Clearly, the Corporation tax cut has not led to businesses of any size improving their productivity rates. But we do know that pay for senior executives is rocketing. That has to be paid for and if it isn't happening through productivity gains, what is funding it?
Really? Well my company has ( I own it) and I always try to utilise local labour from IT to everything else. Not always possible but still. Mind you I have had to put the Lamborghini on hold for now to do so and to increase staff morale I have public beatings only once a day now instead of twice daily.
If I recollect correctly you also own or part own a company. I am surprised that you have not seen a similar benefit in one way or another?
The CT rate cut has made no difference to our investment or recruitment. We do what we need to do when we need to do it.
So what have you done with the extra dosh? If you are paying less tax but not investing that money in the business what are you doing with it?
Like many other businesses, maybe just sitting on it.
When the private sector sits on its cash, the government runs a deficit. And vice versa.
How funny. Just as Antifrank posts an article about the public sector building up it's cash piles, whilst cutting services.
Whenever I go abroad especially to work I commonly have to demonstrate in advance I will go home afterwards( return ticket) I have the mean to support myself ( or my company does) etc etc only then can I get the entry visa.
Really? I agree you can't blag your way in without a visa to countries that require it, but I've been to over 20 countries in the last few years, and have never been asked by anyone to prove I can support myself. Perhaps you're applying for some sort of longer-stay work permit? My trips are usually for two days or so, but once in it'd be easy to slip into the underground economy, I imagine.
Ditto - as far as I can tell most visas are a way for countries to get their hands on more foreign currency. That said, UK citizens are unlikely to need visas to visit any high immigration countries, apart from the US.
Got clobbered by the US visa waiver thing a couple of weeks back. They have this god-awful online form that kept crashing and took about half an hour to do on mobile, all so they can collect $19 or something. FFS just make an airport tax...
I was once impounded at Washington DC for not having the right visa. I think the US is about the only democracy in the world that makes journalists covering a story in the country have a special visa - you have to go to the US embassy, demonstrate your credentials, do a mini interview and pay £100 for a five year job. When I got my new passport I changed job title and the online thing has made life a lot easier.
As I'm not going to make it probably at 4pm to see and comment the Ashcroft Rochester poll, I'll give a summary of the main points so far that we know:
2. The Tory candidate is totally crap (see above). 3. The Tory campaign has been a shambles, thanks in part to it's American advisers. 4. The long campaign only served UKIP to gather momentum. 5. The events of the past few weeks, regarding the EU money demand and the EAW mess, only helped UKIP. 6. There is little anti-UKIP vote, but plenty of anti-Tory vote. 7. The LD are on course to be beaten by the Monster Raving Loonies.
For the national picture of the GE campaign, I emphasize points 3,4,6&7 as indicators of strategies and how good parties are organised.
Clearly, the Corporation tax cut has not led to businesses of any size improving their productivity rates. But we do know that pay for senior executives is rocketing. That has to be paid for and if it isn't happening through productivity gains, what is funding it?
Really? Well my company has ( I own it) and I always try to utilise local labour from IT to everything else. Not always possible but still. Mind you I have had to put the Lamborghini on hold for now to do so and to increase staff morale I have public beatings only once a day now instead of twice daily.
If I recollect correctly you also own or part own a company. I am surprised that you have not seen a similar benefit in one way or another?
The CT rate cut has made no difference to our investment or recruitment. We do what we need to do when we need to do it.
So what have you done with the extra dosh? If you are paying less tax but not investing that money in the business what are you doing with it?
Like many other businesses, maybe just sitting on it.
When the private sector sits on its cash, the government runs a deficit. And vice versa.
And vice versa = when cash sits on the private sector, a deficit runs the government?
On an associated note if HMG really wanted to help SMEs one of the most urgent things they could do is to force the big companies to pay their bills on time. A few weeks ago the Labour party put forward some proposals on this that certainly had some merit and would be worth developing. Few seemed to take any notice though.
There have been lots of attempts to do something about slow payment by big companies over the years, but no-one has really found a way which actually works.
Yes indeed, such joys as the Late Payment Of Commercial Debts Act, so you can charge 8.5% annual interest on a late bill, much good that does you when you go bust from lack of cashflow in the mean time! At lot of businesses probably make more than 8.5% by investing their money in growth anyway so paying the debt even in light of the interest payments isn't expecially attractive.
"England’s councils have built up extra reserves of £2.3bn in the past financial year despite the coalition’s austerity programme that has seen cuts bite hard into services such as libraries, parks and planning offices."
