Interesting how certain political events provoke sundered political allegiances to heal. The pb kippers are hotly coming to the defence of the point being made by Lord Freud (compare and contrast Douglas Carswell's comments).
I disagree with Douglas!
But if my political allegiances healed, I would be agreeing with Ed
Ed Miliband has spent the week being told to get out of his comfort zone and show he is in touch with normal people.
So a chance meeting with the star of one of Britain's biggest soap operas was a perfect opportunity to prove he is in tune with the zeitgeist.
Chatting with EastEnders' star Danny Dyer the Labour leader rattled off detailed facts about the cast, before admitting he had not watched the show but had been reading about it online.
It is like something out of the thick of it...I can just see Ed slumped over his laptop until 3am every night making notes from wikipedia about anything vaguely popular with the plebs.
Right wing vote split = Comfortable Labour majority even though Miliband is dreadfully unpopular.
Too simplistic. The more I look at the polls, the more I think Labour will go sub 30%.
You can see from the Mori tables [#4] how that might happen.
Labour gain a net 24 voters from the Lib Dems, but they lose 23 voters to UKIP, the Greens and the SNP. So only the barest advance on 2010.
And then they lose a net 3 voters to the Conservatives, putting them down on 2010. I think they only score 33% in this poll because a smaller proportion of their 2010 voters are "uncertain" than 2010 Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Plus Labour are going to go down like the Lusitania when voters twig that 7 May 2015 ain't just another opinion poll, and their 'X' could actually put Miliband in Number 10...
[coincidentally election day is the centenary of the sinking (^_-) ...]
@Hugh The logic is that if you do away with the minimum wage for the "disabled", you would have to remove it from the "able", otherwise it is discrimination. Logic of course plays no part in debate here, so just carry on as usual everyone.
A person who can do some work but not sufficient to generate the minimum wage's worth of value for his/her employer. Should that person be condemned to rot on benefits or is there another way, perhaps involving employment subsidy, whereby the person can join the workforce? If you want to stick rigidly to the idea that the employer must pay the minimum wage then more disabled people are going to be doomed to a life on benefits than needs to be the case. If you want to think about the problem then maybe some solutions can be found that benefit the disabled, the employers and the taxpayers.
Well said Mr Llama, - this is a classic case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Ed Miliband has spent the week being told to get out of his comfort zone and show he is in touch with normal people.
So a chance meeting with the star of one of Britain's biggest soap operas was a perfect opportunity to prove he is in tune with the zeitgeist.
Chatting with EastEnders' star Danny Dyer the Labour leader rattled off detailed facts about the cast, before admitting he had not watched the show but had been reading about it online.
It is like something out of the thick of it...I can just see Ed slumped over his laptop until 3am every night making notes from wikipedia about anything vaguely popular with the plebs.
@HurstLlama Benefit to the taxpayers? If a disabled person works "full time", then they are entitled to full tax credits to take them up to a certain level (remember "work will always pay?), this means more employment subsidies. Spin it on the other matters, but that one is nonsense.
"Spin", what are you talking about? Who is trying to spin anything?
Yes, very good but that's not quite what he says. He can understand why UKIP appeal to the WWC, but argues they'll just be let down again. The final piece of advice 'Read as much as you can and find out who's using you' is superb. I also love the way he dispatches Russell Brand.
Arent there people that are so mentally damaged that they are incapable of doing any job to the standard required for them to earn £6.31 an hour?
No. Because that is the legal minimum wage. It's the minimum that any labour, of any kind, is worth.
Ah. I understand. So anyone unable to produce an output valued in excess of £6.31 per hour (which some mentally disabled people cannot do, through no fault of their own) should not have any job.
Not so sure that's a completely meritorious stance, but I understand.
@isam It's called piece work, it finds favour in the Bangladesh garment industry. ("skilled" trades, especially in construction use it as well, but mainly for the tax avoidance opportunities)
@isam It's called piece work, it finds favour in the Bangladesh garment industry. ("skilled" trades, especially in construction use it as well, but mainly for the tax avoidance opportunities)
Oh I always mis heard it as price! it rhymes with price right?
