For this reason I certainly do not think that we should be looking at ways to perpetuate an unsustainable system by pumping yet more tax payers money into it. We need to radically rethink the whole provision of public services with a view to massive cuts and a wholesale change in our ideas about what the State should and should not be doing.
Yes indeed. The UK's productivity is 30% below what it is here in Asia, in a global market our people are therefore worth 30% less money per unit worked. We are used to, and more to the point being promised by politicians, a standard of living that the work we do, won't buy.
Sure we can dominate some niche markets with involve high end skills for a few more years, but it wont last, if you look at the global education league tables the top five as all Asian countries. The question British politicians continually dodge is "why should people bring their business to Britain", because the answer is the reasons are dwindling, and if we start putting up taxes, they will dwindle faster.
You know what:
Economics work.
The currencies of Asian countries will rise relative to ours, and so will workers' wages, and the gap will close.
They will continue to dominate the making of consumer goods. Hopefully, we'll be at the forefront of nanotechnology or whatever is "the next big thing".
But we shouldn't worry, other than to try and get politicians to do as little as possible. The market will work.
As the elite fails to recognise again and again, on the vast majority of issues, UKIP are at, or near, the centre of public opinion, while what the political class calls the "centre" is way out on left field.
I'm sorry: no-one sensible disagrees with that contention.
The real question is: has anyone seen anyone breastfeeding in public in a "non-discreet" manner?
I have not. Can you genuinely recall a single occasion were you've seen a woman breastfeed in a "non-discreet" manner?
UKIP is on the side of the public by making a ridiculous contention: that there are millions of women ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
Someone on here claimed they'd never seen someone breastfeeding in public. I'm pretty certain they will have just that they never realised that breastfeeding was taking place.
It's not like a woman starts flashing her tits when she breastfeeds.
For those who are unaware it basically looks like she is cuddling her baby.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I doubt that's the case actually. Claridges has a pretty strict dress code. And I guess the "showing" during breastfeeding is not during the feeding itself, but when you're getting ready/finishing up.
Elegant smart casual. And they're not that strict. The richer the customer, the more cleavage displayed - they're not going to chuck out an oligarch if his twenty something girlfriend has everything out on display.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
I'm open to any and all suggestions about a "new deal" in that regard but the fact remains we have a growing population of elderly and school-age children which need support and investment and for whatever reason the private sector isn't able or willing to meet the gap.
In the short to medium term, the requitrement is to bring the budget into balance and that means raising more income AND cutting spending until the two meet somewhere.
There are of course two options - one is to see the State withdraw from a range of activities (that needs to be defined). The other is to raise taxes to an amount which makes the current arrangements sustainable (that also needs to be defined).
The problem - and this is a non political and I hope non contentious point - is that people only seem to really think about cuts in public spending in times of relative crisis when it is absolutely necessary to improve public finances. And as you say these are not the best times to be considering a wholesale redesign of public spending and the role of the State.
But no one seems to be interested in discussing it when finances are better, even though it is at that point when we could make really, meaningful changes to the underlying assumptions about taxation and spending.
For the record, as I have said before, I believe that the State should provide a safety net and nothing more when it comes to welfare. The changes over the last few decades which have seen a substantial portion of the working and middle classes (as opposed to the poor) end up in receipt of benefits have been a move in entirely the wrong direction. We do need to move towards a far more means tested system of benefits and certainly should not be providing state aid to people just because they are in a certain age group (and yes that primarily means pensioners), irrespective of their income or wealth.
The decision to cut child benefit for wealthier families was a start but we need to see far more of that sort of thing happening. TV licences, bus passes, winter fuel allowances, they should all be means tested as a start.
As the elite fails to recognise again and again, on the vast majority of issues, UKIP are at, or near, the centre of public opinion, while what the political class calls the "centre" is way out on left field.
I'm sorry: no-one sensible disagrees with that contention.
The real question is: has anyone seen anyone breastfeeding in public in a "non-discreet" manner?
I have not. Can you genuinely recall a single occasion were you've seen a woman breastfeed in a "non-discreet" manner?
UKIP is on the side of the public by making a ridiculous contention: that there are millions of women ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
Funnily enough, Robert, I have seen just that, recently - and wouldn't you just know it, in Hampstead.
I went into a coffee shop which was empty apart from myself and two women who were breastfeeding. I would say they were doing so 'ostentatiously', even aggressively. There was plenty of more discreet space available, but they preferred to be in the centre of the shop, in full view to all customers and the street. It was a very public display and my impression was they were being deliberately assertive.
I was about as shocked as I would have been by the appearance of a man naked from the waist up buying bread in Greggs, which is to say I wasn't shocked at all but just thought they were being a bit silly. I suppose you would say it was bad manners, at worst, and no we don't need laws against bad manners. In fact breastfeeders should be protected by the law, but that's not to say that a cafe owner should not have the right to request more discreet behaviour when appropriate. Refusal would always be an option, but most normal people who are not in the business of being confrontational would probably understand and comply where practical to do so.
It occurred to me that I would have been equally within my rights to sit opposite them and watch the procedure from close quarters - perfectly legal, but unquestionably rude and confrontational. Next time I might try it.
Or maybe I'll just piss up against the traffic lights on Hampstead High Street next time I'm in the vicinity. Why not? It's a perfectly normal bodily function.
For this reason I certainly do not think that we should be looking at ways to perpetuate an unsustainable system by pumping yet more tax payers money into it. We need to radically rethink the whole provision of public services with a view to massive cuts and a wholesale change in our ideas about what the State should and should not be doing.
Yes indeed. The UK's productivity is 30% below what it is here in Asia, in a global market our people are therefore worth 30% less money per unit worked. We are used to, and more to the point being promised by politicians, a standard of living that the work we do, won't buy.
Sure we can dominate some niche markets with involve high end skills for a few more years, but it wont last, if you look at the global education league tables the top five as all Asian countries. The question British politicians continually dodge is "why should people bring their business to Britain", because the answer is the reasons are dwindling, and if we start putting up taxes, they will dwindle faster.
You know what:
Economics work.
The currencies of Asian countries will rise relative to ours, and so will workers' wages, and the gap will close.