" “The Treasury is amazed by councils’ abilities to implement the cuts, I’m amazed as well,” said Tony Travers, professor of government at the London School of Economics."
If I lived in an area that had seen cuts in Library services and parks, whilst the council built up reserves, I'd be organising a pretty vociferous protest outside their offices. A few thousand angry locals and threat of bricks through the windows would refocus minds pretty smartish.
Thurrock and Havering councils think the best way of saving money is to merge with parts of inner london like newham and hackney... I wonder why havering and Thurrock seem to be big Ukip areas all of a sudden??
Somehow, I doubt the area's going UKIP solely for council/financial reasons.
On an associated note if HMG really wanted to help SMEs one of the most urgent things they could do is to force the big companies to pay their bills on time. A few weeks ago the Labour party put forward some proposals on this that certainly had some merit and would be worth developing. Few seemed to take any notice though.
There have been lots of attempts to do something about slow payment by big companies over the years, but no-one has really found a way which actually works.
Yes indeed, such joys as the Late Payment Of Commercial Debts Act, so you can charge 8.5% annual interest on a late bill, much good that does you when you go bust from lack of cashflow in the mean time! At lot of businesses probably make more than 8.5% by investing their money in growth anyway so paying the debt even in light of the interest payments isn't expecially attractive.
Not to mention that no small biz would apply it to a large customer that they wanted to keep.
The NICs shown are net of the payments for the NHS in the period (£20.8billion) so approximately 20% of NICs fund the NHS.
Of benefit payment out of the fund, state pension represent £82.5 billion and of the remaining £6.5 billion half go on employment and support allowances. Incapacity benefits have more than halved since 2012/13.
I note that payments out are more than payments in, but this is supposed to be an actuarially based fund so over time this should be neutral.
I'm just interested in the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems.
The Green vote fell in both council by elections fought last week as it has in almost every by election since June . whatever the polls are measuring they are not measuring this fall in support correctly
"England’s councils have built up extra reserves of £2.3bn in the past financial year despite the coalition’s austerity programme that has seen cuts bite hard into services such as libraries, parks and planning offices."
" “The Treasury is amazed by councils’ abilities to implement the cuts, I’m amazed as well,” said Tony Travers, professor of government at the London School of Economics."
If I lived in an area that had seen cuts in Library services and parks, whilst the council built up reserves, I'd be organising a pretty vociferous protest outside their offices. A few thousand angry locals and threat of bricks through the windows would refocus minds pretty smartish.
Thurrock and Havering councils think the best way of saving money is to merge with parts of inner london like newham and hackney... I wonder why havering and Thurrock seem to be big Ukip areas all of a sudden??
Somehow, I doubt the area's going UKIP solely for council/financial reasons.
Somehow I don't think that was the point I was making!
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 17 mins17 minutes ago 34% of 2010 LDs in latest ICM now DKs or refusers. Very high
That's 8% of a very specific slice of the electorate seriously up for grabs. The next election could be won and lost on this group alone.
Well, if they’re anything like me, first of all, I don’t know whether’s going to be a LD candidate or not. Seen no sign of life! Secondly I’m NOT HAPPY with several things to which they’ve been party in Government starting with the mess over Tuition fees. I’ve no doubt that in principle they did the right thing by the country by going into Coalition, though. However, I’ve very little confidence in current Labour policies (what they?). I’m certainly not going to vote UKIP-lite (the present Tory MP). I might vote Green but I don’t like one or two of their attitudes and policies. So yes, I’m a DK and could be a NOTA.
On an associated note if HMG really wanted to help SMEs one of the most urgent things they could do is to force the big companies to pay their bills on time. A few weeks ago the Labour party put forward some proposals on this that certainly had some merit and would be worth developing. Few seemed to take any notice though.
There have been lots of attempts to do something about slow payment by big companies over the years, but no-one has really found a way which actually works.
Yes indeed, such joys as the Late Payment Of Commercial Debts Act, so you can charge 8.5% annual interest on a late bill, much good that does you when you go bust from lack of cashflow in the mean time! At lot of businesses probably make more than 8.5% by investing their money in growth anyway so paying the debt even in light of the interest payments isn't expecially attractive.
Not to mention that no small biz would apply it to a large customer that they wanted to keep.
That was one of the bits that caught my eye about the recent Labour proposal, it was to be compulsory and seemed to ensure that a supplier could not be victimised for insisting on fair terms of trade.
"England’s councils have built up extra reserves of £2.3bn in the past financial year despite the coalition’s austerity programme that has seen cuts bite hard into services such as libraries, parks and planning offices."
