F1: loss of power for Button as the McLaren grinds to a halt.
May be worth looking at Button/Alonso not to be classified come Oz, but also worth noting the terrible reliability in testing was replaced by a strong performance in 2014, so consider it carefully.
In the olden days both questions would get roughly the same answer - today the polls are very bad at predicting the vote share at the next election (the election is not going to be tomorrow). . UKIP and green votes are going to be well down on their current poll ratings. I predict UKIP 5-6% and green 1-2%.
Considering the increase in Green candidates standing, a result in the 1-2% bracket would actually mean that they were going backwards on their 2010 showing. I really doubt that'll happen. I agree that they'll not do as well as the polls are showing (alas) but I think they'll be upwards of 3% and might touch 4%.
As for UKIP, much as I dislike them, I reckon they'll do about twice as well as you're predicting too.
I never had the opportunity to go to Uni..getting work and bringing in a wage at the tender age of fifteen was a priority..I would willingly pay the fees to go now.
You still can!
I highly recommend the Open University!
After an Oxford degree I airily thought 'how hard can this be'?
"Very", was the answer! But very rewarding too......
But you can also go to a 'normal' uni, and if you are old enough you never have to repay the student loan or fees ... because they are written off after a certain age. There was an article in the Grauniad a couple of year back about an elderly lady who was doing a degree at Oxford and was somewhat taken aback to realise this.
The two fifteen and their sixteen year-old compatriot remain under UK protection within Turkey: Entering Syria makes them 'beyond-the-pale'. Very brave of their families to flag this up.
As for Al-Beeb:
Their statement about the RAF bombing them only applies in Iraq. Anything within Syria is safe-and-secure thanks to Miliband.
But they also had some lass on this morning suggesting that sites like 'Jihadi Dating' are where paedophiles are actively grooming. It was at 05:32-ish so - maybe - targeted at the global market and not your average Labour voter in Tower Hamlets or Broxtowe....
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
Given it suits Putin to have other leaders impotently criticise him, as it shows him to be powerful, I should think he does not so much giggle as get a warm feeling of contentment and possibly an erection.
And with apologies for that vulgar image, I must be off.
I never had the opportunity to go to Uni..getting work and bringing in a wage at the tender age of fifteen was a priority..I would willingly pay the fees to go now.
You still can!
I highly recommend the Open University!
After an Oxford degree I airily thought 'how hard can this be'?
"Very", was the answer! But very rewarding too......
But you can also go to a 'normal' uni, and if you are old enough you never have to repay the student loan or fees ... because they are written off after a certain age. There was an article in the Grauniad a couple of year back about an elderly lady who was doing a degree at Oxford and was somewhat taken aback to realise this.
Indeed - Bertie Gladwin, Masters in Military Intelligence, age 91:
Mr. Carnyx, ha. Not sure all 'unionists' would consider the Vow a good thing.
There is a funny side - the 'Vow' was down to a collective Westminster panic - in particular Labour, who feared without Scotland they'd be screwed......
Yes, Labour supporters do probably feel on the whole more inclined to the Lib Dems than the Tories but is this enough for them to opt for the Lib Dems over Labour in a Con/LD seat when the Lib Dems put the Tories in last time? Might not we see more (not all) of the Labour-inclined actually going Red in 2015?
A tactical vote is only worth the while if a voter sees their second-preference as only marginally inferior to the first and well ahead of the third.
Not just that, any Labour voter in a notional CON/LD marginal who is watching the polls and noticing the woeful placing of the LDs at the moment, might feel that the LD vote will crumble and move Labour into contention, especially if they are not miles behind.
If one were in Watford (Con:19,291 Lab:14,750 LD:17,866) as a LAB voter you have got to wonder if the LD vote is going to crumble enough and gift enough votes to LAB to put you in contention, and possibly win the seat. If I was a LAB voter there I would fancy my chances and vote LAB.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax' if they are repaying the loan. Changing the name to tax from loan repayment has political repercussions.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
Not really, Russia are the only major power in Europe actively restoring Christian Civilization and rejecting secular liberal humanism.
