England following the discovery of “very significant shale gas reserves”.
Number of 'moderate muslims' at the recent London rally protesting against ISIS?
I've just been reading the letters of moderate Muslim Osama bin Laden, some of which are sent to the various proto-ISIS organisations asking if they could tone things down a little. Among other things he complains that they're making Christians pay the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims which is supposed to be given in return for protection, without affording them any actual meaningful protection.
so extortion's OK ?
Apparently so, according to the relevant Holy Book.
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
More likely many people thought: "the question mentioned 'support' and 'Iraq'. We were just fighting there and utterly f'ed up. Of course I support them." without realising what was being mentioned was not the Iraqi state, but a bunch of ba@st@rds.
Don;'t forget many countries have weird titles, or 'Islamic' in their official titles. Brunei's is one of the best: "Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace"
As an aside, is there any research about reluctance to choose 'don't know' in such questions because of a fear of looking like an idiot by admitting you don't know?
Well, there's the famous 'Shy Tory Effect', which us PB poll obsessives have worried about for years :-) Could be similar: 'shy of admitting I don't watch the news'
The poll on ISIS was conducted by ICM Research and the tables can be found here. The fieldwork was conducted between July 11th and July 13th. The relevant data are on p. 2, table 2. The question posed was:
From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as ISIS?
The number of those with a favourable view of ISIS in Great Britain was 7%, in Germany 2% and in France 16%. An extraordinary indictment of the British public.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
Not so long ago ISIS were only known for opposing Assad in Syria.
We should not be surprised at the number of people having a favourable view of IS. After all, there have been plenty of polls in the past which showed that a significant proportion of Muslims here wanted sharia law.
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
The % of UK population who are Muslim is around 4%, according to Census. Given that vast majority of them would not approve of anything like ISIS, it seems like that this poll actually just found out that a percentage of people didn't have a clue, and don't follow the news, but plumped for favourable rather than say don't know.
so you're saying the french are clueless thickies ?
Seems more polite than Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys...
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He seems to know different things than he did 6 months ago.
Then: 'Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has led the biggest independent review of the North Sea oil and gas industry in its history, and said yesterday that production could increase by four billion barrels over coming years if major changes to the operation of the oil and gas sector are made.Such changes would put the UK in a “stronger position” to extract nearly all of the estimated 24 billion barrels still remaining underneath the North Sea....
At the high end, he said, total commitment to a new strategy by government and industry “will put the UK in a much stronger position to reach the 24bn boe potential”.'
Now: 'The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK. But Sir Ian Wood said that figure was 45% to 60% too high, and estimated production would be down to a sixth of the current levels by 2050. He believes there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left.'
I'm flabbergasted to see a supporter of Salmond criticizing inconsistency. How do you cope?
As an aside, is there any research about reluctance to choose 'don't know' in such questions because of a fear of looking like an idiot by admitting you don't know?
Previous Ashcroft poll from June 2014, Southampton Itchen:
Lab 36% Con 28% UKIP 20% LD 12%
Today's Ashcroft poll, Southampton Itchen:
Lab 34% Con 34% UKIP 19% LD 10%
What's going on in Southampton to cause the increase in Tory support?
Well, the Labour candidate is Rowenna Davis, who is very young and on telly a lot. She read PPE at Oxford and was a Labour councillor in Peckham and a NS journalist and.... Oh you know, you get the rest.
"These include the massacre in 1948 by a Scots Guards patrol – mainly national servicemen – of 24 Chinese labourers on a Malaysian rubber plantation, killings and mutilations in Kenya and a rampage by troops in Cyprus after two British servicemen's wives were shot. A serviceman described: "wholesale rape and looting and murder", including "a 13 year old girl raped and killed in a cage". http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/20/national-service-consctiption-britain-richard-vinen-review
This in no way is an excuse for IS, or anyone else for that matter, it just gives a sense of perspective.
The poll on ISIS was conducted by ICM Research and the tables can be found here. The fieldwork was conducted between July 11th and July 13th. The relevant data are on p. 2, table 2. The question posed was:
From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as ISIS?
The number of those with a favourable view of ISIS in Great Britain was 7%, in Germany 2% and in France 16%. An extraordinary indictment of the British public.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
Not so long ago ISIS were only known for opposing Assad in Syria.