" “The Treasury is amazed by councils’ abilities to implement the cuts, I’m amazed as well,” said Tony Travers, professor of government at the London School of Economics."
Perfect timing
Councils are in crisis – and it happened on Nick Clegg’s watch
English councils will soon have lost almost a quarter of their funding in five years thanks to coalition policies
On an associated note if HMG really wanted to help SMEs one of the most urgent things they could do is to force the big companies to pay their bills on time. A few weeks ago the Labour party put forward some proposals on this that certainly had some merit and would be worth developing. Few seemed to take any notice though.
There have been lots of attempts to do something about slow payment by big companies over the years, but no-one has really found a way which actually works.
Yes indeed, such joys as the Late Payment Of Commercial Debts Act, so you can charge 8.5% annual interest on a late bill, much good that does you when you go bust from lack of cashflow in the mean time! At lot of businesses probably make more than 8.5% by investing their money in growth anyway so paying the debt even in light of the interest payments isn't expecially attractive.
Not to mention that no small biz would apply it to a large customer that they wanted to keep.
That was one of the bits that caught my eye about the recent Labour proposal, it was to be compulsory and seemed to ensure that a supplier could not be victimised for insisting on fair terms of trade.
Some years ago there was a “joke” among small organisations that supplied supermarkets.
Q. What’s the difference between a supermarket buyer and a terrorist?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 17 mins17 minutes ago 34% of 2010 LDs in latest ICM now DKs or refusers. Very high
That's 8% of a very specific slice of the electorate seriously up for grabs. The next election could be won and lost on this group alone.
Well, if they’re anything like me, first of all, I don’t know whether’s going to be a LD candidate or not. Seen no sign of life! Secondly I’m NOT HAPPY with several things to which they’ve been party in Government starting with the mess over Tuition fees. I’ve no doubt that in principle they did the right thing by the country by going into Coalition, though. However, I’ve very little confidence in current Labour policies (what they?). I’m certainly not going to vote UKIP-lite (the present Tory MP). I might vote Green but I don’t like one or two of their attitudes and policies. So yes, I’m a DK and could be a NOTA.
If you look at the average of the Populus polls this month you come to a different conclusion. There is a reduction in don't knows, corresponding to an increase in LD retention, compared with the average over the period since Feb.
In truth, we could argue the non-EU migrant has "crossed our border" as soon as they've entered the EU because once inside the EU they can go more or less anywhere it seems.
Schengen.....?
After visiting CERN near Geneva several weeks back I could walk along the main road into France and back again into Switzerland without anyone checking my passport. Customs posts still in situ, but no one manning them.
"England’s councils have built up extra reserves of £2.3bn in the past financial year despite the coalition’s austerity programme that has seen cuts bite hard into services such as libraries, parks and planning offices."
" “The Treasury is amazed by councils’ abilities to implement the cuts, I’m amazed as well,” said Tony Travers, professor of government at the London School of Economics."
If I lived in an area that had seen cuts in Library services and parks, whilst the council built up reserves, I'd be organising a pretty vociferous protest outside their offices. A few thousand angry locals and threat of bricks through the windows would refocus minds pretty smartish.
Thurrock and Havering councils think the best way of saving money is to merge with parts of inner london like newham and hackney... I wonder why havering and Thurrock seem to be big Ukip areas all of a sudden??
Somehow, I doubt the area's going UKIP solely for council/financial reasons.
No one in their right mind would want to merge with Hackney and Newham.
In truth, we could argue the non-EU migrant has "crossed our border" as soon as they've entered the EU because once inside the EU they can go more or less anywhere it seems.
Schengen.....?
After visiting CERN near Geneva several weeks back I could walk along the main road into France and back again into Switzerland without anyone checking my passport. Customs posts still in situ, but no one manning them.
To be fair, around that part of the world, sub-atomic particles do that several thousand times a second.
In truth, we could argue the non-EU migrant has "crossed our border" as soon as they've entered the EU because once inside the EU they can go more or less anywhere it seems.
Schengen.....?
After visiting CERN near Geneva several weeks back I could walk along the main road into France and back again into Switzerland without anyone checking my passport. Customs posts still in situ, but no one manning them.
To be fair, around that part of the world, sub-atomic particles do that several thousand times a second.
"England’s councils have built up extra reserves of £2.3bn in the past financial year despite the coalition’s austerity programme that has seen cuts bite hard into services such as libraries, parks and planning offices."
" “The Treasury is amazed by councils’ abilities to implement the cuts, I’m amazed as well,” said Tony Travers, professor of government at the London School of Economics."