I guess the solution for cases such as the one Lord Freud spoke of is "price work"
So the jobs is to cut the grass and sweep up the leaves. Its worth £25 whether it takes you one hour or ten
Lots of electricians and plumbers work on this basis.. this is probably what Lord Freud was talking about anyway
Another possibility is to provide those who employ people with serious disabilities with an additional annual tax relief (calculated as a percentage of the employee's pay), so as to encourage the employer to employ them and make necessary adjustments. Employers would still be subject to the same requirements regarding the minimum wage etc, but would be incentivised to consider the disabled more actively.
@Kevin_Maguire: Whisper is Labour has tapes to embarrass other Ministers over the next few weeks. Freud unlikely to be the last
Quite possibly the most vacuous thing I've seen from Labour for a while:
1. rubbishing your competition ultimatley means rubbishing your industry as people believe youre all the same 2. It's obviously displacement theory as Labour have bugger all to say on what matters.
@isam Much the same in most cases, often an electrician will have a flat fee per kitchen in a housing build. Floor layers price by the meter, garment factories by the unit, price or piece it is the same principle.
@Kevin_Maguire: Whisper is Labour has tapes to embarrass other Ministers over the next few weeks. Freud unlikely to be the last
Quite possibly the most vacuous thing I've seen from Labour for a while:
1. rubbishing your competition ultimatley means rubbishing your industry as people believe youre all the same 2. It's obviously displacement theory as Labour have bugger all to say on what matters.
More stupid politics from the Stupid Party.
I thought that this was the prelude to it all. Whiter than white, purer than pure...
Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.
Are you @isam, up and down in your support for UKIP, in effect saying that perhaps UKIP won't progress from here, or perhaps not gain Rochester and Strood as hoped?
I believe that even if UKIP came second there, it would not turn the tide on the party.
Not at all, I just think its not impossible something could happen that means we only get 3-4 seats, and 7/1 is probably a value bet
How times change, eh?
It can't have been that many months ago that you wouldn't have thought to use the word "only" in connection with UKIP winning 3-4 seats at the 2015 general election, but now it would take some sort of black swan event to push UKIP back down there.
Paddy Power's 'line' is at 5.5 seats, which is about right. (Most punters on here could probably nominate five likely wins but after that it gets sticky.)
The real sea-change is that the potential is suddenly huge. If they win Rochester, pick up a couple of defections and continue to benefit from a favorable political wind, you could see them winning twenty or more. Conversely, it's hard to see them winning less than two now.
Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction
Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.
Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.
OGH Maybe, but several yougov polls have now had the Tories over 20% and the trend across the polls is for the SNP to have made gains at the expense of Labour. Post indyref it seems Yes voters have moved to the SNP but some No unionist voters have also moved to the Tories
There have been two full Scottish polls since the referendum vote. Neither showed the Conservatives having made any significant progress. Both showed the SNP up a lot since 2010, Labour down a bit (in one case, a fair bit) and the Lib Dems dropping off a cliff:
1) Sample sizes are tiny (typically N~150, MoE ±8) which make them useless on their own.
2) The demographic and political weighting is applied at GB-wide level, not to every individual subset.
The first of these problems is easily overcome by aggregating a number of polls. The second might just have a clever fix as I'll hopefully be able to demonstrate tomorrow...
Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.
What I find most telling there is the approval/disapproval ratings. Across every region, disapproval of the Government's record runs at between 52% and 62%. Even the South is at 53% disapprove.
Just watched Miliband attack Freud at PMQs. Grrrr. To misrepresent his comments like that was really below the belt.
It felt a bit out of character too - Miliband chose not to get it, to be unintellectual - something that must irk him - just so that he could land a blow. I guess someone else is directing him, and it's going to get nasty.
Mind you, I'm also disappointed that Cameron didn't feel confident enough to back Freud whose point was obviously good-natured and socially responsible.
