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.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the claims that Ebola is quite hard to catch is basically well intentioned don't scare the people propaganda.
It is beginning to seem to me that it is about as hard to catch as Norovirus.
Just got back from work so going through all the old links.. not sure if this one has been posted. Maybe just some over-excited MPs reading too much into a lack of a denial?
"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"
Well said. Unfortunately while profit is the only measure of our civilization you will get people who think like that (if indeed 'thinking' isn't too flattering a word)
@Speedy, At 6%, I can't see them holding more than a slack handful of seats. Say they were to retain 15 seats at an average vote score of 20,000 per seat won. That's 300,000 votes. At 6%, they're only going to get a total of 1,500,000 votes. They're therefore going to have to average 1900 votes in seats lost (the deposit threshold) for the numbers to add up, in that scenario. Given that in some lost seats, they'll be close to having won, in the less hopeful seats, mid-range seats and no-hope seats, that average score is going to have to be even lower. Not that feasible.
If Shadsy is right, it would mean that over 600,000 of however many votes are won by the Lib Dems are in those 31 seats. At 6%, it needs them to average 1500 votes in all 600 seats in which they stood and lost At 8%, 2,333 votes At 10%, 3,167 votes At 12%, 4,000 votes.
In 1997, they averaged 7,000 in lost seats. I can see maybe 3,000-4,000 in lost seats on average, if they targetted relentlessly and pulled off maximum incumbency. It's up to personal guessing, though, but I think it implies in excess of a 10% score for 30+ seats.
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
Of course, we can't make any real judgements on VI here until we see properly weighted polls. The early post-referendum ones showed a high level of Don't Knows, so the "certain to vote and decided" figures are probably fairly useless. Across all the pollsters, most of the Scots crossbreaks have shown a large increase in the SNP vote - but they are only crossbreaks on wee samples - so there could be some systemic problem with the pollster methodologies when including the Scots sample.
Looking at "GB" VI seems somewhat pointless at the moment. Those pollsters (like Ipsos-MORI) which give an English crossbreak seem much more useful in estimating party support in the largest of the UK's four polities.
The English VI in today's MORI was Lab 34% : Con 32% : UKIP 18% : LD 8% : Grn 6% : BNP 1%
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?
Agreed. Ironically, the larger the loss, the better for them (as it implies the average votes in lost seats goes down)
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
Because they are forced to by a statist government. Dosen't end well though as USSR and Yugoslavia discovered.
If Labour had any sense the word Remploy would be mentioned.
MS There are big variations in disability, indeed I myself have a Scoliosis I had to get corrected, but for someone with severe physical or mental disability it will be very difficult to persuade any employer to take them on even at minimum wage in preference to an able bodied candidate, this allows some way to get into the workplace
But with UKIP on the scene, under FPTP the votes needed to win a seat falls. The 20,000 to win is probably no longer relevant. See Eastleigh, 2013 for example...
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Of course, we can't make any real judgements on VI here until we see properly weighted polls. The early post-referendum ones showed a high level of Don't Knows, so the "certain to vote and decided" figures are probably fairly useless. Across all the pollsters, most of the Scots crossbreaks have shown a large increase in the SNP vote - but they are only crossbreaks on wee samples - so there could be some systemic problem with the pollster methodologies when including the Scots sample.
Looking at "GB" VI seems somewhat pointless at the moment. Those pollsters (like Ipsos-MORI) which give an English crossbreak seem much more useful in estimating party support in the largest of the UK's four polities.
The English VI in today's MORI was Lab 34% : Con 32% : UKIP 18% : LD 8% : Grn 6% : BNP 1%
I'm still trying to figure out why your avatar is Obe Wan Kenobi is drinking a pint :-)
But with UKIP on the scene, under FPTP the votes needed to win a seat falls. The 20,000 to win is probably no longer relevant. See Eastleigh, 2013 for example...
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.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the claims that Ebola is quite hard to catch is basically well intentioned don't scare the people propaganda.
It is beginning to seem to me that it is about as hard to catch as Norovirus.
I mentioned this a few days ago. At that time 2 health workers treating 2 patients in different western style, hi tec specialist units had got infected. Now it is 3. It is a very small sample but it strongly suggests to me that this disease is a lot easier to catch than was being claimed.