They will continue to dominate the making of consumer goods. Hopefully, we'll be at the forefront of nanotechnology or whatever is "the next big thing".
But we shouldn't worry, other than to try and get politicians to do as little as possible. The market will work.
There are a lot more Chinese than British, why do we think their wages will rise to meet ours, rather than ours drop to meet theirs. Nanotech is great for those with a good university education, but its kind of hard on the 80% of the population without a degree.
Brent Crude goes below $65 - will it stay there tonight?
Broken, sleazy Brent Crude on the slide?
I wouldn't be too happy about it. The Oil and Gas industry employs around 370,000 people in the UK. Right now redundancies are fairly light - about 35,000 expected in the next few years - but it would not take too much more of a drop to see that accelerate dramatically.
Of course this is a natural development just as the closure of mines or heavy industry was but just as in those cases I don't necessarily think it is something to celebrate.
There are a lot more Chinese than British, why do we think their wages will rise to meet ours, rather than ours drop to meet theirs. Nanotech is great for those with a good university education, but its kind of hard on the 80% of the population without a degree.
Last year, Foxconn/Hon Hai - the largest contract manufacturer in the world - put through two 10% across the board increases in wages for its employees. I don't know what the statistic is for this year but there is no doubt that Chinese wages are rising fast.
When the Chinese government finally gets around to floating the Reminbi, it will probably appreciate 15% or so relative to the dollar and sterling.
25 years ago we worried about the Japanese and the Taiwanese and the Koreans and the other Asian stealing all the jobs.
But you know what, capitalism works. Demand for workers in these countries increases and so does pay. In China, they are in the process of replacing coal fired power stations with gas fired ones (and are investing in solar and wind too), all to reduce pollution - but the inevitable consequence of this is that the power price arbitrage they have had over the rest of the world will decline. (Especially as we're going to benefit from cheaper LNG if oil prices stay low.)
We know the score, because we've seen it time and time again: the Taiwanese got richer and got like us, as did the Koreans, the Singaporeans, the Hong Kong-ese, etc. etc.
We know the score, because we've seen it time and time again: the Taiwanese got richer and got like us, as did the Koreans, the Singaporeans, the Hong Kong-ese, etc. etc.
The interesting bit is that none of those countries have more than 26% of GDP raised as taxation (and three of them are less than 17%), and we are sitting at 39% and considering increasing it, they would appear to be able to earn considerably less and feel just as rich.
As the elite fails to recognise again and again, on the vast majority of issues, UKIP are at, or near, the centre of public opinion, while what the political class calls the "centre" is way out on left field.
I'm sorry: no-one sensible disagrees with that contention.
The real question is: has anyone seen anyone breastfeeding in public in a "non-discreet" manner?
I have not. Can you genuinely recall a single occasion were you've seen a woman breastfeed in a "non-discreet" manner?
UKIP is on the side of the public by making a ridiculous contention: that there are millions of women ostentatiously breastfeeding in public.
Funnily enough, Robert, I have seen just that, recently - and wouldn't you just know it, in Hampstead.
I went into a coffee shop which was empty apart from myself and two women who were breastfeeding. I would say they were doing so 'ostentatiously', even aggressively. There was plenty of more discreet space available, but they preferred to be in the centre of the shop, in full view to all customers and the street. It was a very public display and my impression was they were being deliberately assertive.
I was about as shocked as I would have been by the appearance of a man naked from the waist up buying bread in Greggs, which is to say I wasn't shocked at all but just thought they were being a bit silly. I suppose you would say it was bad manners, at worst, and no we don't need laws against bad manners. In fact breastfeeders should be protected by the law, but that's not to say that a cafe owner should not have the right to request more discreet behaviour when appropriate. Refusal would always be an option, but most normal people who are not in the business of being confrontational would probably understand and comply where practical to do so.
It occurred to me that I would have been equally within my rights to sit opposite them and watch the procedure from close quarters - perfectly legal, but unquestionably rude and confrontational. Next time I might try it.
Or maybe I'll just piss up against the traffic lights on Hampstead High Street next time I'm in the vicinity. Why not? It's a perfectly normal bodily function.
On no account go into cafes in Hampstead. They are ludicrously overpriced.
A thermos of tea on one of the many delightfully situated benches on the Heath is far more agreeable.
We know the score, because we've seen it time and time again: the Taiwanese got richer and got like us, as did the Koreans, the Singaporeans, the Hong Kong-ese, etc. etc.
The interesting bit is that none of those countries have more than 26% of GDP raised as taxation, and we are sitting at 39% and considering increasing it, they would appear to be able to earn considerably less and feel just as rich.
The point I'm making is that China is going through the same transition HK, etc. did.
And that happened without the sky falling in for the West.
Hey: I'm Mr 6% as far as government spending goes (target 6% of GDP), so I'm out on a limb as far as rethinking the role of government, but we really shouldn't worry too much about the rise of others.
I see from the previous thread that the Tories are continuing to get it wrong big time. What they should be saying is that the next Tory leader won't be an upper-class white man. Instead they rule out all white men, including working-class white men.
Brent Crude goes below $65 - will it stay there tonight?
Broken, sleazy Brent Crude on the slide?
I wouldn't be too happy about it. The Oil and Gas industry employs around 370,000 people in the UK. Right now redundancies are fairly light - about 35,000 expected in the next few years - but it would not take too much more of a drop to see that accelerate dramatically.
Of course this is a natural development just as the closure of mines or heavy industry was but just as in those cases I don't necessarily think it is something to celebrate.
Brent Crude goes below $65 - will it stay there tonight?
Broken, sleazy Brent Crude on the slide?
I wouldn't be too happy about it. The Oil and Gas industry employs around 370,000 people in the UK. Right now redundancies are fairly light - about 35,000 expected in the next few years - but it would not take too much more of a drop to see that accelerate dramatically.
Of course this is a natural development just as the closure of mines or heavy industry was but just as in those cases I don't necessarily think it is something to celebrate.
*facepalm*
Apologies for any offence.