But it was already known some months ago that they were persecuting Christians and beheading them etc. There was a video (not that I watched it) of a Catholic priest in Northern Syria being beheaded while a crowd around him chanted and applauded. Politicians - such as Farage - were saying that we should be giving asylum to Syrian Christians.
No-one who took any interest could have been under any illusion that ISIS / IS were anything other than extremely nasty and violent. The fact that they are barbaric thugs is hardly a new revelation.
As an aside, is there any research about reluctance to choose 'don't know' in such questions because of a fear of looking like an idiot by admitting you don't know?
There have been various experiments (though I can't pinpoint them) that purported to show that if asked about a fictitious proposal or campaign, lots of people will express a view for or against, presumably based on the title sounding nice (or not) or because they're thinking of something else.
Previous Ashcroft poll from June 2014, Southampton Itchen:
Lab 36% Con 28% UKIP 20% LD 12%
Today's Ashcroft poll, Southampton Itchen:
Lab 34% Con 34% UKIP 19% LD 10%
What's going on in Southampton to cause the increase in Tory support?
Ashcroft himself speculated that it might be because students at the university there were away when this latest poll was taken (in July). Also, the Labour incumbent is stepping down, and Labour generally have really struggled to make inroads with the southern working-class/lower-middle-class (their successes in the south the past few years have been in more wealthy places, e.g. Cambridge, Brighton, Reading).
In any case, Southampton Itchen is looking by far like the Tories' best chance of a gain from Labour, and possibly could even go to them if Labour make 50-60 gains off the Tories.
When is a job not a job? When you claim expenses for travelling to your normal place of work!
Purely a fiddle to get people off the unemployment numbers, give them more benefits for being "self" employed.
Come then, Mr G, I was self-employed for a number of years, technically I still am, so how did I get any additional benefits or, indeed, any benefits at all? This talk about benefits for the self-employed has been thrown around this site for quite a while, it is about time someone came up with the justification.
Mr hurst , nowadays you get tax credits etc , which if you are earning peanuts is much better than JSA etc. We have not suddenly found millions of entreprenuers in the country have we. I do not buy that.
It's pretty clear that Gideon and IDS's jobs miracle is based on job centres shoving people into self-non-employment to make the tractor stats look better.
Either that or the foodbank. Such is Cameron's Britain.
Whether it's good for the economy, society generally, or the Tories electoral hopes is another question.
Oh dear - the trolls are back!
Oh Felix - No need to be catty and insult people because they have a different world view to you! Away back to the litter tray!
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
"How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me."
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
In the most galling humiliation for Mr Salmond, Sir Ian said a separate Scotland may end up importing gas from England following the discovery of “very significant shale gas reserves”.
LOL, if even a fraction of the blows, humiliations and such like had happened to Alex Salmond he would have been dead and buried years ago. Unionists are just pathetic. Some numpty changes his mind and thereby shows he is stupid and not to be listened to and Scott "Turnip" has it as blow for Salmond. Alex will be laughing his head off at all these headless turkeys running about shouting "we're doomed , doomed".
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
"How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me."
A bit salmondy perhaps ?
more red herring methinks, his crystal ball needs polishing. These idiots hardly know what day of the week it is never mind what will be in 2050.
The poll on ISIS was conducted by ICM Research and the tables can be found here. The fieldwork was conducted between July 11th and July 13th. The relevant data are on p. 2, table 2. The question posed was:
From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as ISIS?
The number of those with a favourable view of ISIS in Great Britain was 7%, in Germany 2% and in France 16%. An extraordinary indictment of the British public.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
Not so long ago ISIS were only known for opposing Assad in Syria.
But it was already known some months ago that they were persecuting Christians and beheading them etc. There was a video (not that I watched it) of a Catholic priest in Northern Syria being beheaded while a crowd around him chanted and applauded. Politicians - such as Farage - were saying that we should be giving asylum to Syrian Christians.
No-one who took any interest could have been under any illusion that ISIS / IS were anything other than extremely nasty and violent. The fact that they are barbaric thugs is hardly a new revelation.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
"How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me."
A bit salmondy perhaps ?
more red herring methinks
probably that small fry Sturgeon codding about, she needs to be put in her plaice.