Which, for those of us old enough to remember the USSR is an astonishing turnaround, but one which of course was prophesised in Fatima, Portugal in 1917, soon after the Russian Revolution.
Its quite astonishing that we read things like this now in the Russian Media, Pravda of all things:
In the olden days both questions would get roughly the same answer - today the polls are very bad at predicting the vote share at the next election (the election is not going to be tomorrow). . UKIP and green votes are going to be well down on their current poll ratings. I predict UKIP 5-6% and green 1-2%.
Considering the increase in Green candidates standing, a result in the 1-2% bracket would actually mean that they were going backwards on their 2010 showing. I really doubt that'll happen. I agree that they'll not do as well as the polls are showing (alas) but I think they'll be upwards of 3% and might touch 4%.
As for UKIP, much as I dislike them, I reckon they'll do about twice as well as you're predicting too.
I'd agree with that. UKIP is slipping back a little but also have had a tendency to put on support during election campaigns in recent years. That might be different in a general election but it'd be a brave call to assume so given that all the main Westminster are hamstrung in credibly offering milkandhoney manifestoes. The scope, therefore, for protest votes outside the traditional parties is much higher than it has been and a single-figures score would now be a very poor return for UKIP. The Greens ought to be looking for at least 5% as a target and really should be trying to run an entire national slate. They could do so and probably still lose fewer deposits than last time.
If the debates do take place, the Greens ought to be one of the beneficiaries. Never mind that Bennett came completely unstuck against Andrew Neil, a 5+ way debate has a very different dynamic, she couldn't be cross-examined in the same way as a 1:1 interview and the other leaders will have different targets and limited time to hit them. Skipping the specifics and offering 'we feel your pain' / 'the world is unjust' sloganising should work well.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
But its not a real debt, in as much as you don't have to service it until you earn over the threshold. In effect the government would just write off all the loans on a given date, and introduce a graduate tax on the same date, people over the threshold could continue paying just the same amount as before, people under the threshold still would be paying anything.
The jobs aren't there for such a large number of graduates, and there seems to be evidence that degrees are sometimes cited on vacancies as a sifting mechanism in recruitment practice, rather than a genuine requirement of the role.
I recall seeing some research recently that put a significant proportion of jobs as being appropriate to an education level of about thirteen years of age.
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
Not really, Russia are the only major power in Europe actively restoring Christian Civilization and rejecting secular liberal humanism.
Which, for those of us old enough to remember the USSR is an astonishing turnaround, but one which of course was prophesised in Fatima, Portugal in 1917, soon after the Russian Revolution.
Its quite astonishing that we read things like this now in the Russian Media, Pravda of all things:
The jobs aren't there for such a large number of graduates, and there seems to be evidence that degrees are sometimes cited on vacancies as a sifting mechanism in recruitment practice, rather than a genuine requirement of the role.
I recall seeing some research recently that put a significant proportion of jobs as being appropriate to an education level of about thirteen years of age.
That was precisely the point I was making earlier. Worse we have people that have done a degree and feel as a result that they have earned the right to a high powered, well paid job. I don't believe the number of those jobs has changed as lot, where as before people with degrees got them and people without didn't, now its people with firsts from Russell Group universities get them and the rest don't. Plus c'est la change.
People with fag-end degrees flipping burgers is a ridiculous position to be in, the degree cost the country a packet because it has no hope of being repaid, and the recipient lost four years of income doing the degree and feels dissatisfied and disillusioned at the end of it when the high powered job then expected didn't materialise.
There is a separate and relative problem with qualifications like pure sciences. As a friend of mine studying Microbiology at uni commented: "There are two sorts of Microbiologists in this world, those with PhDs and those that wash bottles (or spread stool samples on slides)". The number of research jobs and jobs in pure science is tiny, and only accept the very best, everyone else is disappointed.