I told you so that something was going wrong with the world economy.
Anyway margin calls should kick in New York now, and there is a record amount of margin debt, close to a trillion dollars. People will be forced to sell their stocks to cover their position.
Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction
The money is not really that important as they will be on significant benefits, its the pride and the feeling of actually doing something that is far more important. Why Labour have chosen to go with this is beyond me, I can see why people get sick of politics. Cameron should also have been braver. The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.
Astonishing numbers in Scotland from today's yougov. Not only are the Tories up 7% on 2010 at 23%, but they are only 1% behind Labour on 24% meaning Scotland has a smaller Labour over Tory lead than the UK as a whole where Labour leads by 4%. The SNP is ahead on 39%.
What I find most telling there is the approval/disapproval ratings. Across every region, disapproval of the Government's record runs at between 52% and 62%. Even the South is at 53% disapprove.
Cameron is toast.
Predictions of toast have had a bad record of late... delayed toast, maybe?
Antifrank Indeed, but even if the Tory vote has only not declined in Scotland, that is still better than the lost Tory votes in rUK. It seems the relatively low Scottish UKIP score is not eating into the Tory total so much. As you also say the decline in the Labour and LD Scottish voteshares is consistent
Interesting, not just me then, they also think that Laws will lose his Yeovil seat to the Tories (as well as most other seats in the south)
The west Lothian Question will gain new legs if as they think the SNP win 17 seats and hold the balance of power.
According to them, Libdems would be left with only Lewes, Bath, Eastleigh, Torbay, St Ives, Thornbury & Yate, Carshalton & Wallington, Twickenham, Cambridge & North Norfolk in the south of England.
Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction
The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.
I doubt he cares. Votes matter not the individuals affected.
It's the same law of unintended consequences and short term gain, that lead to energy firms freezing higher prices after he threatened them.
OGH Maybe, but several yougov polls have now had the Tories over 20% and the trend across the polls is for the SNP to have made gains at the expense of Labour. Post indyref it seems Yes voters have moved to the SNP but some No unionist voters have also moved to the Tories
/why not look at the ICM Scottish sub sample SNP 32 Lab 31 Con 16 LD 7 UKIP 11 Perhaps you did not do so because it does not show the movements you are looking for
Margin calls should be just around the corner, many will be trying to sell before that
No rate increases by any central bank, ever.
Japan has 0% interest rates since 1998 if I remember correctly, it didn't prevent half a dozen recessions, stock bubbles and crashes since then. Governments and central banks have focused on stock prices, house prices, inflation and interest rates for so long and all the time they failed. Proving Goodhart's Law correct, to those not familiar with it, here:
Interesting listening to some comments on 5Live this afternoon from listeners with disabled friends and children who said working for even £2 an hour would enable the disabled who would not be employed at minimum wage to at least enter the workplace in some form at huge boost to their esteem and confidence. Lord Freud's views provoking a mixed reaction
The money is not really that important as they will be on significant benefits, its the pride and the feeling of actually doing something that is far more important. Why Labour have chosen to go with this is beyond me, I can see why people get sick of politics. Cameron should also have been braver. The result of today will mean less disabled people will get jobs. I bet Milliband must be well chuffed.
I think the problem is the meaning of "worth". There is a purely market definition - the price that a labour unit can command in the market. IMO, in the context of where he was speaking, this is what Freud meant. A certain disabled person may not be productive enough to make it economic to pay him £6.50 per hour.
On the other hand there is the more emotive meaning of your "worth" as an individual. This is what is being picked up on. As Freud has been in and around politics since 2006 you would have thought he would understand the nuance.
Of course one method of trying to get disabled people into work would be a subsidy whereby the employer paid say £4 and the state the other £2.50, the employee would still be getting the minimum wage, just not all of it from the same source.
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
@HYUFD If it is all about the dignity of work, why do those at the top demand ever more? Do they lack dignity?