If I lived in an area that had seen cuts in Library services and parks, whilst the council built up reserves, I'd be organising a pretty vociferous protest outside their offices. A few thousand angry locals and threat of bricks through the windows would refocus minds pretty smartish.
This is really rather good news. It shows there is room for more cuts. If reserves have gone up then not only is there room for the equivalent in cuts over the next 4 years but the extra reserves can be clawed back as well. It may well be prudent to shield against further cuts, to “smooth” the impact as the authorities say, but we need a govt to make those cuts.
The FT points out thet local authiorities have lost half a million jobs since 2010. I think we need to return a tory govt to keep that going.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
FWIW Fall out from yesterday. 1. May will have lost some MP support in any future Leadership bid. Could be fatal if she cannot get into the top 2 from the MPs.
2. Cameron may have provided ammunition to the UKIP waiverers and the "cannot be trusted" line. Not a good place to be. What smart alec amongst Osborne, Gove and May advised Cameron that "no EAW vote" was the best choice? File under Stupid Own Goal.
Where I part company with the Osbornians is in two aspects of the recovery - first, the jobs created seem to be overwhelmingly low-paid so are not helping the overall public finance problem. Indeed, some of those now in work can still claim benefits and aren't paying much if anything in tax. The second aspect is that while labour is so cheap and plentiful to hire, there's little incentive for companies to make the serious capital investment in technology that would move them forward.
....
Productivity is key and a major worry, symptomatic of our policies of deskilling our workforce due to low IQ immigration and expanding the labour pool de-incentivising capital investment.
I thought the figures showed immigrants were more likely to have a degree that Brits. Not altogether surprising of course, given that immigrants are younger, but IIRC it still apllies if you compare immigrants with their British age group.
I seem to dimly recall, from my time in SE Lancs in the 60’s, that immigrants were employed to keep night-shifts going.
Those mills oop north would have been better off in investing in automating as much of their production process as possible, immigration proved to be a very short term fix with disastrous long term consequences for society as a whole. Reminds me of those farmers who complain about not being able to employ slave, sorry I mean low wage workers, brought in. We have the technology and machines to automate the picking process, just with our lax immigration laws the farmers have no incentive to mechanise and thus boost productivity.
From my own experience if you ask a guy with an IQ of 80, assuming they can do the job, the work will be done slower and to a lower standard than someone of IQ 100. Quality of workforce matters a great deal.
The mills were automated, indeed the mills started the automation process.
We have seen that many many hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created at a time when 500,000 local authority jobs have gone. The received wisdom is that all these jobs are low paid. But just what are these jobs then? Its a lot of jobs, they must be adding a lot of productivity somewhere. Would it be reasonable to expect a jobs surge on this scale to be all for highly skilled well paid jobs?
Torygraph back on message. Bercow said the motion didn't mention the EAW and it didn't. Tories blaming Bercow for disclosing the subterfuge when they were hoping no one would notice.
Ha, ha! IN YOUR FACE, DAILY TELEGRAPH. I've just found out that when I open up a 'private browsing' window in Firefox, it circumvents the irritating monthly article limit. *does little jig*
Ha, ha! IN YOUR FACE, DAILY TELEGRAPH. I've just found out that when I open up a 'private browsing' window in Firefox, it circumvents the irritating monthly article limit. *does little jig*
"Average consumer borrowing (including credit cards, motor and retail finance deals, overdrafts and unsecured loans) per UK adult was £3,204 in January. This is up from a revised £3,153 in December."
Unsecured debt rising.
Genuine question.
Yes Ben - that rise was LESS than inflation well spotted.
LOL, it is higher but using an imaginary inflation number higher is lower. Do they or do they not owe more money than last year you turnip head.
Open Europe @OpenEurope 33m33 minutes ago #BREAKING: #ECJ rules that it is lawful to exclude EU migrants from receiving German unemployment benefits (HartzIV). #Germany
Playing right into Farage's hands - oh wait..
Benefits aren't the issue when migrants are forcing british people into them
With Britain having record absolute numbers of people in employment and rapidly approaching record percentages of people in employment, fortunately that seems to be an entirely theoretical problem.
The eligibility of in work benefits might be a bigger issue for the UK.
"there were 5.3 million working age benefit claimants at February 2014 – a decrease of 386,000 in the year to February 2014"
That looks like a pretty good story to me if we look at the overall picture rather than cherrypicking statistics to paint a doom-and-gloom picture. It certainly doesn't suggest that migrants are forcing British people into benefits.
HMG claimed it created 598,000 new jobs last year, if only 386,000 people came off benefit, 212,000 jobs were taken by people not on benefits (ie migrants), those 212,000 jobs could have been taken by British people, but werent.