But its not a real debt, in as much as you don't have to service it until you earn over the threshold
I'm not sure the people over the threshold who get the statements and pay the deductions would see it that way.
As for a graduate tax - would it be imposed retrospectively on all graduates? All the ones who got free university back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?
The point I am making is those over the threshold wouldnt see a different statement or pay a different deduction if the system was replaced with a graduate tax.
The second question is a political call, not an economic one. I would argue no, since they are not servicing a student loan today either. The practicalities might be prohibitive as well, I doubt there is a central register of people holding degrees, and lots of people who no longer need to flaunt their qualifications and are in jobs that don't require a degree (ie the majority) will just "forget" that they have one. Then there are immigrants that got their degree in another country, do they pay (having probably already paid for their degree in their country of origin).
Yes, Labour supporters do probably feel on the whole more inclined to the Lib Dems than the Tories but is this enough for them to opt for the Lib Dems over Labour in a Con/LD seat when the Lib Dems put the Tories in last time? Might not we see more (not all) of the Labour-inclined actually going Red in 2015?
A tactical vote is only worth the while if a voter sees their second-preference as only marginally inferior to the first and well ahead of the third.
Not just that, any Labour voter in a notional CON/LD marginal who is watching the polls and noticing the woeful placing of the LDs at the moment, might feel that the LD vote will crumble and move Labour into contention, especially if they are not miles behind.
If one were in Watford (Con:19,291 Lab:14,750 LD:17,866) as a LAB voter you have got to wonder if the LD vote is going to crumble enough and gift enough votes to LAB to put you in contention, and possibly win the seat. If I was a LAB voter there I would fancy my chances and vote LAB.
Indeed, though even without the Lib Dem collapse, Watford should really be thought of as a three-way marginal.
But I agree with the general point. Taking the specifics of the Watford constituency out the equation, if there were a seat which in 2010 had been Con 21k, LD 18k, Lab 11k a Labour-inclined voter would still be well advised to consider whether going on the national figures Labour might outpoll the Lib Dems there and so their first preference would in fact be their best tactical option too.
'As for a graduate tax - would it be imposed retrospectively on all graduates? All the ones who got free university back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?'
There would need to be a retrospective tax rebate for the higher levels of income tax these graduates paid in the 60's & 70's.
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
In all truth, the University funding problem is just part of a wider malaise this country has allowed to build up and refused to address because it failed to address specific party interests for their primary interest groups.
What is really needed is a Year Zero approach to the Social Contract, where all the benefits and taxes of the state are approached from the ground up, with proper public consultation and politicians removed from the mix.
Of course the chances of that happening are unlikely.
Luckyguy - or alternatively Putin represents the sort of authoritarian nationalism many kippers long for. However imperfect the US and EU represent liberal democratic values. The fact you appear to have no preference for that over the abusurdity of Putin's Russia is very revealing.
But its not a real debt, in as much as you don't have to service it until you earn over the threshold
I'm not sure the people over the threshold who get the statements and pay the deductions would see it that way.
As for a graduate tax - would it be imposed retrospectively on all graduates? All the ones who got free university back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?
There is nothing stopping parliament doing that - other than electoral oblivion in 2020 for its members.
Indeed it would have a smack of the khmer rouge about it, and really could engineer a brain drain. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Willetts made a complete pigs ear of student finance, and sorting it out is going to be a nightmare for several governments to come.
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Do you need any more reasons, I could go on.
Rather than citing Russia Today's summary of the House of Lords report on Ukraine, you could link to it directly:
In all truth, the University funding problem is just part of a wider malaise this country has allowed to build up and refused to address because it failed to address specific party interests for their primary interest groups.
What is really needed is a Year Zero approach to the Social Contract, where all the benefits and taxes of the state are approached from the ground up, with proper public consultation and politicians removed from the mix.
Of course the chances of that happening are unlikely.