The simple fact is less disabled people will now be employed after today as no one wil dare mention this again and businesses will carry on not employing disabled peeple. Is that what Ed Milliband wanted as that is the result. Its the real world, not school debating fantasy land.
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
@currystar Word it however you like, but in the end you come up with the fact that the "disabled" are not entitled to the minimum wage that their fellow workers enjoy. Argue, by all means, that the minimum wage needs to be abolished, but please stop with the posturing. Freud issued an unreserved apology, so he must have thought the statement was ill advised.
Mark S Probably because the ICM poll was taken before Labour held up devomax by refusing to back EVEL. Even on ICM though Labour 10% down in Scotland since 2010
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread. Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
Interesting, not just me then, they also think that Laws will lose his Yeovil seat to the Tories (as well as most other seats in the south)
The west Lothian Question will gain new legs if as they think the SNP win 17 seats and hold the balance of power.
According to them, Libdems would be left with only Lewes, Bath, Eastleigh, Torbay, St Ives, Thornbury & Yate, Carshalton & Wallington, Twickenham, Cambridge & North Norfolk in the south of England.
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
The number of seats for the Lib Dems for any given share of the vote relies heavily on the number of votes won in lost seats and the number of votes won in retained/gained seats. At some point, no feasible drop in average number of votes in lost seats can make up for the low polling scores. The question is where that point might be.
You can put in a vote share (and estimated number of votes) and then estimate how many votes (on average) will be in seats won and what the average vote score will be in seats lost. That will give you (subject to your estimates) a seat score.
For example, last time round, the Lib Dems scored 21,610 votes (on average) in seats won and 9,763 in seats not won. In 1997, they scored 21,895 in seats won and 7,068 in seats not won - a more efficient vote distribution.
If we assume a turnout about 65%, there will be about 25 million votes. So shares of: 6% = 1.5m 7% = 1.75m 8% = 2.0m 9% = 2.25m 10% = 2.5m 11% = 2.75m 12% = 3.0m Assume about 20,000 votes in seats won, then we can estimate seats retained for assumptions of votes in lost seats. They're not going to be doing better in seats not won than in 1997, I'd say. But how low can they go? About 1900 votes is deposit-losing time. An average of losing deposits in lost seats would, I feel, be highly unlikely and we needn't bother going lower than that. So for not-very-much targetting, 7,000 seats in lost seats; for incredible targetting, 2,000 votes in lost seats.
At 6%, it's disastrous. The average votes scored in seats not won has to be around a near-deposit-losing 2000 to retain even 13 seats. There just aren't enough votes to go around. At 8%, still pretty bad. They'd retain 6 seats if the average score in lost seats was 3,000, but 41 seats if the average score was 2,000. I think that's unfeasibly low, though. At 10%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 could still see them retain 36 seats. 2,000 would lead to implausible gains of 12 seats (!). 4,000 average votes in lost seats would see them retain no seats at all. At 12%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 sees them hold all seats and make gains again (!). An average of 4,000 sees them down at 30 seats.
So - it's all down to how few votes they get (waste) in lost seats. And below 8% sees no plausible way to retain more than a very few number of seats. Above 12% and there's all to play for. Between those numbers, and its anyone's guess.
Interestingly, it looks set to be between those numbers ...
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
I was surprised that Maguire and Pierce on the Sky paper review a night or two ago were so relaxed about it, citing stats showing (no doubt correctly) more people die each from influenza or malaria.
The high mortality rate (over 70%) coupled with the rapid increase in the number of infections makes ebola a different kettle of fish.
Precisely - and also to bring the value they have as simply people to the fore. There's nothing like sticking everyone with a disability in a lump - it doesn't educate anyone in the wider population.
We had about 10 profoundly deaf kids at my primary school [we had the local deaf unit teacher on staff] and it really helped me to understand some of the issues/think of them as just another kid like me - and that some of the difficult behaviour was frustration, more than anything else. There was no fear of *telling* on anyone who pinched or shoved you.