A brief look shows that as far as official records go native Britons have made up 76% of the increase in the number of people in work. This apparantly is not nthe same as 'new jobs'. other stats say that over 90% of new jobs taken by British nationals. Which ever way ... there are a lot of new jobs being created and the number going to immigrants does not seem particularly excessive although I would have liked to think that more UK citizens could have filled them. This is the real problem, the native people are there but either will not or cannot work.
On jobs, I assume that if a council hives off it's Care Homes to some sort of private or not-for-profit company that it's down as having lost however many jobs. Equally, since there are (near enough) the same number of jobs required to do that work in the private sector then it's down in the figures as job creation.
Ha, ha! IN YOUR FACE, DAILY TELEGRAPH. I've just found out that when I open up a 'private browsing' window in Firefox, it circumvents the irritating monthly article limit. *does little jig*
It's the little things...
you can just delete the cookies instead
Yeah, but cookies make my life easier on so many other sites, and I can't be arsed to sift through them to just delete the telegraph ones.
Ha, ha! IN YOUR FACE, DAILY TELEGRAPH. I've just found out that when I open up a 'private browsing' window in Firefox, it circumvents the irritating monthly article limit. *does little jig*
It's the little things...
you can just delete the cookies instead
Yeah, but cookies make my life easier on so many other sites, and I can't be arsed to sift through them to just delete the telegraph ones.
It's a cracking job to have; grace and favour appt plus all the other benefits, in exchange for simply getting on with the job of being a neutral speaker and not attracting controversy. How difficult can that be?
What I want to know is why the f*ck has the Tory majority price gone out as the gap between Labour and Conservativs has decreased in the polls.
Same idiots piling into the 3-1 as who are now laying off at 5s and 6s ?
Sensible reasons would be: 1) UKIP looking more and more like they're here to stay rather than going to fizzle by 2015, whereas the main hope for Con Maj was that the defectors from Con go back to Con. 2) The theory behind Con Maj already had the gap closing at this point, and it's not closing fast enough. Tick-tock, Clarice.
Change with respect to October MEF. Still on course for a very hung Parliament....
I suspect before too long we will have a "What if there is a tie in Lab and Con seats?" thread....
Ladbrokes offer "Lab & Cons to win same number of seats" at 33/1, which is in from 50/1. This looked like a poor bet at 50/1, never mind 33/1.
There would probably be a lot of small print on that bet too. If it is a tie on Friday afternoon, then there is going to be all manner of bribing to ensure that it ain't still tied on Saturday. And what chance the fabled 40 Tories defecting to UKIP at that point?
Anyone else snigger every time people use the word 'polling'?
When mike Smithson says there's been a weekend of intense polling it means something completely different than if dapper laughs said it
http://ebookfriendly.com/the-slang-dictionary-1874/ poll: a female of unsteady character; “polled up,” means living with a woman in a state of unmarried impropriety. Also, if a costermonger sees one of his friends walking with a strange woman, he will say to him on the earliest opportunity, “I saw yer when yer was polled up”
Absolutely certain that's not what you meant, interesting nonetheless.
I wonder if, during the usually ceremonial moment when any MP can shout out if they want a vote on the Speaker (immediately after a General Election), many a Conservative will shout out, and what would happen if Bercow won, but so narrowly it was clear half the House lacked faith in him.
If you read the piece it says senior Tories. Most Tory MPs are backbenchers, and they're probably not keen to see the said senior Tories taking the piss out of them.
Anyone else snigger every time people use the word 'polling'?
When mike Smithson says there's been a weekend of intense polling it means something completely different than if dapper laughs said it
http://ebookfriendly.com/the-slang-dictionary-1874/ poll: a female of unsteady character; “polled up,” means living with a woman in a state of unmarried impropriety. Also, if a costermonger sees one of his friends walking with a strange woman, he will say to him on the earliest opportunity, “I saw yer when yer was polled up”
Absolutely certain that's not what you meant, interesting nonetheless.
Bit like tart then. Means, in a female context, one thing in most of the country, but nowhere near as negative in some places.
Every now and again, you have to remind yourself of the wonder of the First Amendment. Given the deep human urge to silence those with whom we disagree, it’s proven indispensable to protecting wild, open and robust debate against the micro-managers of the Social Justice Warriors on the left and the Jihadist-extremism monitors on the right. And if you doubt its value, just take a look over the pond, where the Tory party is proposing the most draconian crackdown on free speech since the press won its independence centuries ago.