On the other hand, cheaper energy for businesses mean other industries become profitable again, so that could mean more jobs. We shall see.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law. And the law says quite clearly that it should allow breast feeding women. If Claridges does not want to obey that law then it should move into another business. But they would have trouble relocating to say Australia where the law is exactly the same. Of course if a woman (possibly in need of Specsavers) came in and stood on a table to do a striptease then they could politely ask her to leave. People behaving disreputably (and in this respect Weatherspoons has its chance to make its case) can quite legally be asked to leave, irrespective of race creed colour or lactating activity. Farage's point is totally bogus. Although it does seem to indicate that he is in favour of more not less discrimination.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
I don't personally think it is of any value to present percentages in opinion polls & percentage chance in betting terms next to each other.. it implies a straight comparison means something, when almost all of the time it doesn't. Extremely misleading
I don't personally think it is of any value to compare percentages in opinion polls to percentage chance in betting terms. Extremely misleading
Not only that, but isn't the source Oddschecker click throughs, which probably bear no relation to money bet on the market. (And not only that but remember, that in any bet there is a buyer and a seller.)
The problem - and this is a non political and I hope non contentious point - is that people only seem to really think about cuts in public spending in times of relative crisis when it is absolutely necessary to improve public finances. And as you say these are not the best times to be considering a wholesale redesign of public spending and the role of the State.
But no one seems to be interested in discussing it when finances are better, even though it is at that point when we could make really, meaningful changes to the underlying assumptions about taxation and spending.
For the record, as I have said before, I believe that the State should provide a safety net and nothing more when it comes to welfare. The changes over the last few decades which have seen a substantial portion of the working and middle classes (as opposed to the poor) end up in receipt of benefits have been a move in entirely the wrong direction. We do need to move towards a far more means tested system of benefits and certainly should not be providing state aid to people just because they are in a certain age group (and yes that primarily means pensioners), irrespective of their income or wealth.
The decision to cut child benefit for wealthier families was a start but we need to see far more of that sort of thing happening. TV licences, bus passes, winter fuel allowances, they should all be means tested as a start.
Very little in that with which I would disagree, Richard. The failure of successive Governments to adequately plan for the future - the demographic time bomb was well known in the 1980s for example - is there for all to see.
The problem is "welfare" is only part of the spending pot. We have the lumbering giants of the NHS and Education to consider as well while a much smaller but important area, defence, is seemingly off-limits for further cuts.
The actual amount of cuts is small but said cuts fall disproportionately in certain sectors of State spending rather than a cross-the-board review.
The inadequacy of pension provision (and that includes the various "private" offerings peddled in the 80s and 90s) do leave many elderly people on very low incomes. Unfortunately, we threw the money away on consumption and tax cuts under said successive Governments.
The Treasury estimates it will raise £360m a year by 2017/18, which isn't even really a drop in the ocean of this year's £91bn shortfall in what the state is raising in taxes relative to what it spends: the Google tax ain't going to fill the UK's huge and intractable public-sector deficit.
The UK is apparently the first country in the world to impose this new breed of allegedly unavoidable corporate tax that's based on revenues derived in one country. Which raises the intriguing question what impact it would have on UK companies if other countries followed our lead.
If for example the US decided to impose a tax calculated with reference to US revenues on all companies, that could be quite costly for British multinationals, such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Barclays, all of which are big in America.
Given that the UK is an economy driven by huge multinationals, it is not immediately obvious that it would be good for the health of the UK economy if our multinationals were whacked for more tax in this way.
@Indigo This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
@Indigo This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
Its getting late for me, I can't see in that article where it suggests anyone would leave.
Mr. Speedy, a fair comment, but I must say I dislike the notion of a law which appears to allow the state to hurl a tax bill at a company despite it paying all it is legally required to do through various taxes.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
No Blacks No Jews No Irish.
Fortunately those days are history and never to return
Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.
I've seen the interview and I can say that this is a sad case not worthy of any serious person, it belongs to a sit com on par with "Men Behaving Badly".
@Indigo This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
I think you are missing the point. The Google tax is not meant to raise much. The point of it is to incentivise multinationals not to offshore profits and instead make profits domestically and pay corporation tax on them at 21% rather than offshore the profits and pay 25% Google tax on them.
The Treasury estimates it will raise £360m a year by 2017/18, which isn't even really a drop in the ocean of this year's £91bn shortfall in what the state is raising in taxes relative to what it spends: the Google tax ain't going to fill the UK's huge and intractable public-sector deficit.
The UK is apparently the first country in the world to impose this new breed of allegedly unavoidable corporate tax that's based on revenues derived in one country. Which raises the intriguing question what impact it would have on UK companies if other countries followed our lead.
If for example the US decided to impose a tax calculated with reference to US revenues on all companies, that could be quite costly for British multinationals, such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Barclays, all of which are big in America.
Given that the UK is an economy driven by huge multinationals, it is not immediately obvious that it would be good for the health of the UK economy if our multinationals were whacked for more tax in this way.
Wow. That first paragraph seems pretty defeatist. You don't eliminate the deficit with one tax rise! I dont usually criticize BbC content, but that is a bit much.
@Indigo This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
I think you are missing the point. The Google tax is not meant to raise much. The point of it is to incentivise multinationals not to offshore profits and instead make profits domestically and pay corporation tax on them at 21% rather than offshore the profits and pay 25% Google tax on them.
But the complaint is that this tiny difference will hurt the UK economy, something which I disagree because it's so tiny.
The Treasury estimates it will raise £360m a year by 2017/18, which isn't even really a drop in the ocean of this year's £91bn shortfall in what the state is raising in taxes relative to what it spends: the Google tax ain't going to fill the UK's huge and intractable public-sector deficit.
The UK is apparently the first country in the world to impose this new breed of allegedly unavoidable corporate tax that's based on revenues derived in one country. Which raises the intriguing question what impact it would have on UK companies if other countries followed our lead.
If for example the US decided to impose a tax calculated with reference to US revenues on all companies, that could be quite costly for British multinationals, such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Barclays, all of which are big in America.
Given that the UK is an economy driven by huge multinationals, it is not immediately obvious that it would be good for the health of the UK economy if our multinationals were whacked for more tax in this way.
Are you saying Glaxo or BP pays no tax in the USA ?