MS There are big variations in disability, indeed I myself have a Scoliosis I had to get corrected, but for someone with severe physical or mental disability it will be very difficult to persuade any employer to take them on even at minimum wage in preference to an able bodied candidate, this allows some way to get into the workplace
An employer in the private sector will take on someone to do a job that needs to be done. And if it needs to be done it deserves the minimum wage. With the best will in the world no private sector employer is going to take on someone who cannot do the job, even if they get to pay them less.
Of course, we can't make any real judgements on VI here until we see properly weighted polls. The early post-referendum ones showed a high level of Don't Knows, so the "certain to vote and decided" figures are probably fairly useless. Across all the pollsters, most of the Scots crossbreaks have shown a large increase in the SNP vote - but they are only crossbreaks on wee samples - so there could be some systemic problem with the pollster methodologies when including the Scots sample.
Looking at "GB" VI seems somewhat pointless at the moment. Those pollsters (like Ipsos-MORI) which give an English crossbreak seem much more useful in estimating party support in the largest of the UK's four polities.
The English VI in today's MORI was Lab 34% : Con 32% : UKIP 18% : LD 8% : Grn 6% : BNP 1%
I'm still trying to figure out why your avatar is Obe Wan Kenobi is drinking a pint :-)
Chose it as representing me when the Clackmananshire referendum result came in! :-)
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
If they were being charitable, no other reason.
So it would not actually be paid work as such.
No, a business may chose to employ a disabled person to do a job that an able bodied person can do much better and pay them the going rate for that job. I am sure that some large companies do this and have policies and procedures in place in this regard. But SMEs who are tendering for every job they do, and where everything is on a fine margin will not and do not do this. That is where we are as a nation and it needs to change. After today it will not.
Of course, we can't make any real judgements on VI here until we see properly weighted polls. The early post-referendum ones showed a high level of Don't Knows, so the "certain to vote and decided" figures are probably fairly useless. Across all the pollsters, most of the Scots crossbreaks have shown a large increase in the SNP vote - but they are only crossbreaks on wee samples - so there could be some systemic problem with the pollster methodologies when including the Scots sample.
Looking at "GB" VI seems somewhat pointless at the moment. Those pollsters (like Ipsos-MORI) which give an English crossbreak seem much more useful in estimating party support in the largest of the UK's four polities.
The English VI in today's MORI was Lab 34% : Con 32% : UKIP 18% : LD 8% : Grn 6% : BNP 1%
I'm still trying to figure out why your avatar is Obe Wan Kenobi is drinking a pint :-)
Chose it as representing me when the Clackmananshire referendum result came in! :-)
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
The economic reward for an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. The economic value may be something totally different.
But with UKIP on the scene, under FPTP the votes needed to win a seat falls. The 20,000 to win is probably no longer relevant. See Eastleigh, 2013 for example...
Very true. Even more chaotic.
Could be the most exciting election night in a while.
Could all the grotesquely cynical lefties on here be clear about what they are actually proposing? All this mealy mouthed crap about 'valuing' and 'entitlement' -Are you actually proposing that businesses should be required to employ disabled candidates who are significantly slower at doing the same job, in preference to able-bodied candidates? Is this what you're saying?
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
Anybody think the Coalition parties might now be regretting their undemocratic imposition of fixed five year parliaments? Difficult to see how anything's going to improve for them over the next seven months - but easy to imagine things getting a lot worse though (especially if the economy tanks).
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.
The internal logic to the argument that Freud was making, was not stupid (especially, I imagine, for students with learning disabilities). The fact that he was a senior politician and said it, in the wording he did, was very stupid. Politicians should always assume there's someone recording these days - doesn't even need to be a plant in the audience with a hidden bug, mobile phones can be used quite openly for all kinds of wizardry.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
If a worker works on £5 worth of raw materials for one hour, and after that hour's work the raw materials have been transformed into goods worth £10, what do you think the economic value of the hour's work is?
Reasons why I will never be an active politician #3,457
"I would like to offer a full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question. To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.
I care passionately about disabled people. I am proud to have played a full part in a government that is fully committed to helping disabled people overcome the many barriers they face in finding employment. That is why through Universal Credit – which I referred to in my response – we have increased overall spending on disabled households by £250m, offered the most generous work allowance ever, and increased the disability addition to £360 per month.
I am profoundly sorry for any offence I have caused to any disabled people."