As usual, you have the Orwellian terminology, and in this case it’s something called an “Extremism Disruption Order.” A more accurate term would be a “Government Censorship Order” – for that is exactly what this betrayal of British values truly is...
...the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability...
...Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
All at the discretion of the Home Secretary, of course...
There's a deep rot at the centre of the Tory party. I used to think that UKIP should one day merge with them, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to the calls that complete replacement is needed. A revolution in party thinking would certainly be needed for anyone that cares about basic civil liberties to have a home there...
TheWatcher is a poster that just constantly trolls supporters of other parties from a sheer Tory tribalist perspective. He wouldn't know what a man of principle looked like.
On jobs, I assume that if a council hives off it's Care Homes to some sort of private or not-for-profit company that it's down as having lost however many jobs. Equally, since there are (near enough) the same number of jobs required to do that work in the private sector then it's down in the figures as job creation.
A couple of years ago a minor change was made to the financial arrangements of English further education and sixth form colleges. Overnight the public sector employment figure dropped by 196,000 and the private sector figure increased by 196,000.
If you read the piece it says senior Tories. Most Tory MPs are backbenchers, and they're probably not keen to see the said senior Tories taking the piss out of them.
Senior Tories refers normally to backbench MPs of long standing rather than government ministers.
Has ever such an (unwarranted) reputation taken such a hiding as Theresa May's has over the past three months?
Some of us have been calling it for a long time. You just need to see past the media's current narrative is and judge people on their substantial successes and failures. May has a lot of the latter. She's both authoritarian and incompetent, a very bad combination.
If you read the piece it says senior Tories. Most Tory MPs are backbenchers, and they're probably not keen to see the said senior Tories taking the piss out of them.
Senior Tories refers normally to backbench MPs of long standing rather than government ministers.
The one they quote is Liam Fox, who probably wants to get back in.
Is he the one who saw the polling in his constituency and jumped ship? Or the MP who wants to take on the wretched Westminster system that has provided him with an ever increasing pile of riches in a massive pension pot? It's hard to tell them apart these days.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
What I find quite amusing is the fact that the Kippers have suddenly discovered that they prefer the experienced Establishment politician (Marlborough + Christ Church, Oxford, PPE..), not the local woman who's had a real job and doesn't speak so smoothly.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
As usual, you have the Orwellian terminology, and in this case it’s something called an “Extremism Disruption Order.” A more accurate term would be a “Government Censorship Order” – for that is exactly what this betrayal of British values truly is...
...Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
I don't know enough about these EDOs to be able to comment in detail on them, but when you try to conflate the blanket censorship of the 1600s with very specific individual orders (with judicial oversight), then you have a poor argument.
As usual, you have the Orwellian terminology, and in this case it’s something called an “Extremism Disruption Order.” A more accurate term would be a “Government Censorship Order” – for that is exactly what this betrayal of British values truly is...
...the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability...
...Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
All at the discretion of the Home Secretary, of course...
I have no idea what Labour's view is and I'm not as libertarian as you, but in my more independent-minded mode these days, I'd be inclined to oppose anything like that. The appropriate response is surely to prosecute people who say something illegal (inciting hatred etc.), and to punish it more severely if they keep doing it, but not to prohibit them from saying anything at all. If correctly described, it appears to prevent an extremist from taking an interest in something harmless. Can a supporter of the proposals explain why that would be a good idea?
I wonder if, during the usually ceremonial moment when any MP can shout out if they want a vote on the Speaker (immediately after a General Election), many a Conservative will shout out, and what would happen if Bercow won, but so narrowly it was clear half the House lacked faith in him.
I like Lindsay and regard him as a friend, but if I was around I wouldn't be up for some sort of revenge plot against Bercow, and doubt if most MPs would, not just because many people like him (I accept that some don't) but also because it would undermine the office of the Speaker if it became practice that MPs would chuck out anyone who annoyed them.
Mr. Hopkins, the problem is that legislation intended for rare or specific use is drafted such that oversight seems feeble and widespread use can occur. RIPA, for example, has been used by the police against journalists/press organisations hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times.
The police will always want more power. Parliament shouldn't be a nodding dog, but represent the interests of individual liberty as well as security of the state when deciding whether the police need more powers (or fewer).
TheWatcher is a poster that just constantly trolls supporters of other parties from a sheer Tory tribalist perspective. He wouldn't know what a man of principle looked like.
There are plenty of hypocrites in the Tory party, Socrates. Carswell was in good company.
