There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
No, my opinion is based on the fact that I used to be a nurse, and also the reality of having three elderly relatives who had suffered from very poor care while they were in hospital in various parts of Scotland in recent years. Add to that my own personal experience over the last few months due to a health scare, and I have some very genuine concerns.
I genuinely believe that anyone other than the SNP could do a better job of getting their priorities right when it comes to running the Scottish NHS right now. For start, I would get rid of the new shift hours that nursing staff now work. What the hell were people thinking when they thought this was a good idea, certainly not maintaining a good continuity of care for the patients that is for sure.
"As a side note. I have been warning of the difficulties that the Scottish NHS was facing for the last few years on PB, it is under serious pressure right now"
While this is true, as it is everywhere in the UK, a recent poll showed the SNP are the most trusted party on the NHS in Scotland.
In spite of all the efforts of BBC Scotland, there is no plurality believing that SLAB or the Tories would do as well, never mind better.
LOL, surprise surprise a Tory thinks they could sell of the NHS and it would be better. I am sure it is the SNP that do the shift rotas on the NHS. Not too bright methinks or just blinded by hatred of SNP.
Not so good for you but basically a voodoo poll of you and your elderly family. Has there ever been a time when the NHS has not been "under pressure". I contend based on my voodoo poll that it is significantly better than if it was under Labour control, their only plan was to close A&E all over the place.
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
Looking at the underlying data, that would seem a much fairer representation of the facts.
Ireland looks like a special case and a little odd. Who are all these Brits going to Ireland to claim benefits? Would I be right in my hunch that they usually come from northern Ireland?
Shouldnt they wait until the Scottish Government revises its projections for oil prices?
I don't think alliances made during the referendum campaign extend to the Scottish Greens waiting breathlessly upon pronouncements made by the SNP government.
I cant imagine many people are waiting breathlessly for the SNP government's oil price projections (well, not for their informative value anyway).
True (though a few Unionists seem desperate for them). 'Just a bit more shit than those of the UK Government' isn't a great strapline.
But then 45% of people did turn out to vote for a something "just a bit more shit than the UK Government" last September so there's no accounting for taste.
The other way to look at it is that only a minority of Scots actually voted for the most glorious Union in the last 300 years. Not exactly a resounding statement of approval. The rest voted against or cared so little about remaining in the UK that they didn't bother voting. And that was after a propaganda campaign of which we won't see the like till the Brexit campaign (and you lot will sure know it when it happens).
Or that fewer than 2 in 5 Scots fell for the SNP's fantastical 'currency union with the UK, automatic EU membership land of milk and honey funded by $110/barrel oil'.......
But ultimately the margin is only 1 in 19 people. And that 1 in 19 (at least) is waiting to see how we are really are better off together in the UK.
Maybe the best that can be said for Labour in Scotland right now is that it has reached rock bottom.
The Survation poll has only 19.4% of the population wanting a Labour government. Which suggests that there's at least another 6% aren't just soft but postively there for the taking.
His music/lyrics are very interesting. Much scorn missing the point. Only saw it recently. I find his falsetto style odd but it's tragic in context. Well worth paying attention. IIRC he commanded 30k troops. No luvvies.
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
That's mainly because we export old people who do not work, but do use many other public services, such as health. It's a big issue in Spain, for example.
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
That's mainly because we export old people who do not work, but do use many other public services, such as health. It's a big issue in Spain, for example.
You think more British immigrants use foreign health systems than vice versa?
His music/lyrics are very interesting. Much scorn missing the point. Only saw it recently. I find his falsetto style odd but it's tragic in context. Well worth paying attention.
I've a few services friends and he translates it so well. The sneering shows so much ignorance and class war. He's a very sharp guy and a warrior. It seems to unnerve his detractors.
His music/lyrics are very interesting. Much scorn missing the point. Only saw it recently. I find his falsetto style odd but it's tragic in context. Well worth paying attention.
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
That's mainly because we export old people who do not work, but do use many other public services, such as health. It's a big issue in Spain, for example.
Many expats in Spain opt for private health cover which is much cheaper than in the UK - typically 80€ per month for full cover at age 55 with no increases for age. Service is excellent, and this is affordable for those of us on modest UK employment pensions, especially as everything else with the exception of electricity is typically 20% less than in the UK.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
No, my opinion is based on the fact that I used to be a nurse, and also the reality of having three elderly relatives who had suffered from very poor care while they were in hospital in various parts of Scotland in recent years. Add to that my own personal experience over the last few months due to a health scare, and I have some very genuine concerns.