Err, what do you mean 'their own views'? Are you referring to me? My views are as I stated, that these things should be decided by the courts.
So the Government should need a court to allow it to deny an ISIS terrorist entry into the country, but the Inland Revenue should be allowed to seize people's money for alleged non payment of taxes with no court order? Who's side (apart from David Cameron's) are you on?
The poll on ISIS was conducted by ICM Research and the tables can be found here. The fieldwork was conducted between July 11th and July 13th. The relevant data are on p. 2, table 2. The question posed was:
From what you know, please, tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant otherwise known as ISIS?
The number of those with a favourable view of ISIS in Great Britain was 7%, in Germany 2% and in France 16%. An extraordinary indictment of the British public.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
Not so long ago ISIS were only known for opposing Assad in Syria.
But it was already known some months ago that they were persecuting Christians and beheading them etc. There was a video (not that I watched it) of a Catholic priest in Northern Syria being beheaded while a crowd around him chanted and applauded. Politicians - such as Farage - were saying that we should be giving asylum to Syrian Christians.
No-one who took any interest could have been under any illusion that ISIS / IS were anything other than extremely nasty and violent. The fact that they are barbaric thugs is hardly a new revelation.
Err, what do you mean 'their own views'? Are you referring to me? My views are as I stated, that these things should be decided by the courts.
So the Government should need a court to allow it to deny an ISIS terrorist entry into the country, but the Inland Revenue should be allowed to seize people's money for alleged non payment of taxes with no court order? Who's side (apart from David Cameron's) are you on?
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
"How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me."
A bit salmondy perhaps ?
more red herring methinks
probably that small fry Sturgeon codding about, she needs to be put in her plaice.
"so you're saying the french are clueless thickies"
That does seem a rather clumsy and impolite way of putting it and of course it does miss out on their native treachery (must be DNA based). However, well, what with one thing and another and on the balance of probabilities and taken in the round looking back at the history of the last thousand years, then really one must, making a fine judgement, have to say .. well, YES.
To quote the Man: 1750 the British had a revolution - the industrial revolution where we, the British, invented work. The Frogs didn't . Less than forty years later, 1787, they had a French revolution where they invented being French. Result? A lot of dead French people. Progress.
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
He is now arguing with himself , a few weeks ago it was correct and now miraculously it is miles out. He has been knobbled for sure, favours called in by troughers club no doubt. Unless of course he has just gone doolally and is not sure what day it is.
Wow! At least have someone else make the claim if otherwise you are going to contradict yourself. Not helpful.
How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me. Nothing has happened in interim to support his massive change, quite the contrary , big finds have been announced so it makes it even more dubious.
"How am I contradicting myself. He previously agreed and has now mysteriously suddenly changed his mind, looks fishy to me."
A bit salmondy perhaps ?
more red herring methinks
probably that small fry Sturgeon codding about, she needs to be put in her plaice.
Too fishy for me Alan
Well it makes a change from Nat meat infatuation.
Mick Pork seemed to have a beef about everything but if you offered him a bet he'd chicken out with some lamb excuse why he wouldn't take it.
"so you're saying the french are clueless thickies"
That does seem a rather clumsy and impolite way of putting it and of course it does miss out on their native treachery (must be DNA based). However, well, what with one thing and another and on the balance of probabilities and taken in the round looking back at the history of the last thousand years, then really one must, making a fine judgement, have to say .. well, YES.
To quote the Man: 1750 the British had a revolution - the industrial revolution where we, the British, invented work. The Frogs didn't . Less than forty years later, 1787, they had a French revolution where they invented being French. Result? A lot of dead French people. Progress.
Peter the Punter, if he is around, and other tax experts on here may be interested in the recent tax case relating to the Fishers and the move of Stan James to Gibraltar in 2000.
Thanks for that; very interesting as I knew Pete and Steve Fisher well for a while.
Over the years I lost quite a bit of money in Pete Fisher's regular poker game in the back room of a certain bar in La Linea. But we all made it back when he bought outrageously generous late night rounds of drinks in the Underground bar in Gib. Happy days!
Err, what do you mean 'their own views'? Are you referring to me? My views are as I stated, that these things should be decided by the courts.