Every now and again, you have to remind yourself of the wonder of the First Amendment. Given the deep human urge to silence those with whom we disagree, it’s proven indispensable to protecting wild, open and robust debate against the micro-managers of the Social Justice Warriors on the left and the Jihadist-extremism monitors on the right. And if you doubt its value, just take a look over the pond, where the Tory party is proposing the most draconian crackdown on free speech since the press won its independence centuries ago.
As usual, you have the Orwellian terminology, and in this case it’s something called an “Extremism Disruption Order.” A more accurate term would be a “Government Censorship Order” – for that is exactly what this betrayal of British values truly is...
...the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability...
...Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
All at the discretion of the Home Secretary, of course...
There's a deep rot at the centre of the Tory party. I used to think that UKIP should one day merge with them, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to the calls that complete replacement is needed. A revolution in party thinking would certainly be needed for anyone that cares about basic civil liberties to have a home there...
None of the three main parties is reliable on the principle of freedom of speech and thought. Alas.
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
It's an odious proposal and will, if it ever becomes law, be used inconsistently and oppressively.
Mr. Hopkins, the problem is that legislation intended for rare or specific use is drafted such that oversight seems feeble and widespread use can occur. RIPA, for example, has been used by the police against journalists/press organisations hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times.
The police will always want more power. Parliament shouldn't be a nodding dog, but represent the interests of individual liberty as well as security of the state when deciding whether the police need more powers (or fewer).
"Remember back to your early teachings. All who gain power are afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi."
Mr. Palmer, indeed, but it diminishes the office far more to have a partisan creature squatting in the Speaker's chair, queering the pitch instead of acting as an impartial umpire.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
And by the same token someone could argue that what is contained in the Koran could be used to justify hatred of Jews or gays or women or, indeed, non-Muslims, at which point you'd have to say that anyone publishing, quoting or referring to the Koran should get the permission of the government to speak.
And I have no doubt that the same could be said of other religions or, indeed, of atheists ("What that Richard Dawkins says justifies hatred of Catholics".)
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions.
Citation needed. Specific proposals haven't been laid out, have they?
Mr. Hopkins, the problem is that legislation intended for rare or specific use is drafted such that oversight seems feeble and widespread use can occur. RIPA, for example, has been used by the police against journalists/press organisations hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times.
The police will always want more power. Parliament shouldn't be a nodding dog, but represent the interests of individual liberty as well as security of the state when deciding whether the police need more powers (or fewer).
"Remember back to your early teachings. All who gain power are afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi."
Vision of Bercow being held in a death grip after he has angered Darth May
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
Quite. This proposal and Leveson would be the end of any free - let alone - robust speech or debate in this country.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Nah thats the excuse to implement it, in reality its pure cultural marxism.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
Comments
34% of 2010 LDs in latest ICM now DKs or refusers. Very high
That's 8% of a very specific slice of the electorate seriously up for grabs. The next election could be won and lost on this group alone.
1.The Spectator expects that Reckless will win with a Majority of 10000 and says Tolhurst is crap.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2014/11/ive-just-seen-the-rochester-candidates-debate-poor-rochester/
2. The Tory candidate is totally crap (see above).
3. The Tory campaign has been a shambles, thanks in part to it's American advisers.
4. The long campaign only served UKIP to gather momentum.
5. The events of the past few weeks, regarding the EU money demand and the EAW mess, only helped UKIP.
6. There is little anti-UKIP vote, but plenty of anti-Tory vote.
7. The LD are on course to be beaten by the Monster Raving Loonies.
For the national picture of the GE campaign, I emphasize points 3,4,6&7 as indicators of strategies and how good parties are organised.
Been studying economics long?
All you need for Christmas:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004080576/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=insta0c-20
(and an Ed Balls figurine - of course)
Not to mention that no small biz would apply it to a large customer that they wanted to keep.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372964/43499_GB_NIF_Accounts_2013_accessible.pdf
The NICs shown are net of the payments for the NHS in the period (£20.8billion) so approximately 20% of NICs fund the NHS.
Of benefit payment out of the fund, state pension represent £82.5 billion and of the remaining £6.5 billion half go on employment and support allowances. Incapacity benefits have more than halved since 2012/13.
I note that payments out are more than payments in, but this is supposed to be an actuarially based fund so over time this should be neutral.
When mike Smithson says there's been a weekend of intense polling it means something completely different than if dapper laughs said it
Con 287 (-1)
Lab 306 (-3)
LD 26 (+1)
UKIP 3 (+2)
OTHERS 28 (+1)
Change with respect to October MEF. Still on course for a very hung Parliament....