Could all the grotesquely cynical lefties on here be clear about what they are actually proposing? All this mealy mouthed crap about 'valuing' and 'entitlement' -Are you actually proposing that businesses should be required to employ disabled candidates who are significantly slower at doing the same job, in preference to able-bodied candidates? Is this what you're saying?
I am saying businesses will not employ people who are not able to do the jobs that need to be done. And that if someone can do a job they should be paid what everyone else is paid for doing it.
Off topic - The Dr with NBC News broke her quarantine. Additionally we had Duncan knowingly breaking quarantine. The new case health care worker broke quarantine, became ill on flight...
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
If he is doing the same job as a more-abled person, no, the pay should be the same. If he has less responsibilities/duties because of his disability, then the job is different, and your point isn't valid.
@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.
Why would a business ever employ someone to do a worse job than someone else could do?
If they were being charitable, no other reason.
So it would not actually be paid work as such.
That's the whole point isn't it? It's effectively charity but it gives a person who is incapable of getting a job that pays the minimum wage, a sense of purpose, and makes them happy for a while
We are talking about mentally handicapped people who are basically children in a grown ups body doing menial tasks such as gardening to give their life a bit of variety, and someone giving them a token score or something for their effort
I seriously cannot believe that people are accusing Freud and Cameron of being unfeeling about this. Any grown up with common sense would know the deal here. Pretty disgusting to imply these people are being exploited as cheap labour
Quite. Well said. I've worked for a small mental health provider down here - their clients are mainly learning disabled and need warden run care/help with cooking/bills etc.
They live on benefits and have very little chance of ever working in any capacity in the Minimum Wage World. It'd do wonders for their self-esteem to be more useful/broaden their horizons.
I really can't abide using these vulnerable people as ammo in some phoney 24hr news cycle battle. All that's happened is a soundbite for Labour at the cost of all the businesses who'd be receptive to the idea floated, but have been totally scared off. Again.
There's no *caring* for these people from many Labourites here - they're just playing them as pawns, to be forgotten about by Friday morning.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
The problem with that is it makes many disabled people unemployable. Why would you employ someone who needs help to do a job or does less work when you can get someone for the same money who can do the job.
Its incredibly harsh but reality isn't nice. Many disabled people can work and can do jobs that pay well over the minimum wage, many others can do jobs as well as the able bodied but for some its just not practical so they end up never ever working as no one will employ them.
Could all the grotesquely cynical lefties on here be clear about what they are actually proposing? All this mealy mouthed crap about 'valuing' and 'entitlement' -Are you actually proposing that businesses should be required to employ disabled candidates who are significantly slower at doing the same job, in preference to able-bodied candidates? Is this what you're saying?
I am saying businesses will not employ people who are not able to do the jobs that need to be done. And that if someone can do a job they should be paid what everyone else is paid for doing it.
businesses will not employ people who are not able to do the jobs that need to be done.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
If a worker works on £5 worth of raw materials for one hour, and after that hour's work the raw materials have been transformed into goods worth £10, what do you think the economic value of the hour's work is?
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
How many jobs are there that a severely disabled person could do as well as an able bodied person? If a disabled person can do a job as well as an able bodied then there is not an issue. What Freud was talking about was the severely disabled people who cannot compete in a jobs market and are therefore permanently unemployed.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
If he is doing the same job as a more-abled person, no, the pay should be the same. If he has less responsibilities/duties because of his disability, then the job is different, and your point isn't valid.
Of course it is. A job is offered because it needs to be done. And if it needs to be done it should be paid at minimum wage levels, at a minimum.
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.
For anyone interested the WHO have put up their latest situation report.
It is just shy of 9k cases now. The key issue remains a lack of beds, with only 21% of the required beds in Liberia and 29% in Sierra Leone. It seems that some progress is being made on building new units but there is a lack of staff to run them. The countries involved are now trying to put more community measures in place as a stopgap but the prognosis is still pretty poor.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
The economic value of an hour's work is the legal minimum wage. No ifs, no buts.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
No. The economic value of an hour's work is variable. From zero to a very high number. The cost of an hour's work is at least the legal minimum wage (whether for an adult, youngster or apprentice; this varies). If the cost is greater than the value, it will not happen. Therefore those unable to produce a value greater than the cost will not be employed.
I don't care about intentions, good or otherwise. The outcome of your stance is a life on benefits for many. No ifs, no buts.