I genuinely believe that anyone other than the SNP could do a better job of getting their priorities right when it comes to running the Scottish NHS right now. For start, I would get rid of the new shift hours that nursing staff now work. What the hell were people thinking when they thought this was a good idea, certainly not maintaining a good continuity of care for the patients that is for sure.
"As a side note. I have been warning of the difficulties that the Scottish NHS was facing for the last few years on PB, it is under serious pressure right now"
While this is true, as it is everywhere in the UK, a recent poll showed the SNP are the most trusted party on the NHS in Scotland.
In spite of all the efforts of BBC Scotland, there is no plurality believing that SLAB or the Tories would do as well, never mind better.
LOL, surprise surprise a Tory thinks they could sell of the NHS and it would be better. I am sure it is the SNP that do the shift rotas on the NHS. Not too bright methinks or just blinded by hatred of SNP.
Not so good for you but basically a voodoo poll of you and your elderly family. Has there ever been a time when the NHS has not been "under pressure". I contend based on my voodoo poll that it is significantly better than if it was under Labour control, their only plan was to close A&E all over the place.
Survation:
Since the SNP government came to power in 2007
NHS Scotland: Quality of care has got: Better: 22 Worse: 32 (splits SNP VI 19, all others 40%+) About same: 30
Waiting time: Better: 22 Worse: 33 About the same: 25
Felt a bit sorry for Chuka. Why should we expect our policians to have an instant response to everything?
I agree - tho it was unfortunate to walk off, Murnaghan was out of order suggesting he 'come back in 30 minutes after you've read the letter.....'
I disagree - when called on to the box any half-way decent minister or shadow must expect to be asked to comment on issues of the day as well as the brief. The question was not hard. the bigger idiot of the day was the chap form the MCGB who clearly hadn't read Pickles letter before criticising it.
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
That's mainly because we export old people who do not work, but do use many other public services, such as health. It's a big issue in Spain, for example.
While that's true, we currently aren't exporting enough people to hit Cameron's target on net migration, so clearly there are going to be fewer [recent] British emigrants abroad, than [recent] foreign immigrants in Britain.
If you take a long view, back to the 17th century, say, the present period of net inward migration probably stands out as being very unusual. I would guess that for most of that time net migration has been outward from Britain to the rest of the world. Change tends to upset people.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
There are 2 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in Poland. One in Slovenia. And None in Lithuania or Romania
According to the statistics there are still many more EU claimants in the UK, than UK claimants in the rest of the EU, though the phrase 'Unemployed Britons in richer EU states outnumber jobless from those countries in UK', is an interesting spin.
Same facts.. different story...
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
That's mainly because we export old people who do not work, but do use many other public services, such as health. It's a big issue in Spain, for example.
While that's true, we currently aren't exporting enough people to hit Cameron's target on net migration, so clearly there are going to be fewer [recent] British emigrants abroad, than [recent] foreign immigrants in Britain.
If you take a long view, back to the 17th century, say, the present period of net inward migration probably stands out as being very unusual. I would guess that for most of that time net migration has been outward from Britain to the rest of the world. Change tends to upset people.
If the £ holds it's current rate at 1.30€ to the euro elderly Brits with savings/pension wealth can get lots of bargains in Spain at the moment and live a very comfortable life. The average Spanish wage is around €14000 a year in most of Spain - a typical expat retiree can easily command double that.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
A fair few billionaires in India (and China too IIRC)
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Except in many cases, they're private organisations in receipt of vast sums of public money. How much are Oxfam taking out of the taxpayers purse?
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
A fair few billionaires in India (and China too IIRC)
That can't be right. According to MaxPB, half of the global richest 1% are British.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Charities are not supposed to political at all, their agenda is clear for everyone to see.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Except in many cases, they're private organisations in receipt of vast sums of public money. How much are Oxfam taking out of the taxpayers purse?
If the Government decides it is a more efficient use of public money to hand it over to a private organisation in return for contracted services, rather than to use that money to employ public servants to deliver those services, then that is an entirely separate question to interfering in the ability of that organisation to participate in public debate.