The university funding solution is going to become increasingly pointless. The more people we send to university, the larger proportion of the population graduates represent. Sooner or later they represent such a large chunk of the population you are effectively taxing everyone over a threshold.... or as it used to be known, the higher rate of income tax.
If 70% of your population go to university, which costs the country money, and most of the rest are claiming benefit or tax credits of one sort of another (which also costs the country money) there would be a pretty solid argument on just merging university funding into general taxation, and incidentally taking us back where we were 40 years ago.
On another forum, the Lib Dem activist MBoy, who sometimes posts here, reckons that young people who don't go to university are more tolerant and open-minded than those who do.
That wouldn't surprise me as they would get more 'real world' experience and have a lower sense of being 'elite'.
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Do you need any more reasons, I could go on.
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
The beauty of free education is that it allows failure without consequence. That may be a bad thing in industry or business but in education having people with too many qualifications is not always a bad thing. Even Carlotta (unknowingly) supported this with her defence of English Lit as a course choice.
As the education is free, once you get on in your career if your degree isn't benefiting you, there is the option of returning to study without another £50k of debt, further improving the skills base of the country as a whole and you no longer penalise people for making the wrong choice - often through no fault of their own.
Dair: you want education to be free to the user at the tertiary level. And that is a fine and noble desire.
(I'm a philosophy graduate, and didn't pay for my degree, and am very grateful.)
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have a mismatch between the skills needed by businesses and the NHS and the like, and what our universities produce. The evidence for this can be seen in the combination of high unemployment levels for British people, and high levels of immigration.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
It wouldn't be too hard for any politician to sell a message to the young that older voters were having their cake and eating it, if graduate taxation was only applied to the young. If they were minded that way, of course.
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
The beauty of free education is that it allows failure without consequence. That may be a bad thing in industry or business but in education having people with too many qualifications is not always a bad thing. Even Carlotta (unknowingly) supported this with her defence of English Lit as a course choice.
As the education is free, once you get on in your career if your degree isn't benefiting you, there is the option of returning to study without another £50k of debt, further improving the skills base of the country as a whole and you no longer penalise people for making the wrong choice - often through no fault of their own.
Dair: you want education to be free to the user at the tertiary level. And that is a fine and noble desire.
(I'm a philosophy graduate, and didn't pay for my degree, and am very grateful.)
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have a mismatch between the skills needed by businesses and the NHS and the like, and what our universities produce. The evidence for this can be seen in the combination of high unemployment levels for British people, and high levels of immigration.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
Mr. Carnyx, ha. Not sure all 'unionists' would consider the Vow a good thing.
Good morning, Mr D. No indeed. But I'm also struck at the IPSO intervention on a political story, which seems pretty unusual to me - though others may know better (and often do on PB).
Luckyguy - or alternatively Putin represents the sort of authoritarian nationalism many kippers long for. However imperfect the US and EU represent liberal democratic values. The fact you appear to have no preference for that over the abusurdity of Putin's Russia is very revealing.
characterisation of the US (rendition, black sites, Guantanamo, surveillance overreach, suspension of habius corpus for suspected enemy combantants, TSA etc) as liberal at the moment is starting to feel like a bit of a stretch.
Luckyguy - or alternatively Putin represents the sort of authoritarian nationalism many kippers long for. However imperfect the US and EU represent liberal democratic values. The fact you appear to have no preference for that over the abusurdity of Putin's Russia is very revealing.
It could be that some of us are morally disgusted that anyone would seek to destabilise a country and inflame a civil war, of course applies to Serbia, Syria, Libya and Iraq as much as it does Ukraine. Dropping cluster bombs on a city and deliberate shelling of civilian areas, all part of the terror and repression we acquiesce in.
OT..slightly..The Papers are full of angst about three girls who have gone off to join ISIS..Do the British public really care..except to make sure they never get back in.
They would have seen IS burn people alive, throw elderly gay men off buildings and sell women as sex slaves. They went anyway. I have limited sympathy and they deserve what they recieve in a life of misery.