So the Government should need a court to allow it to deny an ISIS terrorist entry into the country, but the Inland Revenue should be allowed to seize people's money for alleged non payment of taxes with no court order? Who's side (apart from David Cameron's) are you on?
How anyone who purports to take a Conservative view of politics can ever support Osborne' idea that HMRC should be able to seize money that may or may not be owed from bank accounts without a court order is beyond me. Then we have the spiffing wheeze of HMRC deciding that a persons tax arrangements in relation to their future death are not acceptable and therefore HMRC can demand 40% of the estate whilst the person is still alive, pending, mark this, pending a court case to decide he issue. Put the two together and HMRC will be able to seize what they want from any one they feel like it and it will be down to the tax payer to sue HMRC in the courts to try and get their money back.
That is from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.
"so you're saying the french are clueless thickies"
That does seem a rather clumsy and impolite way of putting it and of course it does miss out on their native treachery (must be DNA based). However, well, what with one thing and another and on the balance of probabilities and taken in the round looking back at the history of the last thousand years, then really one must, making a fine judgement, have to say .. well, YES.
To quote the Man: 1750 the British had a revolution - the industrial revolution where we, the British, invented work. The Frogs didn't . Less than forty years later, 1787, they had a French revolution where they invented being French. Result? A lot of dead French people. Progress.
God put the Channel there for a reason.
Aye, and the Frogs have never managed to get the name of that right.
OGH: " I've just backed LAB at 2.3/1 on Betfair to win overall majority following latest @LordAshcroft marginals polling."
I'm aware that Mike isn't agreat fan of Stephen Fisher's GE seat projections, but for those of us who are, this looks like a losing bet with Dr Fisher giving Labour a 21% chance of achieving an overall majority and therefore a 79% chance of not doing so. This equates to odds of 3.76/1, way ahead of the price Mike took today with Betfair. Even if Stephen Fisher has somewhat over-egged it for the Blues, most believe that the Tories will significantly close the gap or better over the next few months. Were this indeed to happen, it seems very likely that Labour's odds would lengthen as a result.
Regarding the discussion on multiculturalism, the problem with it to me is not one of superiority or inferiority, but of social cohesion and integrity. If you import large amounts of people, and allow and even encourage them to preserve their own languages (to the exclusion of the host language), culture, and social mores, you weaken and undermine the social fabric.
We see extreme examples of this in the Middle East, and in Ukraine. But to a lesser extent we saw this with the London rioters -nothing to do with ethnicity in this case, but another group that had been unchallenged, allowed to be 'anti-social', and thus fostered and marinated in their own feral creed. When you let this happen, it comes to bite you in the arse sooner or later.
Err, what do you mean 'their own views'? Are you referring to me? My views are as I stated, that these things should be decided by the courts.
So the Government should need a court to allow it to deny an ISIS terrorist entry into the country, but the Inland Revenue should be allowed to seize people's money for alleged non payment of taxes with no court order? Who's side (apart from David Cameron's) are you on?
How anyone who purports to take a Conservative view of politics can ever support Osborne' idea that HMRC should be able to seize money that may or may not be owed from bank accounts without a court order is beyond me. Then we have the spiffing wheeze of HMRC deciding that a persons tax arrangements in relation to their future death are not acceptable and therefore HMRC can demand 40% of the estate whilst the person is still alive, pending, mark this, pending a court case to decide he issue. Put the two together and HMRC will be able to seize what they want from any one they feel like it and it will be down to the tax payer to sue HMRC in the courts to try and get their money back.
That is from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.
But at least returning ISIS members will be able to return to Blighty without the threat of statelessness looming over them, the poor lambs. So that's all right then.
Comments
As the average wage for the self employed is falling faster than the "employed" your hope of increased revenue may be dragged down by those who are claiming "tax credits" to keep afloat.
We will find out in January if the specific information is available.
Source: Wiki
However, the figures could be far higher as many people do not complete the census.
These people working as self employed in a call centre don't have that luxury. They want a permanent job but the call centre / agency providing that call centre don't want to employ them that way. For that there is a really simple test which can be used:-
Ask the employee would you work there permanently given the choice...
Having seen some of the scams being used to avoid paying NI and employing people I really think something as crude as the above should be used to decide if someone is employed / "self-employed"...