We know the score, because we've seen it time and time again: the Taiwanese got richer and got like us, as did the Koreans, the Singaporeans, the Hong Kong-ese, etc. etc.
The interesting bit is that none of those countries have more than 26% of GDP raised as taxation, and we are sitting at 39% and considering increasing it, they would appear to be able to earn considerably less and feel just as rich.
The point I'm making is that China is going through the same transition HK, etc. did.
And that happened without the sky falling in for the West.
Hey: I'm Mr 6% as far as government spending goes (target 6% of GDP), so I'm out on a limb as far as rethinking the role of government, but we really shouldn't worry too much about the rise of others.
Presumably you would be fully prepared to accept the consequences for the nation in terms of national security, defence, the wellbeing of the poorest, education?
As an additional point to the Richards, another problem is the inability of the debate to avoid the partisan bleatings. If a Conservative publivly suggested tax rises, they get pilloried, if a Labour supporter suggests spending cuts, they are also subject to (often) Twitter-inspired vitriol.
The desire of the pointlessly partisan to decry anything that doesn't support "their team" (as if supporting a political party was analogous to supporting a football team in some strange way) prevents much serious debate.
Unfortunately, the country no longer has the luxury, in terms of the public finances, to play the partisan game. Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green and all others need to think beyond their political "confort zones" and embrace what may to them be unapalatable options but which may be of longer term benefit to the country even if it hurts their Party in the shorter term.
I don't personally think it is of any value to compare percentages in opinion polls to percentage chance in betting terms. Extremely misleading
I don't think it's extremely misleading. It's another source of information to consider when trying to figure out if a bet has value.
Each to their own.
I think many people who don't understand betting odds may see a party on 22% in a poll and 16% in the bookies and think that might meant its a value bet
Or 44% in a poll but 70% in bookie percentages and think that its not a bet
Either way, presenting them next to each other implies a closer relationship between them than there is, in my view
Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.
I've seen the interview and I can say that this is a sad case not worthy of any serious person, it belongs to a sit com on par with "Men Behaving Badly".
TBH, it would put me off voting for whichever party she was standing for. Not that I expect a UKIP candidate in this part of Essex. Priti P’s near enough!
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
No Blacks No Jews No Irish.
Fortunately those days are history and never to return
I've sometimes wondered how many commercial enterprises operated such a policy.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
Exactly, let the customers ie the people decide, not the state.
However this policy may not be popular in some quarters eg giving B&B owners the right to discriminate as they seem fit because such discriminatory establishments will have no shortage of acceptable customers.
Mr. Speedy, a fair comment, but I must say I dislike the notion of a law which appears to allow the state to hurl a tax bill at a company despite it paying all it is legally required to do through various taxes.
It's the ancient story of how to avoid paying taxes legally. However closing tax avoidance loopholes is very popular with the public and, due to the revenue shortage, it's now popular with the Treasury.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law. And the law says quite clearly that it should allow breast feeding women. If Claridges does not want to obey that law then it should move into another business. But they would have trouble relocating to say Australia where the law is exactly the same. Of course if a woman (possibly in need of Specsavers) came in and stood on a table to do a striptease then they could politely ask her to leave. People behaving disreputably (and in this respect Weatherspoons has its chance to make its case) can quite legally be asked to leave, irrespective of race creed colour or lactating activity. Farage's point is totally bogus. Although it does seem to indicate that he is in favour of more not less discrimination.
It's not clear to me that Claridges have discriminated, in breach of the law.
If they have, then the customer in question has a legal remedy available to her.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
Exactly, let the customers ie the people decide, not the state.
However this policy may not be popular in some quarters eg giving B&B owners the right to discriminate as they seem fit because such discriminatory establishments will have no shortage of acceptable customers.
The only thing I would note, is that establishments must be clear about who they will and will not accept. I think it's unacceptable to accept a booking from someone (and take their money), and only later say "Oh, really sorry, you didn't know that we didn't allow the Irish to stay. Sorry."
Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.
I've seen the interview and I can say that this is a sad case not worthy of any serious person, it belongs to a sit com on par with "Men Behaving Badly".
I'm pretty sure that the next time we see her it'll be on Celebrity BB or I'm a celebrity get me out of here.
The Treasury estimates it will raise £360m a year by 2017/18, which isn't even really a drop in the ocean of this year's £91bn shortfall in what the state is raising in taxes relative to what it spends: the Google tax ain't going to fill the UK's huge and intractable public-sector deficit.
The UK is apparently the first country in the world to impose this new breed of allegedly unavoidable corporate tax that's based on revenues derived in one country. Which raises the intriguing question what impact it would have on UK companies if other countries followed our lead.
If for example the US decided to impose a tax calculated with reference to US revenues on all companies, that could be quite costly for British multinationals, such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Barclays, all of which are big in America.
Given that the UK is an economy driven by huge multinationals, it is not immediately obvious that it would be good for the health of the UK economy if our multinationals were whacked for more tax in this way.
Gosh tough all this getting companies to pay a bit of tax instead of scamming it abroad. Lets not bother. Are you suggesting BP operate bogus scams which mean they do not pay tax? Are you suggesting that BP pay virtually no tax anywhere? I would like to think that BP are honest and pay all the tax that is due everywhere. If so it can trade as normal. Do you support the use of ''a conduit structure through jurisdictions which have double tax treaties with so called “Tax Havens”? 'Double Irish' in the vernacular.
@Indigo This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
I think you are missing the point. The Google tax is not meant to raise much. The point of it is to incentivise multinationals not to offshore profits and instead make profits domestically and pay corporation tax on them at 21% rather than offshore the profits and pay 25% Google tax on them.
But the complaint is that this tiny difference will hurt the UK economy, something which I disagree because it's so tiny.
You are still missing the point. These companies will need to restructure so they pay billions more in corporation tax at 21% to avoid paying 25% Google tax. Currently they pay virtually nothing
There seems to be some confusion about my Gestapo / CIA comparison.