Councils are in crisis – and it happened on Nick Clegg’s watch
English councils will soon have lost almost a quarter of their funding in five years thanks to coalition policies
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/11/sheffield-council-nick-clegg-local-government-crisis
Q. What’s the difference between a supermarket buyer and a terrorist?
A. You can negotiate with a terrorist!
I say, I say, I say! Why did @David_Cameron cross the road? Because Brussels told him to! #europeanarrestwarrant
I've offered him an early payment discount offer.
I'll take £200 next week.
http://politicalbookie.com/2014/11/11/hung-parliament-odds-hit-all-time-low/
(hat-tip to TSE!)
The FT points out thet local authiorities have lost half a million jobs since 2010. I think we need to return a tory govt to keep that going.
1. May will have lost some MP support in any future Leadership bid. Could be fatal if she cannot get into the top 2 from the MPs.
2. Cameron may have provided ammunition to the UKIP waiverers and the "cannot be trusted" line. Not a good place to be. What smart alec amongst Osborne, Gove and May advised Cameron that "no EAW vote" was the best choice? File under Stupid Own Goal.
We have seen that many many hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created at a time when 500,000 local authority jobs have gone. The received wisdom is that all these jobs are low paid. But just what are these jobs then? Its a lot of jobs, they must be adding a lot of productivity somewhere. Would it be reasonable to expect a jobs surge on this scale to be all for highly skilled well paid jobs?
It's the little things...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvLn9PWln8
"Most racist ad indeed"...!
Jim Carrey: "So you're telling me there's a chance? [beat]
YEAAAAAHHHH!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdNe8u-Jsg
Same idiots piling into the 3-1 as who are now laying off at 5s and 6s ?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5e6ftNpGsU
It's a cracking job to have; grace and favour appt plus all the other benefits, in exchange for simply getting on with the job of being a neutral speaker and not attracting controversy. How difficult can that be?
Spoiler: Labour are doomed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29989107
JRM is starting to look more than a bit annoyed.
He's a man of principle.
Can't hurt that he's cushioned by 5k majority (plus 10k of squeezable LDs and 2k Kippers)
1) UKIP looking more and more like they're here to stay rather than going to fizzle by 2015, whereas the main hope for Con Maj was that the defectors from Con go back to Con.
2) The theory behind Con Maj already had the gap closing at this point, and it's not closing fast enough. Tick-tock, Clarice.
poll: a female of unsteady character; “polled up,” means living with a woman in a state of unmarried impropriety. Also, if a costermonger sees one of his friends walking with a strange woman, he will say to him on the earliest opportunity, “I saw yer when yer was polled up”
Absolutely certain that's not what you meant, interesting nonetheless.
I wonder if, during the usually ceremonial moment when any MP can shout out if they want a vote on the Speaker (immediately after a General Election), many a Conservative will shout out, and what would happen if Bercow won, but so narrowly it was clear half the House lacked faith in him.
you wanna stick with your way, it's fine by me
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/10/where-the-logic-of-hate-crimes-leads/
Every now and again, you have to remind yourself of the wonder of the First Amendment. Given the deep human urge to silence those with whom we disagree, it’s proven indispensable to protecting wild, open and robust debate against the micro-managers of the Social Justice Warriors on the left and the Jihadist-extremism monitors on the right. And if you doubt its value, just take a look over the pond, where the Tory party is proposing the most draconian crackdown on free speech since the press won its independence centuries ago.
As usual, you have the Orwellian terminology, and in this case it’s something called an “Extremism Disruption Order.” A more accurate term would be a “Government Censorship Order” – for that is exactly what this betrayal of British values truly is...
...the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability...
...Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).
All at the discretion of the Home Secretary, of course...
There's a deep rot at the centre of the Tory party. I used to think that UKIP should one day merge with them, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to the calls that complete replacement is needed. A revolution in party thinking would certainly be needed for anyone that cares about basic civil liberties to have a home there...
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
I don't know enough about these EDOs to be able to comment in detail on them, but when you try to conflate the blanket censorship of the 1600s with very specific individual orders (with judicial oversight), then you have a poor argument.
The police will always want more power. Parliament shouldn't be a nodding dog, but represent the interests of individual liberty as well as security of the state when deciding whether the police need more powers (or fewer).
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
It's an odious proposal and will, if it ever becomes law, be used inconsistently and oppressively.
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
And I have no doubt that the same could be said of other religions or, indeed, of atheists ("What that Richard Dawkins says justifies hatred of Catholics".)
It's nonsense, to put it mildly.
Vision of Bercow being held in a death grip after he has angered Darth May
Or was that Prof. Severus Snape in Harry Potter?
I simply don't see how it can pass the ECHR test.
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.