What are you trying to do - create a police state where no dissent is permitted?
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Charities are not supposed to political at all, their agenda is clear for everyone to see.
Yes, Oxfam have a very clear agenda in favour of helping the world's poorest people.
His music/lyrics are very interesting. Much scorn missing the point. Only saw it recently. I find his falsetto style odd but it's tragic in context. Well worth paying attention. IIRC he commanded 30k troops. No luvvies.
Mr. Eagles, James Blunt always came across as a properly nice chap on his two Top Gear appearances.
Mr. Crosby, that seems a weird thing to storm off over.
Twitter comebacks aside, I do find his songs pretty horrid (those I've heard). The first time I listened to 'You're Beautiful' I literally predicted each line him - 'I saw your face' me -'in a crowded place' him 'in a crowded place' and so on through the entire song, that was how relentlessly cliched it was.
Ah, that explains it! I read the FT and have a contract phone, but I do shop at Lidl and Aldi! Why pay unnecessarily pay more money? I suppose that explains a lot of my euroscepticism too!
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
That 508m figure includes children, retired people, part time employed and the unemployed. Whittle that figure down and adjust for the average wage how much closer does the figure look.
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Except in many cases, they're private organisations in receipt of vast sums of public money. How much are Oxfam taking out of the taxpayers purse?
Oxfam started in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. FAMINE RELIEF. In November 2000, Oxfam adopted:- the right to a sustainable livelihood the right to basic social services the right to life and security the right to be heard the right to an identity
Basically a statist leftie lobbying unit for a large public sector...... Even "the right to life" does not mean they actually should be spending most of their money feeding people.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Depends what you are comparing it to, compared to most of my "customers" they are dripping in cash.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Charities are not supposed to political at all, their agenda is clear for everyone to see.
Yes, Oxfam have a very clear agenda in favour of helping the world's poorest people.
No, they don't. They are now campaigning on zero-hours contracts and such, which is a nakedly political agenda aligned to the Labour party. They campaign in favour of social security and the welfarism, which is again, politically driven to increase the size of the state.
Big Bang relies on either being a geek or knowing them. Without that, it'd make little sense. Have you seen Boston Legal? William Shatner and James Spader are epic.
As you say, whatever threads you put up, the 'others' will suspect they're being short changed.
Many Labour people accuse the BBC of being rabidly right wing. We all have our biases, and despite what some people think, even scientists do.
That's why some theories last longer than they should. Incidentally, string theory and M theory, beloved of Stephen Hawking, also seems to be drifting out of fashion. I can't follow the maths but it appears the concept of eleven dimensions and a multiverse may be losing popularity.
Even 'Big Bang' the sitcom has the character Sheldon Cooper wanting to switch from it (and the script writers do receive advice from the theoretical physics experts).
It's lasted thirty years and I thought it might linger as it's virtually impossible to prove it false. I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but I'd call that metaphysics. But it made things interesting for a while - the aim of many scientific theories.
My GF loves Big Bang but I just don't get it. Didn't raise a single chuckle in me. I agree about 24 tho, it loses pace by season 3 or 4, and flails beyond that. As indeed do most TV dramas. It is virtually a law of scriptwriting. And it is the reason very very few dramas go beyond 5 seasons.
As for the physics, my layman's understanding is that multiverse theory is still highly fashionable - almost verging on consensus. There may even be *evidence*.
Ah, that explains it! I read the FT and have a contract phone, but I do shop at Lidl and Aldi! Why pay unnecessarily pay more money? I suppose that explains a lot of my euroscepticism too!
I'm contract, subscribe to the Spectator (though it usually falls by the wayside in favour of PB.com), Tesco delivery.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
That 508m figure includes children, retired people, part time employed and the unemployed. Whittle that figure down and adjust for the average wage how much closer does the figure look.
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
Oxfam is a truly wonderful organisation.
Far better than any right-wing organisation including the Tory party that you obviously subscribe to....
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
I believe their charitable status gives them exemption form taxes like VAT. If they cannot sustain their political neutrality then those privileges should be withdrawn.
Maybe they hired someone from the Lib Dems instead of from Labour?
It is time to strip Oxfam of it's charitable status in the UK. It has become a joke of political agendas.
I'm all for enforcing stricter standards of Mathematics in public discourse, but don't you think that's a trifle harsh?