How commonplace is this today? I could see some advantages in Remploy, but I'd rather bring the disabled into the workplace whenever we can - and stop being so blinking PC about it. Whenever I think about this - one guy springs to mind. He used to speed about our open-plan offices in his souped-up wheelchair and would deliberately run-over the toes of anyone who tried to patronise him. It was a great ice breaker, if a trifle OTT.
MarkS If you are disabled, often with serious mental problems, earning any wage at all for work you have done is a huge boost to your self esteem. It is about self worth, not left wing envy!
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread. Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
The number of seats for the Lib Dems for any given share of the vote relies heavily on the number of votes won in lost seats and the number of votes won in retained/gained seats. At some point, no feasible drop in average number of votes in lost seats can make up for the low polling scores. The question is where that point might be.
You can put in a vote share (and estimated number of votes) and then estimate how many votes (on average) will be in seats won and what the average vote score will be in seats lost. That will give you (subject to your estimates) a seat score.
For example, last time round, the Lib Dems scored 21,610 votes (on average) in seats won and 9,763 in seats not won. In 1997, they scored 21,895 in seats won and 7,068 in seats not won - a more efficient vote distribution.
If we assume a turnout about 65%, there will be about 25 million votes. So shares of: 6% = 1.5m 7% = 1.75m 8% = 2.0m 9% = 2.25m 10% = 2.5m 11% = 2.75m 12% = 3.0m Assume about 20,000 votes in seats won, then we can estimate seats retained for assumptions of votes in lost seats. They're not going to be doing better in seats not won than in 1997, I'd say. But how low can they go? About 1900 votes is deposit-losing time. An average of losing deposits in lost seats would, I feel, be highly unlikely and we needn't bother going lower than that. So for not-very-much targetting, 7,000 seats in lost seats; for incredible targetting, 2,000 votes in lost seats.
At 6%, it's disastrous. The average votes scored in seats not won has to be around a near-deposit-losing 2000 to retain even 13 seats. There just aren't enough votes to go around. At 8%, still pretty bad. They'd retain 6 seats if the average score in lost seats was 3,000, but 41 seats if the average score was 2,000. I think that's unfeasibly low, though. At 10%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 could still see them retain 36 seats. 2,000 would lead to implausible gains of 12 seats (!). 4,000 average votes in lost seats would see them retain no seats at all. At 12%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 sees them hold all seats and make gains again (!). An average of 4,000 sees them down at 30 seats.
So - it's all down to how few votes they get (waste) in lost seats. And below 8% sees no plausible way to retain more than a very few number of seats. Above 12% and there's all to play for. Between those numbers, and its anyone's guess.
Interestingly, it looks set to be between those numbers ...
I have put the event horizon for the LD at 5%, if they get 5% or lower then UNS kicks in.
@currystar Word it however you like, but in the end you come up with the fact that the "disabled" are not entitled to the minimum wage that their fellow workers enjoy. Argue, by all means, that the minimum wage needs to be abolished, but please stop with the posturing. Freud issued an unreserved apology, so he must have thought the statement was ill advised.
He chickened out, he was exactly right in what he said, today is a sad indictment of what politics has become. It is not a case of being entitled, but businesses in a competitive market place where everything is won on price will not employ a disabled person to do a job at minimum wage when an able bodied person can do it better. Its a simple real world fact. You can argue whether a business is right or wrong but that is what they do and will continue to do now. What Labour said in 2003 was also right. I look forward to Ed telling Patricia Hewitt that she should never have been in Government with her abhorent views.
Andy Cooke - the Lib Dems have sounded blase about their non-seats at the election. The believe they have a cockroach ability to hang on where they are incumbent. But it's worth remembering that if you stand in every seat in the UK you stand to lose a potential £300k in lost deposits. They aren't a party full of money. I'd like to see a betting market on Lib Dem deposit saves. A spread at 300?
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread. Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
Its alright for you with your tins of beans and shotgun; we have a health system that is creaking with no beds already, half the intensive care beds recommended per capita and too few staff.