Is it? Source, please.
I have to say that since my eyes went wonky last year my income has dropped very substantially and my interests have changed. So now I may be being paid thousands of pounds per annum for doing something different than I used to be paid tens of thousands for doing. I don't mind, though convincing HMRC that I wasn't trying to cheat them was a bit of a bugger.
I am still lost on how having people in self-employment is a more terrible idea than having those same people drawing the dole.
"The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) released a report on Monday dubbing the UK “the self-employment capital of western Europe”. This may well be an important piece of the puzzle of strikingly good employment figures accompanied by flat productivity and falling real-terms wages. Two-fifths of all new jobs since 2010 have been self-employment. And self-employed incomes, according to figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, have fallen by 14%, compared with a 9% fall for those in regular employment."
The above is from the link I posted earlier, I assume either you haven't had time to read it, or are you disputing the figures?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/13/unemployment-figures-economic-recovery-uk-government-neoliberal-philosophy
@isam - I think you'd find it interesting. More thoughtful and less emotional an Enoch Powell. Much more global in perspective as well.
(But first I need to finish Chris Skidmore's excellent history of the run up to Bosworth, and then the biography of the Koch Brothers that is waiting patiently in line)
You reap what you sow. 50 years of mass immigration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, leftwing infestation of the schools and media, white liberal colonial guilt, 'diversity is our strength' nonsense, appeasement of Muslims and minority groups, political correctness, free speech restrictions, 'hate speech' prosecutions (only of native, white, English speaking British citizens), ethnic ghettoes, refusal to enforce the borders and on and on.
But the elites who brought this upon us and think they are protected by their leafy suburbs and gated communities will have their heads on pikes soon enough once their beloved enrichers take over.
He served in government and in Heath's shadow Cabinet with Powell, and they spent more than 35 years in parliament together. He had insights into Powell's character that normal people like you and I don't. (Of course there may have been personal issues of which I am not aware that coloured his judgement)
The real problem is the age old one. We fix the current problem by adding a sticky plaster to the previous problem creating a bigger mess each time.. When the only real solution is to look at the bigger picture and identify how we can accurately stop employers and employees abusing "self employment" while allowing those in the knowledge economy to work without harrassment..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28867487
What does he know, anyway, after just 40 years running an oil business in Aberdeen! Clearly a Westminster stooge!
IS are what they're called: an Islamic State and, presumably, enforcing sharia law and spreading their state in the way that Islam was spread in the 7th century - by war and conquest, forcible conversion of the populations it conquered and the killing of any who opposed it.
Rather than a perversion of Islam (which is what people may want to believe), it may be that in the IS what we are seeing is a 21st century copy of what proved so successful all those centuries ago.
Was it widely known in early July how vile ISIL were? I don't know when the media started reporting in detail, but it feels more recent than 6 weeks ago?
Is this comment about Israel or ISIL?
This must be the most worn out cliche in modern politics, so often has is been used by apologists for islamist crimes against humanity.
Number of 'moderate muslims' at the recent London rally protesting against ISIS?
Don;'t forget many countries have weird titles, or 'Islamic' in their official titles. Brunei's is one of the best: "Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace"
As an aside, is there any research about reluctance to choose 'don't know' in such questions because of a fear of looking like an idiot by admitting you don't know?
Then:
'Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has led the biggest independent review of the North Sea oil and gas industry in its history, and said yesterday that production could increase by four billion barrels over coming years if major changes to the operation of the oil and gas sector are made.Such changes would put the UK in a “stronger position” to extract nearly all of the estimated 24 billion barrels still remaining underneath the North Sea....
At the high end, he said, total commitment to a new strategy by government and industry “will put the UK in a much stronger position to reach the 24bn boe potential”.'
Now:
'The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK.
But Sir Ian Wood said that figure was 45% to 60% too high, and estimated production would be down to a sixth of the current levels by 2050.
He believes there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left.'
Very favourable: 3%
Somewhat favourable: 13%
Somewhat unfavourable: 31%
Very unfavourable: 31%
http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/press/isis-poll-for-rossiya-segodnya
You'd think that if it would provoke rather stronger opinions in either direction, eg people who were in favour of the re-establishment of the Caliphate being strongly in favour and people who opposed cutting off the heads of unbelievers to be strongly against. I suppose it's possible you see both points of view and can't emphatically support or oppose, but I think it's much more likely that a lot of the respondents are misunderstanding the question.