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
It's not the chart, it's their political agenda that needs to be stripped away. The chart is just a symptom of the disease infecting the charity (and many others).
I think your own politics is colouring your perception of Oxfams.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Charities are not supposed to political at all, their agenda is clear for everyone to see.
Yes, Oxfam have a very clear agenda in favour of helping the world's poorest people.
Indeed. That wasn't the question. You can do all that and be either party political or not, one is legal, the other isn't. I am making no judgement on the case under discussion, but it is fatuous to say in effect that because something is for a worthy cause it is necessarily legal for a charity to do it.
Legal requirement: in the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties is balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, nor to a candidate or politician.
A charity may give its support to specific policies advocated by political parties if it would help achieve its charitable purposes. However, trustees must not allow the charity to be used as a vehicle for the expression of the political views of any individual trustee or staff member (in this context we mean personal or party political views).
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
That 508m figure includes children, retired people, part time employed and the unemployed. Whittle that figure down and adjust for the average wage how much closer does the figure look.
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
Oxfam is a truly wonderful organisation.
Far better than any right-wing organisation including the Tory party that you obviously subscribe to....
Also, since I haven't seen you in a while. I would like to lord it over you for a while about foreign voters deserting the Labour party. As I have said continually over the last few years on PB and denied by yourself.
The man is an idiot. This much is clear. Luckily for him this argument won't get beyond the Westminster bubble and a few Twatters sniggering about it for a few hours today.
I recall McMillan Cancer care get caught up in questions of impartiality CIRCA 2011, question to the Prime Minister fed thro Ed Miliband. I thought it a disgrace at the time, and noble charity it might be, but they'll never get a penny from me until the can prove their impartiality.. and that might be some time.
Against this, one SNP source told me that the party stood to gain a minimum of six from Labour and a maximum of 17, with the former more likely.
The nationalists are more optimistic in the case of the Liberal Democrats, They believe they can win 10 of the Lib Dem’s 11 seats if just a quarter of the party’s 2010 vote swings its way (a result that would leave just Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael standing).
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
That 508m figure includes children, retired people, part time employed and the unemployed. Whittle that figure down and adjust for the average wage how much closer does the figure look.
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
Oxfam is a truly wonderful organisation.
Far better than any right-wing organisation including the Tory party that you obviously subscribe to....
Also, since I haven't seen you in a while. I would like to lord it over you for a while about foreign voters deserting the Labour party. As I have said continually over the last few years on PB and denied by yourself.
I'm not denying that this is happening. The illegal disastrous war in Iraq is still is stiIl a huge drag on Labour. There is also a fear that Labour might alienate ethnic minorities more by appealing to the WWC core more strongly.
Having said that, ethnic minorities will still disproportionately vote in favour of Labour. I suspect BME turnout will be lowest ever recorded as huge numbers stay at home.
Oxfam exists to serve its political agenda at the moment. They need to either clear all of the ex-Labour party members out or the charities commission should reconsider their charitable status. People on the national average wage in the UK are considered part of the global top "1%", are you seriously suggesting that people on the national average wage are in some way wealthy? Oxfam are.
Global top 1% = 70 million people.
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
That 508m figure includes children, retired people, part time employed and the unemployed. Whittle that figure down and adjust for the average wage how much closer does the figure look.
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
Wow, really? You're defending your ludicrous claim that people in Britain on the national average salary are in the richest 1%?
Comments
"More than twice as many European Union immigrants are claiming unemployment benefits in Britain than vice versa, new figures have revealed.
Almost 65,000 EU nationals are getting Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in the UK compared to around 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefits elsewhere in the EU"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11355148/Twice-as-many-EU-immigrants-claiming-unemployment-benefits-in-UK-than-vice-versa-new-research-show.html
Has there ever been a time when the NHS has not been "under pressure". I contend based on my voodoo poll that it is significantly better than if it was under Labour control, their only plan was to close A&E all over the place.
Ireland looks like a special case and a little odd. Who are all these Brits going to Ireland to claim benefits? Would I be right in my hunch that they usually come from northern Ireland?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-30876360
Party invoice: Boy sent bill for birthday no-show.
Is that how the hoi poloi behave in Cornwall?