The Gestapo and Kempeitai did not kill millions. This was done by the SS and by the armies of the two countries in occupied territories. The Gestapo and Kempeitai were, respectively, a brutal secret police force, and a brutal military intelligence agency. Both routinely tortured prisoners and other enemy personnel for information. Those tortured were numerous but on the hundreds or thousands rather than the millions. They quite often died of their treatment or suffered permanent physical or mental injury. The goals, methods and carelessness of the results for the tortured were indistinguishable from those of the CIA. That's all.
CIA in the 2000s, Gestapo and Kempeitai in the 1930s and 40s: same thing.
I don't personally think it is of any value to compare percentages in opinion polls to percentage chance in betting terms. Extremely misleading
I don't think it's extremely misleading. It's another source of information to consider when trying to figure out if a bet has value.
Each to their own.
I think many people who don't understand betting odds may see a party on 22% in a poll and 16% in the bookies and think that might meant its a value bet
Or 44% in a poll but 70% in bookie percentages and think that its not a bet
Either way, presenting them next to each other implies a closer relationship between them than there is, in my view
I think the kind of people betting on a constituency seat will appreciate that difference!
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
No Blacks No Jews No Irish.
Fortunately those days are history and never to return
I've sometimes wondered how many commercial enterprises operated such a policy.
Perhaps overtly not so many but discrimination against such groups was commonplace in public commercial premises and even in the armed forces well past WWII in that unspoken fashion that even the British were well rehearsed in.
I don't personally think it is of any value to compare percentages in opinion polls to percentage chance in betting terms. Extremely misleading
I don't think it's extremely misleading. It's another source of information to consider when trying to figure out if a bet has value.
Each to their own.
I think many people who don't understand betting odds may see a party on 22% in a poll and 16% in the bookies and think that might meant its a value bet
Or 44% in a poll but 70% in bookie percentages and think that its not a bet
Either way, presenting them next to each other implies a closer relationship between them than there is, in my view
I think the kind of people betting on a constituency seat will appreciate that difference!
Maybe.. I made that rick in 2008 on the Mayoral election, backing Livingstone at 7/4ish because a poll gave him 47% (I think) so it can be done!
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
Exactly, let the customers ie the people decide, not the state.
However this policy may not be popular in some quarters eg giving B&B owners the right to discriminate as they seem fit because such discriminatory establishments will have no shortage of acceptable customers.
The only thing I would note, is that establishments must be clear about who they will and will not accept. I think it's unacceptable to accept a booking from someone (and take their money), and only later say "Oh, really sorry, you didn't know that we didn't allow the Irish to stay. Sorry."
So you would like to see the Race Relations Act amended, or repealed, so that they can refuse bookings from the Irish in the first place?
As an additional point to the Richards, another problem is the inability of the debate to avoid the partisan bleatings. If a Conservative publivly suggested tax rises, they get pilloried, if a Labour supporter suggests spending cuts, they are also subject to (often) Twitter-inspired vitriol.
The desire of the pointlessly partisan to decry anything that doesn't support "their team" (as if supporting a political party was analogous to supporting a football team in some strange way) prevents much serious debate.
Unfortunately, the country no longer has the luxury, in terms of the public finances, to play the partisan game. Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green and all others need to think beyond their political "confort zones" and embrace what may to them be unapalatable options but which may be of longer term benefit to the country even if it hurts their Party in the shorter term.
OK but how does a party get elected whilst being the only one to promise an unpopular but necessary measure? Doing what is right is seldom popular. You can have democracy and the universal franchise or you can have governments that act in the long term interest of the Country as a whole, you can't have both.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Businesses like newspapers and TV companies? You can set up a business and discriminate against catholics? Another can set up one and discriminate against protestants? Brave new world you have in store for us. (no pun intended)
The Treasury estimates it will raise £360m a year by 2017/18, which isn't even really a drop in the ocean of this year's £91bn shortfall in what the state is raising in taxes relative to what it spends: the Google tax ain't going to fill the UK's huge and intractable public-sector deficit.
The UK is apparently the first country in the world to impose this new breed of allegedly unavoidable corporate tax that's based on revenues derived in one country. Which raises the intriguing question what impact it would have on UK companies if other countries followed our lead.
If for example the US decided to impose a tax calculated with reference to US revenues on all companies, that could be quite costly for British multinationals, such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Barclays, all of which are big in America.
Given that the UK is an economy driven by huge multinationals, it is not immediately obvious that it would be good for the health of the UK economy if our multinationals were whacked for more tax in this way.
Gosh tough all this getting companies to pay a bit of tax instead of scamming it abroad. Lets not bother. Are you suggesting BP operate bogus scams which mean they do not pay tax? Are you suggesting that BP pay virtually no tax anywhere? I would like to think that BP are honest and pay all the tax that is due everywhere. If so it can trade as normal. Do you support the use of ''a conduit structure through jurisdictions which have double tax treaties with so called “Tax Havens”? 'Double Irish' in the vernacular.
I neither support nor suggest anything. I fully expect BP pay those taxes they are required to by law. Who can say if another jurisdiction following our example will be satisfied with that amount, or decide to deem they made a larger amount of profit.
Anyone who did as soon as this story came out would have smelt a rat instantly
I must say though, it doesn't reflect well on UKIP that she was a given the chance to be a candidate. Smacks of tokenism and the fact that the assessor somehow found her attractive
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
The law should be changed.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
No Blacks No Jews No Irish.
Fortunately those days are history and never to return
I've sometimes wondered how many commercial enterprises operated such a policy.
Perhaps overtly not so many but discrimination against such groups was commonplace in public commercial premises and even in the armed forces well past WWII in that unspoken fashion that even the British were well rehearsed in.
As I kid I regularly saw local adverts for rooms stipulating 'no Irish'.
"Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.'
I think we misjudge her. She's easily stupid enough to be a UKIP candidate
I'm told she's got a PPE from Oxford,
Really? Can't be too difficult to get one then.
One wonders, having heard her use of the English language in last nights interview, whether she really does.
Its her body language that's fascinating, from about half way through in particular. One could charitably describe it as her hoping the she doesn't come across as being economical with the actualite.
Anyone who did as soon as this story came out would have smelt a rat instantly
I must say though, it doesn't reflect well on UKIP that she was a given the chance to be a candidate. Smacks of tokenism and the fact that the assessor somehow found her attractive
It should be an object lesson in the need to thoroughly vet candidates.