When Ebola strikes, it will be very messy and your BUPA policy will not be worth a thing...
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
With a majority of 66 he's going to lose anyway.
I backed that idiot at 16/1! Lets hope the replacement is a winner
Yes David Evans is a disgusting fellow and deserves to be stripped of his UKIP membership. UKIP doesn't want or need people who are cruel to animals in it's ranks.
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread. Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
Our response to disease is typical of every problem, look at the economy for instance, nothing is fixed, we just pretend until it's too late.
Governments and businesses don't have the right people to attend to details before those details blow up in their face, and that happens throughout written history, it's what causes historical events.
MarkS If you are disabled, often with serious mental problems, earning any wage at all for work you have done is a huge boost to your self esteem. It is about self worth, not left wing envy!
As I was married ( for several years until my wife died ) to someone who was disabled , I can tell you from experience that you are talking utter sanctimonious garbage
Shit! looks like the fan may soon be hit. Having said that the Fed is trying to pull the market back with wonderful forcast for the future, but how many times will that trick work?
Plato Indeed, at the end of the day most disabled people want the chance to be as normal as possible, even if sometimes accomodations have to be made to allow that
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me): "US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
When it comes to disease, panic is a good response to try and limit it's spread. Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
It's a matter of when, rather than if it lands here. And then all hell will break loose.
Our response to disease is typical of every problem, look at the economy for instance, nothing is fixed, we just pretend until it's too late.
Governments and businesses don't have the right people to attend to details before those details blow up in their face, and that happens throughout written history, it's what causes historical events.
Lord Freud's comments befit the nasty party but do not reflect well on the authoritarian Blairite Labour party which saw fit throw rose petals in his steps..He's the same excuse for a human being he always has been. I must also comment Cameron's consistent reference of his personal experience with his disabled son as defence against government policies as they effect disabled people in general is wearing a bit thin and means he has made this intensely personal matter of the loss of his son Ivan public property.He cannot continue with this form of emotional blackmail and needs to separate the personal from the political.He must not allow this personal matter to become a political devise.
There would be no minimum wage at all if it was down to the ASI
Of course the Tories pretend they support the minimum wage now despite warning it was a dangerous socialist evil that would cost 000's of jobs when it was introduced.
Comments
But if my political allegiances healed, I would be agreeing with Ed
So a chance meeting with the star of one of Britain's biggest soap operas was a perfect opportunity to prove he is in tune with the zeitgeist.
Chatting with EastEnders' star Danny Dyer the Labour leader rattled off detailed facts about the cast, before admitting he had not watched the show but had been reading about it online.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794121/i-love-eastenders-says-ed-miliband-boasts-baffled-danny-dyer-read-online-five-actors-played-ben-mitchell.html
It is like something out of the thick of it...I can just see Ed slumped over his laptop until 3am every night making notes from wikipedia about anything vaguely popular with the plebs.
[coincidentally election day is the centenary of the sinking (^_-) ...]
So the jobs is to cut the grass and sweep up the leaves. Its worth £25 whether it takes you one hour or ten
Lots of electricians and plumbers work on this basis.. this is probably what Lord Freud was talking about anyway
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/nov/12/economy.uk
So anyone unable to produce an output valued in excess of £6.31 per hour (which some mentally disabled people cannot do, through no fault of their own) should not have any job.
Not so sure that's a completely meritorious stance, but I understand.
It's called piece work, it finds favour in the Bangladesh garment industry. ("skilled" trades, especially in construction use it as well, but mainly for the tax avoidance opportunities)
Osbourne has caused an economic crisis worldwide?
Of course you would be insane to infer that, only Brown was powerful enough ?
1. rubbishing your competition ultimatley means rubbishing your industry as people believe youre all the same
2. It's obviously displacement theory as Labour have bugger all to say on what matters.
More stupid politics from the Stupid Party.