And will you please stop acting as though the value of my work (or that of others) equates to my worth as a person!
Quite. Well said. I've worked for a small mental health provider down here - their clients are mainly learning disabled and need warden run care/help with cooking/bills etc.
They live on benefits and have very little chance of ever working in any capacity in the Minimum Wage World. It'd do wonders for their self-esteem to be more useful/broaden their horizons.
I really can't abide using these vulnerable people as ammo in some phoney 24hr news cycle battle. All that's happened is a soundbite for Labour at the cost of all the businesses who'd be receptive to the idea floated, but have been totally scared off. Again.
There's no *caring* for these people from many Labourites here - they're just playing them as pawns, to be forgotten about by Friday morning.
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
It;s simply empty headed Ed playing the news cycle since he has nothing else to say.
Just got back from work so going through all the old links.. not sure if this one has been posted. Maybe just some over-excited MPs reading too much into a lack of a denial?
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.
They had him on because they couldn't find anyone else who is willing to support Freud's vile views.
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
Ironically, I find the Labour Party's stance on this to be utterly vile. Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits? I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
Bolded addressed. Argument not valid: the duration of the work done is important (as the pay is on duration). He may well be able to do the same job but in twice the time. Therefore he'll lose out in competition with the non-disabled.
The idea that he could be subsidised to hold that job would work out for him (he'd have a job, with the concomitant benefits to self-esteem and actualisation), the employer wouldn't lose out, and we'd have more economic activity.
Reasons why I will never be an active politician #3,457
"I would like to offer a full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question. To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.
I care passionately about disabled people. I am proud to have played a full part in a government that is fully committed to helping disabled people overcome the many barriers they face in finding employment. That is why through Universal Credit – which I referred to in my response – we have increased overall spending on disabled households by £250m, offered the most generous work allowance ever, and increased the disability addition to £360 per month.
I am profoundly sorry for any offence I have caused to any disabled people."
This is a story?
I find it pathetic that politicans/celebs never tough it out and defend what they say when subject to a media hoo-haah. They always cravenly apologise.
Except - Fargle - Compare and contrast with Fargle defending his HIV/Immigrant comment.
Whether people agree with the initial comment or not I suspect they have far more respect for someone willing to defend it than someone who cravenly apologises to the bien-pensant bullies.
Couldn't agree more. The grovelling isn't necessary. It reminds me of the mea culpas of zelebs caught doing something nefarious by the defunct NOTW... and then *going into rehab* for a month as a form of media induced purgatory.
Reasons why I will never be an active politician #3,457
"I would like to offer a full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question. To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.
I care passionately about disabled people. I am proud to have played a full part in a government that is fully committed to helping disabled people overcome the many barriers they face in finding employment. That is why through Universal Credit – which I referred to in my response – we have increased overall spending on disabled households by £250m, offered the most generous work allowance ever, and increased the disability addition to £360 per month.
I am profoundly sorry for any offence I have caused to any disabled people."
This is a story?
I find it pathetic that politicans/celebs never tough it out and defend what they say when subject to a media hoo-haah. They always cravenly apologise.
Except - Fargle - Compare and contrast with Fargle defending his HIV/Immigrant comment.
Whether people agree with the initial comment or not I suspect they have far more respect for someone willing to defend it than someone who cravenly apologises to the bien-pensant bullies.
Do you think your son should be paid less to do a job than someone who is not disabled? If your son is not able to do a job do you think an employer is likely to give him one even if he can legally be paid less?
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
I think you're right and wrong. "They can either do the job or they can't" is obviously utter trite nonsense. People have different abilities at a job. Clearly some people are better at their jobs than others. Pay scales often reward people who are particularly good, as would piece-work. So what about people who are particularly bad? Usually they get fired, or not hired in the first place.
Perhaps the truth is they can do the job but only to an extent. I used to go to a cafe run on a charitable basis, where many of the serving and kitchen staff had pretty profound learning disabilities (once upon a time they'd be called the "mentally handicapped"). The place didn't collapse or grind to a halt because of that, the design and management was intended to cope around it. But apart from a handful of the less severely disabled ones, no conventional cafe or restaurant owner would have wanted to hire them as serving staff. They could serve (sometimes it was necessary for customers to show quite extreme patience, but eventually your order would be taken and communicated and you'd get some grub), but they simply wouldn't have been able to do the job to the level that would have been desired by the management.