I didn't think it was possible to top the Mr Men book reviews...
For those who've never read them by Hamilton - I cry with laughter every time.
Here's just one of them for Mr Bounce
An infant's primer in Existentialism, we find in this book a weighty treatise on the personal politics of agency and empowerment, taking ownership and authorship of one's own life.
Such is the force with which this Heideggerian hero is hurled into the world that he has not stopped bouncing since. This is Mr Bounce's facticity - the set of circumstances, both of himself and his environment, in which he finds himself as a subjectivity. That is, his ceaseless bouncing is the hand that life has dealt him, owing to his unique position in time, in history, as a conscious being in a sensory world.
The phrase above is the key to this tale - 'he finds himself as a subjectivity'. In the early stages of the story, his experience is more that of an object as he randomly bounces his way through his life, exerting next to no control. It is important to be aware, as ever with Hargreaves, that this is not merely a matter of the physical, the material. The most crucial passage of this masterwork is where Mr Bounce is beaten around like a tennis ball by two players who appear to lack any concept of his personhood. This is just as we are all to some extent shunted to and fro by the whims and vagaries of das Man, The They - the unthinking, amorphous collective abnegation of Will. Here we confront Bad Faith - inauthentic existence >>>
Anyone who did as soon as this story came out would have smelt a rat instantly
I must say though, it doesn't reflect well on UKIP that she was a given the chance to be a candidate. Smacks of tokenism and the fact that the assessor somehow found her attractive
It should be an object lesson in the need to thoroughly vet candidates.
Presumably UKIP were using the same strict vetting procedures they've used to weed out the other undesirables?
No way did she go to Oxford. She seems like a fantasist who is close to mental illness
Yet well on her way to becoming a UKIP PPC
Yes, not good.
I can't believe she passed the assessment to be honest, given her performance last night. She does look like someone about to have a nervous breakdown though, so we might not be seeing the real her, whoever that is
Incidentally, the Button/Magnussen decision is supposedly going to be made tomorrow. We'll see.
Button got paid £12m last year, Magnussen £500,000. The Briton scored more than twice as many points, and has great experience, but fewer years ahead of him.
mr Tyndall -- ''that people only seem to really think about cuts in public spending in times of relative crisis when it is absolutely necessary to improve public finances. ''
Well yes Mr Tyndall. But the issue really is budgeting over the economic cycle, where you run surpluses when you are in the upswing of good growth and deficits in the downswing of poor or negative growth. This really ought not to involve spending cuts to current spending (ie sacking public employees) and over the cycle it ought to leave capital spending in balance ie Keynsian pump priming. The issue about public spending now is that the level of public spending cannot be sustained by the economy over the cycle and it is essential that it is cut. Shall we be fair to Ken Clarke whose spending plans were doing just that? He was running a surplus and he or his successor would continue to have done that.
Our problem is that Brown decided to raise spending and did not raise taxes enough to pay for it. Nor did he create anything like enough growth to pay for it. On top of which a chunck of the economy disappeared which he hoped would pay for it.
But you are right we always need to think about spending and keep spending and budgets under control. That way we can use growth to both pay off debt, keep taxes in check and, inevitably, little by little allow inflation be the price we pay for reducing the level of past debt. Always. Its a simple rule which governs my vote. I did not vote for Blair in n1997. I did not like him. But I do recognise that he and Brown cut very plausible figures. I won't fall for that one again.
This is what I didn't get about this whole argument. I am damn sure you will find there are women who have gone to functions at Claridges in low cut dresses that showed more breast than a woman feeding her baby.
I think the point everyone is missing is Farage's completely correct assertion that any business should be able to choose who they serve. I am not compelled to offer my labour to - say - the BNP if they decide they need to hire a fund manager; why should Claridges not have the right to choose who they serve?
Of course, it's probably very poor business sense for Claridges to discriminate against breastfeeding women, but there should be no bars on them doing so, beyond their own self interest.
Claridges is open for business and says come in and buy something. It is not allowed to descriminate by law.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Businesses like newspapers and TV companies? You can set up a business and discriminate against catholics? Another can set up one and discriminate against protestants? Brave new world you have in store for us. (no pun intended)
While the state continues to institutionally discriminate against Catholics at the highest level that has a rather hollow ring to it.
Nonetheless, I agree that Freedom of Association should be restored.
Any establishment advertising "no blacks or Irish" would be boycotted and almost certainly not last long, as most people would be appalled and word can now spread very fast on electronic media. At best a handful of such establishments would remain as a stuggling ghetto establishment unable to get commercial sponsorship etc.
Freedom of Association would however prevent tiny but vociferous minorites imposing their will on everyone else. They would of course also be able to set up establishments discriminating in favour of fellow minority members without fear of that being deemed illegal.
When people get outraged about homophobia in the UK, is it a bit like stressing over the growing use of food banks while sub Saharan Africans starve?
Andrew Neil @afneil · 27m27 minutes ago ISIS throws man off roof for being gay in Northern Iraq. If that doesn't kill him he should then be stoned to death, rules Islamist court.
The case will now be examined by an internal party disciplinary committee, which will decide what to do about it before Christmas and possibly within the coming days.
Roger Bird maintains he behaved properly and claims his evidence proves he is telling the truth.
He is currently suspended from his post as General Secretary on full pay.
Natasha Bolter says Roger Bird acted inappropriately.
Some sources within UKIP agree.
UKIP, a party plagued by internal turbulence and infighting for much of its life, aches to be seen as anti-establishment yes, but professional too.
I'm struggling - really, really struggling - to see how we are meant to take this party seriously. I've often bemoaned the level of basic competence, and to some extent proprietry, among the old "Big Three" parties, but this is sub-student union stuff. As bad as during the Kilroy years. Does nobody have a grip?
Comments
They sell 10% of the land that the MOD have, after all we have many fewer tanks and aircraft these days.
That land is sold to developers to build houses within set timeframes.
Economics work.
The currencies of Asian countries will rise relative to ours, and so will workers' wages, and the gap will close.