Much the same in most cases, often an electrician will have a flat fee per kitchen in a housing build. Floor layers price by the meter, garment factories by the unit, price or piece it is the same principle.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-says-david-camerons-tories-in-the-gutter-as-2015-election-strategist-lynton-crosby-pushes-party-towards-the-politics-of-division-8959798.html
Think of the fun we will have during the election over who said what, or indeed promised (in a cast iron way)?
Does this mean Scotland could now mean EdIsNotPM in total contrast to what we thought before the referendum?
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6tiwcres1f/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-141014.pdf
The real sea-change is that the potential is suddenly huge. If they win Rochester, pick up a couple of defections and continue to benefit from a favorable political wind, you could see them winning twenty or more. Conversely, it's hard to see them winning less than two now.
What a pity there's no spread betting on it.
Or Thatcher.
Wait till we see proper full polls.
We saw how the Scottish part of the YouGov panel operated during the IndyRef.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-be-likely-to-vote-in-a-uk-general-election#table
1) Sample sizes are tiny (typically N~150, MoE ±8) which make them useless on their own.
2) The demographic and political weighting is applied at GB-wide level, not to every individual subset.
The first of these problems is easily overcome by aggregating a number of polls. The second might just have a clever fix as I'll hopefully be able to demonstrate tomorrow...
What I find most telling there is the approval/disapproval ratings. Across every region, disapproval of the Government's record runs at between 52% and 62%. Even the South is at 53% disapprove.
Cameron is toast.
It felt a bit out of character too - Miliband chose not to get it, to be unintellectual - something that must irk him - just so that he could land a blow. I guess someone else is directing him, and it's going to get nasty.
Mind you, I'm also disappointed that Cameron didn't feel confident enough to back Freud whose point was obviously good-natured and socially responsible.
Anyway margin calls should kick in New York now, and there is a record amount of margin debt, close to a trillion dollars.
People will be forced to sell their stocks to cover their position.
How will Hugh spin this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29634122
See, the police do *sometimes* get off their fat arses and do something....
Numbercruncher Will await your figures tomorrow
The west Lothian Question will gain new legs if as they think the SNP win 17 seats and hold the balance of power.
According to them, Libdems would be left with only Lewes, Bath, Eastleigh, Torbay, St Ives, Thornbury & Yate, Carshalton & Wallington, Twickenham, Cambridge & North Norfolk in the south of England.
It's the same law of unintended consequences and short term gain, that lead to energy firms freezing higher prices after he threatened them.
Good to see the leading charities were consulted etc
Still, now they favour these poor souls spending the day gazing out of their care home window.. bloody red tape eh?
No rate increases by any central bank, ever.
Perhaps you did not do so because it does not show the movements you are looking for
If it is all about the dignity of work, why do those at the top demand ever more? Do they lack dignity?
Governments and central banks have focused on stock prices, house prices, inflation and interest rates for so long and all the time they failed.
Proving Goodhart's Law correct, to those not familiar with it, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
On the other hand there is the more emotive meaning of your "worth" as an individual. This is what is being picked up on. As Freud has been in and around politics since 2006 you would have thought he would understand the nuance.
Of course one method of trying to get disabled people into work would be a subsidy whereby the employer paid say £4 and the state the other £2.50, the employee would still be getting the minimum wage, just not all of it from the same source.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29626429
Or at least couldn't be bothered to look after his flock. Is standing down, Camborne and Redruth Tory MP George Eustice with majority of 66 must be relieved he isn't facing the heartless baastard.
Line from the ebola story on the BBC site (only the third most important, which slightly surprised me):
"US health officials are seeking 132 people who took the same flight as a Texas nurse on the day before she came down with symptoms of Ebola."
That's rather a lot.
SNP taking Ross & Cromarty, Alexander holding Inverness.
Con taking Southport, Yeovil and Colchester.
Word it however you like, but in the end you come up with the fact that the "disabled" are not entitled to the minimum wage that their fellow workers enjoy.
Argue, by all means, that the minimum wage needs to be abolished, but please stop with the posturing.
Freud issued an unreserved apology, so he must have thought the statement was ill advised.