Perhaps Charitable status should be reserved for charities like this
https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/william-hague-charitable-trust/
Epic war song http://open.spotify.com/track/0TtbdD068t7JBif88ruL83
Chukka and Bryant showing the Lab front bench utter lack of Substance and the latter is a Lowlife who'd be at home in a Republic.
But then what do you expect it's all power, corruption and lies to these people.
Let's call this Blunt's Revenge.
What would you do to the Cabinet Ministers who have been reprimanded over their mis-use of statistics?
There's a Preview button for testing posts; you don't actually have to post it.
Careful
and this is affordable for those of us on modest UK employment pensions, especially as everything else with the exception of electricity is typically 20% less than in the UK.
Since the SNP government came to power in 2007
NHS Scotland:
Quality of care has got:
Better: 22
Worse: 32 (splits SNP VI 19, all others 40%+)
About same: 30
Waiting time:
Better: 22
Worse: 33
About the same: 25
If you take a long view, back to the 17th century, say, the present period of net inward migration probably stands out as being very unusual. I would guess that for most of that time net migration has been outward from Britain to the rest of the world. Change tends to upset people.
Where's that popcorn.
Do you shop at a low-cost supermarket, read a red top or right-wing newspaper and have a pay as you go phone?
On average, you fit the profile of a UKIP voter for the General Election.
Can Your Supermarket Predict Your Politics?
And failing.
Are you sitting down?
Have you taken all the pills?
I heard a rumour that UKIP were on 30%+
Amongst 90 year old males living by the seaside.....
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/10/article-2186527-1479D494000005DC-280_634x798.jpg
Population of the US, Japan and UK combined is 508 million, so if we assume that all of the global richest 1% are either British, American or Japanese [and none German, Swiss, Russian, etc], then they represent the richest 14% of those countries.
Your Maths appears to be erroneous. I'm happy to be corrected, of course, if the error is mine.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-starting-turn-tide-scotland
I'd love to hear his put downs in the Commons.
No way should the government be interfering with charities who decide to be vocal in public debate. They're private organisations and it's up to individuals to decide if they merit their support.
Have yourself an extra biscuit with your tea watching Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys tonight on me
The singer of the fictional band also inspired me to grow my hair long, although I couldn't have expected anyone to get that
What are you trying to do - create a police state where no dissent is permitted?
him - 'I saw your face'
me -'in a crowded place'
him 'in a crowded place'
and so on through the entire song, that was how relentlessly cliched it was.
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/18795/oxfam_criticised_by_charity_commission_after_accusations_of_political_bias_in_tweet
It is just part of Oxfam and Labour's co-ordinated attack against the cost of living crap and their continued anti-wealth agenda.
In November 2000, Oxfam adopted:-
the right to a sustainable livelihood
the right to basic social services
the right to life and security
the right to be heard
the right to an identity
Basically a statist leftie lobbying unit for a large public sector...... Even "the right to life" does not mean they actually should be spending most of their money feeding people.
Interesting to me how many luvvies are becoming so very openly anti-Labour.
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/opinion-polls-underestimated-tories-overestimated-labour/4749
LOL tremendous.
'Where are the Albert Finneys and the Glenda Jacksons?' Chris Bryant asks http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/16/arts-diversity-chris-bryant-eddie-redmayne … they both went to grammar schools
Far better than any right-wing organisation including the Tory party that you obviously subscribe to....
So last week's Ashcroft poll was a Tory lead of 10%
Cheltenham, Oxford, CofE
The lovely thing about the prophets of diversity and privilege is the way they think it never applies to them.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/19/chris-bryant-letter-james-blunt-in-full
Bryant really is a prize wazzock.
It's really hard to know who to cheer in this one !
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/556882506084282368
Against this, one SNP source told me that the party stood to gain a minimum of six from Labour and a maximum of 17, with the former more likely.
The nationalists are more optimistic in the case of the Liberal Democrats, They believe they can win 10 of the Lib Dem’s 11 seats if just a quarter of the party’s 2010 vote swings its way (a result that would leave just Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael standing).
http://may2015.com/datablast/is-labour-starting-to-turn-the-tide-in-scotland/
6+17+10 = 33. But of course, any such source may be managing expectations. Perhaps 17 is the number they are quietly confident of, as things stand?
Having said that, ethnic minorities will still disproportionately vote in favour of Labour. I suspect BME turnout will be lowest ever recorded as huge numbers stay at home.