As such, it wouldn't have made much difference if the government offered some sort of wage top-up scheme. Serving staff would be a public face of their establishment, and if the staff were unable to meet certain expectations that diners at a conventional restaurant had, state subsidy wouldn't put it right. Perhaps some sort of subsidy might have made the backroom staff more attractive. (Suppose par is that you can wash X dishes per hour, a good employee can do more, maybe you wouldn't mind an employee who can only do 0.5X so long as there's a something to balance out the extra cost.) But I'm not convinced that would shift many conventional employers, to be honest.
On the other hand, that sort of subsidy might make a social enterprise viable that would be relying on charity otherwise. I don't think it makes a really substantive difference whether the mechanism is that the company pays a lower wage and the state tops it up (though superficially that sounds ghastly which is why I think the good lord was foolish for suggesting it in that manner) or that the company pays the full wage because the state has transferred it the cash that allows it to do so, or even if it is all worked out through a tax incentive which is economically equivalent to a cash hand-out.
Anybody think the Coalition parties might now be regretting their undemocratic imposition of fixed five year parliaments? Difficult to see how anything's going to improve for them over the next seven months - but easy to imagine things getting a lot worse though (especially if the economy tanks).
Bolded addressed. Argument not valid: the duration of the work done is important (as the pay is on duration). He may well be able to do the same job but in twice the time. Therefore he'll lose out in competition with the non-disabled.
The idea that he could be subsidised to hold that job would work out for him (he'd have a job, with the concomitant benefits to self-esteem and actualisation), the employer wouldn't lose out, and we'd have more economic activity.
As I replied to SO, I'm skeptical that some sort of subsidy would persuade many employers to change their minds. But I can imagine there being some social enterprise schemes that would cross the threshold of viability if a subsidy were available, and perhaps some large companies might have a unit or two that could do something under their Corporate Social Responsibility mandate.
The reason this row has blown up is the verbal incompetence and political incaution of a guy who really should know better, and a (in my experience of party members generally) largely unjustified sterotype of Tories which this has played right into and will perpetuate. Not that the general British public have an aversion to supporting disabled people into work.
For all those who don't like the idea of Balkanising England >
"The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes. It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.
It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn't going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.
The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons."
I think the confusion results from people not understanding the difference between legislative and administrative devolution.
The nonsense being peddled by a number of MPs about London somehow having different legislative powers than Birmingham suggests that they are probably unfit even to decide their own wine selection in a Commons restaurant.
The principle behind EVEL is simple democracy. The way that corrupt, self-serving bastards (aka MPs) want to implement it probably has less than nothing to do with democracy.
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 constituency poll there in Camborne is:
CON 29 UKIP 26 LAB 24 LD 14
There are lots of ways of looking at this. One approximation is:
LD --> CON - 23% LD --> LAB - 37% CON --> UKIP - 40% LAB --> UKIP - 37%
(With maybe a slightly higher swing to UKIP from the major parties.)
Right wing old embittered white men on the internet love to talk amongst themselves and asses everyone to be like them. The UK is not. The Tories are being killed on this. It is ignorance to how offensive these comments are that explain why the Tories cannot win a majority anymore.
"Asses" wtf? "being killed..." No one has died from this but some have died in Labour's rotten boroughs...
Today it was announced that there had been a record fall in unemployment. "the largest annual fall since records began" 1/2 million less. Wonderful news for those involved and the country.
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.
Is there no polling ombudsman we can complain to with regards the lack of swingback. With the exception of the "Fourgasm" a few weeks back, it's back to small but majority inducing Labour leads.
Today it was announced that there had been a record fall in unemployment. "the largest annual fall since records began" 1/2 million less. Wonderful news for those involved and the country.
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.
*** Picks up TCPoliticalBetting dummy off the floor and offers him it back ****
Comments
It is beginning to seem to me that it is about as hard to catch as Norovirus.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/cameron-hints-at-points-based-immigration-system-in-meeting-with-tory-right/
C4 the latest car-crash for David Cameron and his Nasty Party.
I can't believe Cameron hasn't sacked him.
"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"
Well said. Unfortunately while profit is the only measure of our civilization you will get people who think like that (if indeed 'thinking' isn't too flattering a word)
At 6%, I can't see them holding more than a slack handful of seats. Say they were to retain 15 seats at an average vote score of 20,000 per seat won. That's 300,000 votes.