PS. If any pollsters are reading, it's could to see these multi-national polls done, but we really need to see the wording as the questions were actually asked rather than having everything translated into English. Maybe the British Polling Council could suggest this as a guideline.
I suppose that "the" is probably uncontroversial, although it implies a singularity that isn't entirely accurate...
Lab 36%
Con 28%
UKIP 20%
LD 12%
Today's Ashcroft poll, Southampton Itchen:
Lab 34%
Con 34%
UKIP 19%
LD 10%
Not so long ago ISIS were only known for opposing Assad in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
"These include the massacre in 1948 by a Scots Guards patrol – mainly national servicemen – of 24 Chinese labourers on a Malaysian rubber plantation, killings and mutilations in Kenya and a rampage by troops in Cyprus after two British servicemen's wives were shot. A serviceman described: "wholesale rape and looting and murder", including "a 13 year old girl raped and killed in a cage".
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/20/national-service-consctiption-britain-richard-vinen-review
This in no way is an excuse for IS, or anyone else for that matter, it just gives a sense of perspective.
But it was already known some months ago that they were persecuting Christians and beheading them etc. There was a video (not that I watched it) of a Catholic priest in Northern Syria being beheaded while a crowd around him chanted and applauded. Politicians - such as Farage - were saying that we should be giving asylum to Syrian Christians.
No-one who took any interest could have been under any illusion that ISIS / IS were anything other than extremely nasty and violent. The fact that they are barbaric thugs is hardly a new revelation.
In any case, Southampton Itchen is looking by far like the Tories' best chance of a gain from Labour, and possibly could even go to them if Labour make 50-60 gains off the Tories.
A bit salmondy perhaps ?
LOL, if even a fraction of the blows, humiliations and such like had happened to Alex Salmond he would have been dead and buried years ago. Unionists are just pathetic. Some numpty changes his mind and thereby shows he is stupid and not to be listened to and Scott "Turnip" has it as blow for Salmond. Alex will be laughing his head off at all these headless turkeys running about shouting "we're doomed , doomed".
No-one who took any interest could have been under any illusion that ISIS / IS were anything other than extremely nasty and violent. The fact that they are barbaric thugs is hardly a new revelation.
Anyone know where the Middle East peace envoy is?
With his tax advisor.
"so you're saying the french are clueless thickies"
That does seem a rather clumsy and impolite way of putting it and of course it does miss out on their native treachery (must be DNA based). However, well, what with one thing and another and on the balance of probabilities and taken in the round looking back at the history of the last thousand years, then really one must, making a fine judgement, have to say .. well, YES.
To quote the Man: 1750 the British had a revolution - the industrial revolution where we, the British, invented work. The Frogs didn't . Less than forty years later, 1787, they had a French revolution where they invented being French. Result? A lot of dead French people. Progress.
Mick Pork seemed to have a beef about everything but if you offered him a bet he'd chicken out with some lamb excuse why he wouldn't take it.
Over the years I lost quite a bit of money in Pete Fisher's regular poker game in the back room of a certain bar in La Linea. But we all made it back when he bought outrageously generous late night rounds of drinks in the Underground bar in Gib. Happy days!
That is from a supposedly Conservative chancellor.
I'm aware that Mike isn't agreat fan of Stephen Fisher's GE seat projections, but for those of us who are, this looks like a losing bet with Dr Fisher giving Labour a 21% chance of achieving an overall majority and therefore a 79% chance of not doing so. This equates to odds of 3.76/1, way ahead of the price Mike took today with Betfair.
Even if Stephen Fisher has somewhat over-egged it for the Blues, most believe that the Tories will significantly close the gap or better over the next few months. Were this indeed to happen, it seems very likely that Labour's odds would lengthen as a result.
We see extreme examples of this in the Middle East, and in Ukraine. But to a lesser extent we saw this with the London rioters -nothing to do with ethnicity in this case, but another group that had been unchallenged, allowed to be 'anti-social', and thus fostered and marinated in their own feral creed. When you let this happen, it comes to bite you in the arse sooner or later.