They will continue to dominate the making of consumer goods. Hopefully, we'll be at the forefront of nanotechnology or whatever is "the next big thing".
But we shouldn't worry, other than to try and get politicians to do as little as possible. The market will work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865580/Irish-gipsies-sue-Wetherspoons-pub-100-000-race-discrimination-turned-away.html
But no one seems to be interested in discussing it when finances are better, even though it is at that point when we could make really, meaningful changes to the underlying assumptions about taxation and spending.
For the record, as I have said before, I believe that the State should provide a safety net and nothing more when it comes to welfare. The changes over the last few decades which have seen a substantial portion of the working and middle classes (as opposed to the poor) end up in receipt of benefits have been a move in entirely the wrong direction. We do need to move towards a far more means tested system of benefits and certainly should not be providing state aid to people just because they are in a certain age group (and yes that primarily means pensioners), irrespective of their income or wealth.
The decision to cut child benefit for wealthier families was a start but we need to see far more of that sort of thing happening. TV licences, bus passes, winter fuel allowances, they should all be means tested as a start.
I went into a coffee shop which was empty apart from myself and two women who were breastfeeding. I would say they were doing so 'ostentatiously', even aggressively. There was plenty of more discreet space available, but they preferred to be in the centre of the shop, in full view to all customers and the street. It was a very public display and my impression was they were being deliberately assertive.
I was about as shocked as I would have been by the appearance of a man naked from the waist up buying bread in Greggs, which is to say I wasn't shocked at all but just thought they were being a bit silly. I suppose you would say it was bad manners, at worst, and no we don't need laws against bad manners. In fact breastfeeders should be protected by the law, but that's not to say that a cafe owner should not have the right to request more discreet behaviour when appropriate. Refusal would always be an option, but most normal people who are not in the business of being confrontational would probably understand and comply where practical to do so.
It occurred to me that I would have been equally within my rights to sit opposite them and watch the procedure from close quarters - perfectly legal, but unquestionably rude and confrontational. Next time I might try it.
Or maybe I'll just piss up against the traffic lights on Hampstead High Street next time I'm in the vicinity. Why not? It's a perfectly normal bodily function.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11284994/Britain-has-masses-of-room-for-more-people-OBR-says.html
Why is the NHS so dependent on immigrant labour? Can't we train enough doctors/nurses etc?
Of course this is a natural development just as the closure of mines or heavy industry was but just as in those cases I don't necessarily think it is something to celebrate.
"35% of new, uninsured mortgages by smaller federally regulated banks since the end of 2012 could be considered non-prime" - Bank of Canada
When the Chinese government finally gets around to floating the Reminbi, it will probably appreciate 15% or so relative to the dollar and sterling.
25 years ago we worried about the Japanese and the Taiwanese and the Koreans and the other Asian stealing all the jobs.
But you know what, capitalism works. Demand for workers in these countries increases and so does pay. In China, they are in the process of replacing coal fired power stations with gas fired ones (and are investing in solar and wind too), all to reduce pollution - but the inevitable consequence of this is that the power price arbitrage they have had over the rest of the world will decline. (Especially as we're going to benefit from cheaper LNG if oil prices stay low.)
We know the score, because we've seen it time and time again: the Taiwanese got richer and got like us, as did the Koreans, the Singaporeans, the Hong Kong-ese, etc. etc.
I'll bet they were immigrants :-)
Next time, could you get a photo?
Now there's an idea - a photo! I wonder what these ladies would have said if I'd flashed my Sony at them?
A thermos of tea on one of the many delightfully situated benches on the Heath is far more agreeable.
And that happened without the sky falling in for the West.
Hey: I'm Mr 6% as far as government spending goes (target 6% of GDP), so I'm out on a limb as far as rethinking the role of government, but we really shouldn't worry too much about the rise of others.
I see from the previous thread that the Tories are continuing to get it wrong big time. What they should be saying is that the next Tory leader won't be an upper-class white man. Instead they rule out all white men, including working-class white men.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN105S9-Curved-105-Inch-Ultra/dp/B00L403O8U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418205786&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Samsung+UN105S9+Curved+105+inch+4k+ultra+hd+120+hz+3D+Smart+LED+TV#customerReviews
Apologies for any offence.
Some people have more money than sense.
Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.
Of course if a woman (possibly in need of Specsavers) came in and stood on a table to do a striptease then they could politely ask her to leave. People behaving disreputably (and in this respect Weatherspoons has its chance to make its case) can quite legally be asked to leave, irrespective of race creed colour or lactating activity.
Farage's point is totally bogus.
Although it does seem to indicate that he is in favour of more not less discrimination.
Businesses should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they like.
Of course, such discrimination will probably not be in their interest because, as Claridges discovered, the negative publicity will drive away far more people than the three people who might be offended by breastfeeding.
I don't personally think it is of any value to present percentages in opinion polls & percentage chance in betting terms next to each other.. it implies a straight comparison means something, when almost all of the time it doesn't. Extremely misleading
The problem is "welfare" is only part of the spending pot. We have the lumbering giants of the NHS and Education to consider as well while a much smaller but important area, defence, is seemingly off-limits for further cuts.
The actual amount of cuts is small but said cuts fall disproportionately in certain sectors of State spending rather than a cross-the-board review.
The inadequacy of pension provision (and that includes the various "private" offerings peddled in the 80s and 90s) do leave many elderly people on very low incomes. Unfortunately, we threw the money away on consumption and tax cuts under said successive Governments.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30420571
This is conflicting, if the Treasury estimates that it will raise 360 million a year why would multinational companies leave the UK for paying just 360 million a year in tax, since they are many multinational companies the actual bill per company would be tiny according to the Treasury estimates itself.
The 7/4 with Bwin on Nigel Farage winning a seat is great value regardless (hat tip Quincel).
Fortunately those days are history and never to return
The desire of the pointlessly partisan to decry anything that doesn't support "their team" (as if supporting a political party was analogous to supporting a football team in some strange way) prevents much serious debate.
Unfortunately, the country no longer has the luxury, in terms of the public finances, to play the partisan game. Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green and all others need to think beyond their political "confort zones" and embrace what may to them be unapalatable options but which may be of longer term benefit to the country even if it hurts their Party in the shorter term.