At 6%, they're only going to get a total of 1,500,000 votes.
They're therefore going to have to average 1900 votes in seats lost (the deposit threshold) for the numbers to add up, in that scenario. Given that in some lost seats, they'll be close to having won, in the less hopeful seats, mid-range seats and no-hope seats, that average score is going to have to be even lower. Not that feasible.
If Shadsy is right, it would mean that over 600,000 of however many votes are won by the Lib Dems are in those 31 seats.
At 6%, it needs them to average 1500 votes in all 600 seats in which they stood and lost
At 8%, 2,333 votes
At 10%, 3,167 votes
At 12%, 4,000 votes.
In 1997, they averaged 7,000 in lost seats. I can see maybe 3,000-4,000 in lost seats on average, if they targetted relentlessly and pulled off maximum incumbency. It's up to personal guessing, though, but I think it implies in excess of a 10% score for 30+ seats.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/
Of course, we can't make any real judgements on VI here until we see properly weighted polls. The early post-referendum ones showed a high level of Don't Knows, so the "certain to vote and decided" figures are probably fairly useless. Across all the pollsters, most of the Scots crossbreaks have shown a large increase in the SNP vote - but they are only crossbreaks on wee samples - so there could be some systemic problem with the pollster methodologies when including the Scots sample.
Looking at "GB" VI seems somewhat pointless at the moment. Those pollsters (like Ipsos-MORI) which give an English crossbreak seem much more useful in estimating party support in the largest of the UK's four polities.
The English VI in today's MORI was Lab 34% : Con 32% : UKIP 18% : LD 8% : Grn 6% : BNP 1%
Even though the "not worth the minimum wage" mentality streaks through the Tory Party, as David Cameron's refusal to sack him shows.
If Labour had any sense the word Remploy would be mentioned.
But with UKIP on the scene, under FPTP the votes needed to win a seat falls. The 20,000 to win is probably no longer relevant. See Eastleigh, 2013 for example...
Is that really the best you can come up with?
Stop digging
The labour critique of the conservatives is clearly being run by teenagers for teenagers.
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Jeremy-Browne-resignation-does-mean-Lib-Dem-seats/story-23181726-detail/story.html
Why condemn the disabled to a life on benefits?
I've got a 10-year-old severely autistic son, so don't even dare consider implying that I'm uncaring on this.
The sanctimonious posturing from the left on this issue is contemptible. All they're doing is deliberately conflating economic value earned with the worth of on individual and using that to distort the meaning of something that could be of real value. Just to try to court popularity.
Even more chaotic.
The Tories clearly disagree and think disabled workers are worth less. Worth less.
The Tories are being killed on this.
It is ignorance to how offensive these comments are that explain why the Tories cannot win a majority anymore.
This deliberate attempt to talk over reasoned argument from neutrals as well as conservatives won't work.
It won't work on here and it won;t work with the electorate.
Either someone can do a job or they can't. If they can they should get what everyone else gets for doing it.
"I would like to offer a full and unreserved apology. I was foolish to accept the premise of the question. To be clear, all disabled people should be paid at least the minimum wage, without exception, and I accept that it is offensive to suggest anything else.
I care passionately about disabled people. I am proud to have played a full part in a government that is fully committed to helping disabled people overcome the many barriers they face in finding employment. That is why through Universal Credit – which I referred to in my response – we have increased overall spending on disabled households by £250m, offered the most generous work allowance ever, and increased the disability addition to £360 per month.
I am profoundly sorry for any offence I have caused to any disabled people."
This is a story?
We are talking about mentally handicapped people who are basically children in a grown ups body doing menial tasks such as gardening to give their life a bit of variety, and someone giving them a token score or something for their effort
I seriously cannot believe that people are accusing Freud and Cameron of being unfeeling about this. Any grown up with common sense would know the deal here. Pretty disgusting to imply these people are being exploited as cheap labour
They live on benefits and have very little chance of ever working in any capacity in the Minimum Wage World. It'd do wonders for their self-esteem to be more useful/broaden their horizons.
I really can't abide using these vulnerable people as ammo in some phoney 24hr news cycle battle. All that's happened is a soundbite for Labour at the cost of all the businesses who'd be receptive to the idea floated, but have been totally scared off. Again.