Unfortunately the media are downplaying it until it's too late, and then they panic when it's all over.
At some point, no feasible drop in average number of votes in lost seats can make up for the low polling scores. The question is where that point might be.
You can put in a vote share (and estimated number of votes) and then estimate how many votes (on average) will be in seats won and what the average vote score will be in seats lost. That will give you (subject to your estimates) a seat score.
For example, last time round, the Lib Dems scored 21,610 votes (on average) in seats won and 9,763 in seats not won. In 1997, they scored 21,895 in seats won and 7,068 in seats not won - a more efficient vote distribution.
If we assume a turnout about 65%, there will be about 25 million votes. So shares of:
6% = 1.5m
7% = 1.75m
8% = 2.0m
9% = 2.25m
10% = 2.5m
11% = 2.75m
12% = 3.0m
Assume about 20,000 votes in seats won, then we can estimate seats retained for assumptions of votes in lost seats. They're not going to be doing better in seats not won than in 1997, I'd say. But how low can they go? About 1900 votes is deposit-losing time. An average of losing deposits in lost seats would, I feel, be highly unlikely and we needn't bother going lower than that. So for not-very-much targetting, 7,000 seats in lost seats; for incredible targetting, 2,000 votes in lost seats.
At 6%, it's disastrous. The average votes scored in seats not won has to be around a near-deposit-losing 2000 to retain even 13 seats. There just aren't enough votes to go around.
At 8%, still pretty bad. They'd retain 6 seats if the average score in lost seats was 3,000, but 41 seats if the average score was 2,000. I think that's unfeasibly low, though.
At 10%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 could still see them retain 36 seats. 2,000 would lead to implausible gains of 12 seats (!). 4,000 average votes in lost seats would see them retain no seats at all.
At 12%, an average score in lost seats of 3,000 sees them hold all seats and make gains again (!). An average of 4,000 sees them down at 30 seats.
So - it's all down to how few votes they get (waste) in lost seats. And below 8% sees no plausible way to retain more than a very few number of seats. Above 12% and there's all to play for. Between those numbers, and its anyone's guess.
Interestingly, it looks set to be between those numbers ...
CON 29
UKIP 26
LAB 24
LD 14
I was surprised that Maguire and Pierce on the Sky paper review a night or two ago were so relaxed about it, citing stats showing (no doubt correctly) more people die each from influenza or malaria.
The high mortality rate (over 70%) coupled with the rapid increase in the number of infections makes ebola a different kettle of fish.
We had about 10 profoundly deaf kids at my primary school [we had the local deaf unit teacher on staff] and it really helped me to understand some of the issues/think of them as just another kid like me - and that some of the difficult behaviour was frustration, more than anything else. There was no fear of *telling* on anyone who pinched or shoved you.
How commonplace is this today? I could see some advantages in Remploy, but I'd rather bring the disabled into the workplace whenever we can - and stop being so blinking PC about it. Whenever I think about this - one guy springs to mind. He used to speed about our open-plan offices in his souped-up wheelchair and would deliberately run-over the toes of anyone who tried to patronise him. It was a great ice breaker, if a trifle OTT.
When Ebola strikes, it will be very messy and your BUPA policy will not be worth a thing...
Governments and businesses don't have the right people to attend to details before those details blow up in their face, and that happens throughout written history, it's what causes historical events.
Having said that the Fed is trying to pull the market back with wonderful forcast for the future, but how many times will that trick work?
I must also comment Cameron's consistent reference of his personal experience with his disabled son as defence against government policies as they effect disabled people in general is wearing a bit thin and means he has made this intensely personal matter of the loss of his son Ivan public property.He cannot continue with this form of emotional blackmail and needs to separate the personal from the political.He must not allow this personal matter to become a political devise.
Why do they have these Crazies on.
There would be no minimum wage at all if it was down to the ASI
Of course the Tories pretend they support the minimum wage now despite warning it was a dangerous socialist evil that would cost 000's of jobs when it was introduced.