I think many people who don't understand betting odds may see a party on 22% in a poll and 16% in the bookies and think that might meant its a value bet
Or 44% in a poll but 70% in bookie percentages and think that its not a bet
Either way, presenting them next to each other implies a closer relationship between them than there is, in my view
Not that I’d vote kipper anyway!
However this policy may not be popular in some quarters eg giving B&B owners the right to discriminate as they seem fit because such discriminatory establishments will have no shortage of acceptable customers.
However closing tax avoidance loopholes is very popular with the public and, due to the revenue shortage, it's now popular with the Treasury.
Quite. But here's a conundrum. what finished those 'days'...??
Market forces, social mores, or act of Parliament....??
If they have, then the customer in question has a legal remedy available to her.
Are you suggesting BP operate bogus scams which mean they do not pay tax?
Are you suggesting that BP pay virtually no tax anywhere? I would like to think that BP are honest and pay all the tax that is due everywhere. If so it can trade as normal.
Do you support the use of ''a conduit structure through jurisdictions which have double tax treaties with so called “Tax Havens”? 'Double Irish' in the vernacular.
There seems to be some confusion about my Gestapo / CIA comparison.
The Gestapo and Kempeitai did not kill millions. This was done by the SS and by the armies of the two countries in occupied territories. The Gestapo and Kempeitai were, respectively, a brutal secret police force, and a brutal military intelligence agency. Both routinely tortured prisoners and other enemy personnel for information. Those tortured were numerous but on the hundreds or thousands rather than the millions. They quite often died of their treatment or suffered permanent physical or mental injury. The goals, methods and carelessness of the results for the tortured were indistinguishable from those of the CIA. That's all.
CIA in the 2000s, Gestapo and Kempeitai in the 1930s and 40s: same thing.
"Natasha Bolter on Newsnight for anyone that missed the car crash. Remembering this was recorded before the texts leaked out.'
I think we misjudge her. She's easily stupid enough to be a UKIP candidate
You can set up a business and discriminate against catholics? Another can set up one and discriminate against protestants?
Brave new world you have in store for us. (no pun intended)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868158/Labour-MP-s-wife-Karen-Danczuk-sells-signed-scented-predictably-cleavage-heavy-selfies-10-eBay.html
Anyone who did as soon as this story came out would have smelt a rat instantly
I must say though, it doesn't reflect well on UKIP that she was a given the chance to be a candidate. Smacks of tokenism and the fact that the assessor somehow found her attractive
As I kid I regularly saw local adverts for rooms stipulating 'no Irish'.
It was of course very long ago, Jack.
One wonders, having heard her use of the English language in last nights interview, whether she does.
A fruitcake and loony?
The problem is they're also parachuting candidates into seats like Portsmouth South and Hastings & Rye.
For those who've never read them by Hamilton - I cry with laughter every time.
Here's just one of them for Mr Bounce amazon.co.uk/review/RPTTNK66RYD2K
Publicity can eat you up and spit you it very quickly.
I can't believe she passed the assessment to be honest, given her performance last night. She does look like someone about to have a nervous breakdown though, so we might not be seeing the real her, whoever that is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30419537
Incidentally, the Button/Magnussen decision is supposedly going to be made tomorrow. We'll see.
Button got paid £12m last year, Magnussen £500,000. The Briton scored more than twice as many points, and has great experience, but fewer years ahead of him.
Well yes Mr Tyndall.
But the issue really is budgeting over the economic cycle, where you run surpluses when you are in the upswing of good growth and deficits in the downswing of poor or negative growth.
This really ought not to involve spending cuts to current spending (ie sacking public employees) and over the cycle it ought to leave capital spending in balance ie Keynsian pump priming.
The issue about public spending now is that the level of public spending cannot be sustained by the economy over the cycle and it is essential that it is cut. Shall we be fair to Ken Clarke whose spending plans were doing just that? He was running a surplus and he or his successor would continue to have done that.
Our problem is that Brown decided to raise spending and did not raise taxes enough to pay for it. Nor did he create anything like enough growth to pay for it. On top of which a chunck of the economy disappeared which he hoped would pay for it.
But you are right we always need to think about spending and keep spending and budgets under control. That way we can use growth to both pay off debt, keep taxes in check and, inevitably, little by little allow inflation be the price we pay for reducing the level of past debt. Always. Its a simple rule which governs my vote. I did not vote for Blair in n1997. I did not like him. But I do recognise that he and Brown cut very plausible figures. I won't fall for that one again.
http://www.yourthurrock.com/UKIP-candidate-Kerry-Smith-selected/story-23226874-detail/story.html
Nonetheless, I agree that Freedom of Association should be restored.
Any establishment advertising "no blacks or Irish" would be boycotted and almost certainly not last long, as most people would be appalled and word can now spread very fast on electronic media. At best a handful of such establishments would remain as a stuggling ghetto establishment unable to get commercial sponsorship etc.
Freedom of Association would however prevent tiny but vociferous minorites imposing their will on everyone else. They would of course also be able to set up establishments discriminating in favour of fellow minority members without fear of that being deemed illegal.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/oil-price-plunge-forces-bp-to-cut-jobs-and-slash-costs-9915193.html
Andrew Neil @afneil · 27m27 minutes ago
ISIS throws man off roof for being gay in Northern Iraq. If that doesn't kill him he should then be stoned to death, rules Islamist court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30420190
The case will now be examined by an internal party disciplinary committee, which will decide what to do about it before Christmas and possibly within the coming days.
Roger Bird maintains he behaved properly and claims his evidence proves he is telling the truth.
He is currently suspended from his post as General Secretary on full pay.
Natasha Bolter says Roger Bird acted inappropriately.
Some sources within UKIP agree.
UKIP, a party plagued by internal turbulence and infighting for much of its life, aches to be seen as anti-establishment yes, but professional too.
So what will it do next?
An answer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html
I'm struggling - really, really struggling - to see how we are meant to take this party seriously. I've often bemoaned the level of basic competence, and to some extent proprietry, among the old "Big Three" parties, but this is sub-student union stuff. As bad as during the Kilroy years. Does nobody have a grip?