There's no *caring* for these people from many Labourites here - they're just playing them as pawns, to be forgotten about by Friday morning.
Its incredibly harsh but reality isn't nice. Many disabled people can work and can do jobs that pay well over the minimum wage, many others can do jobs as well as the able bodied but for some its just not practical so they end up never ever working as no one will employ them.
try looking at the boards of banks.
Is this a test?
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136508/1/roadmapsitrep15Oct2014.pdf?ua=1
It is just shy of 9k cases now. The key issue remains a lack of beds, with only 21% of the required beds in Liberia and 29% in Sierra Leone. It seems that some progress is being made on building new units but there is a lack of staff to run them. The countries involved are now trying to put more community measures in place as a stopgap but the prognosis is still pretty poor.
The cost of an hour's work is at least the legal minimum wage (whether for an adult, youngster or apprentice; this varies).
If the cost is greater than the value, it will not happen. Therefore those unable to produce a value greater than the cost will not be employed.
I don't care about intentions, good or otherwise. The outcome of your stance is a life on benefits for many. No ifs, no buts.
And will you please stop acting as though the value of my work (or that of others) equates to my worth as a person!
I thought that had already happened.
???
Welcome to the Tory economy.
The idea that he could be subsidised to hold that job would work out for him (he'd have a job, with the concomitant benefits to self-esteem and actualisation), the employer wouldn't lose out, and we'd have more economic activity.
Except - Fargle - Compare and contrast with Fargle defending his HIV/Immigrant comment.
Whether people agree with the initial comment or not I suspect they have far more respect for someone willing to defend it than someone who cravenly apologises to the bien-pensant bullies.
Welcome to Hugh's worldview.
Perhaps the truth is they can do the job but only to an extent. I used to go to a cafe run on a charitable basis, where many of the serving and kitchen staff had pretty profound learning disabilities (once upon a time they'd be called the "mentally handicapped"). The place didn't collapse or grind to a halt because of that, the design and management was intended to cope around it. But apart from a handful of the less severely disabled ones, no conventional cafe or restaurant owner would have wanted to hire them as serving staff. They could serve (sometimes it was necessary for customers to show quite extreme patience, but eventually your order would be taken and communicated and you'd get some grub), but they simply wouldn't have been able to do the job to the level that would have been desired by the management.
As such, it wouldn't have made much difference if the government offered some sort of wage top-up scheme. Serving staff would be a public face of their establishment, and if the staff were unable to meet certain expectations that diners at a conventional restaurant had, state subsidy wouldn't put it right. Perhaps some sort of subsidy might have made the backroom staff more attractive. (Suppose par is that you can wash X dishes per hour, a good employee can do more, maybe you wouldn't mind an employee who can only do 0.5X so long as there's a something to balance out the extra cost.) But I'm not convinced that would shift many conventional employers, to be honest.
On the other hand, that sort of subsidy might make a social enterprise viable that would be relying on charity otherwise. I don't think it makes a really substantive difference whether the mechanism is that the company pays a lower wage and the state tops it up (though superficially that sounds ghastly which is why I think the good lord was foolish for suggesting it in that manner) or that the company pays the full wage because the state has transferred it the cash that allows it to do so, or even if it is all worked out through a tax incentive which is economically equivalent to a cash hand-out.
The reason this row has blown up is the verbal incompetence and political incaution of a guy who really should know better, and a (in my experience of party members generally) largely unjustified sterotype of Tories which this has played right into and will perpetuate. Not that the general British public have an aversion to supporting disabled people into work.
I think the confusion results from people not understanding the difference between legislative and administrative devolution.
The nonsense being peddled by a number of MPs about London somehow having different legislative powers than Birmingham suggests that they are probably unfit even to decide their own wine selection in a Commons restaurant.
The principle behind EVEL is simple democracy. The way that corrupt, self-serving bastards (aka MPs) want to implement it probably has less than nothing to do with democracy.
LD --> CON - 23%
LD --> LAB - 37%
CON --> UKIP - 40%
LAB --> UKIP - 37%
(With maybe a slightly higher swing to UKIP from the major parties.)
"being killed..." No one has died from this but some have died in Labour's rotten boroughs...
Tonight Newsnight leads with Freuds imprecise communication with faux outrage from charities providing a home to ex Labour spads etc. Attacking an ex Labour Minister made a peer by the Labour Govt.