Its the fifty shades approach that attracts: treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.
It would be interesting to know what plans their families had for them.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
If UKIP had the balls to scrap uni fees and pay for it by cutting DFID budget they'd get my vote. The big untapped pool of votes isn't necessarily the young but parents who are pissed off paying an unjust tax on their kids. As oldies we turn out and vote.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
OT. My Oscar favourites in the top six categories. Some will be very short odds because they're certainties. However these are my picks. NB All the films are well worth seeing and most are on in lots of cinemas for a very short run. (PS Anna Pinnock should win Best Production Design for Grand Budapest Hotel but I can't find a bookmaker who'll take the bet)
Best Film- Boyhood (Boyhood) Best Director-Richard Linklater (Boyhood Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (Theory of Everything) Best Actress-Julianne Moore (Still Alice) Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (Boyhood) Best Supporting Actor-JK Simmons (Whiplash)
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
The beauty of free education is that it allows failure without consequence. That may be a bad thing in industry or business but in education having people with too many qualifications is not always a bad thing. Even Carlotta (unknowingly) supported this with her defence of English Lit as a course choice.
As the education is free, once you get on in your career if your degree isn't benefiting you, there is the option of returning to study without another £50k of debt, further improving the skills base of the country as a whole and you no longer penalise people for making the wrong choice - often through no fault of their own.
Dair: you want education to be free to the user at the tertiary level. And that is a fine and noble desire.
(I'm a philosophy graduate, and didn't pay for my degree, and am very grateful.)
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have a mismatch between the skills needed by businesses and the NHS and the like, and what our universities produce. The evidence for this can be seen in the combination of high unemployment levels for British people, and high levels of immigration.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
The beauty of free education is that it allows failure without consequence. That may be a bad thing in industry or business but in education having people with too many qualifications is not always a bad thing. Even Carlotta (unknowingly) supported this with her defence of English Lit as a course choice.
As the education is free, once you get on in your career if your degree isn't benefiting you, there is the option of returning to study without another £50k of debt, further improving the skills base of the country as a whole and you no longer penalise people for making the wrong choice - often through no fault of their own.
Dair: you want education to be free to the user at the tertiary level. And that is a fine and noble desire.
(I'm a philosophy graduate, and didn't pay for my degree, and am very grateful.)
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have a mismatch between the skills needed by businesses and the NHS and the like, and what our universities produce. The evidence for this can be seen in the combination of high unemployment levels for British people, and high levels of immigration.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
I think we may see tactical voting on the right: Many who would love to vote UKIP but as GE2015 is so close and they don't want Labour or more so Miliband will vote Con to play safe.
Secondly I can see two forms of TV in Scotland: The obvious one of backing unionist candidate against SNP or Green and The truly tactical one of centre right voters delighted for once they may not have to suffer a Labour MP, voting SNP to keep out Labour knowing full well independence has gone for 10 years anyway.
I never had the opportunity to go to Uni..getting work and bringing in a wage at the tender age of fifteen was a priority..I would willingly pay the fees to go now.
You still can!
I highly recommend the Open University!
After an Oxford degree I airily thought 'how hard can this be'?
"Very", was the answer! But very rewarding too......
But you can also go to a 'normal' uni, and if you are old enough you never have to repay the student loan or fees ... because they are written off after a certain age. There was an article in the Grauniad a couple of year back about an elderly lady who was doing a degree at Oxford and was somewhat taken aback to realise this.
Indeed - Bertie Gladwin, Masters in Military Intelligence, age 91:
Thanks. Interesting story (and good for them) - but not the one I had in mind, which was focussing in particular on the age letout (though one would have thought elderly folk had paid enough taxes ...).
You heard about the lawyer who passed on and was met by St Peter.
St P: "Amazing life you have had living to 149 years"
Lawyer: "How did you work that out?"
St P: "By the number of hours you charged to your clients".
Lawyer dies and goes to heaven. At the door, St. Peter's asks if he wants to come in. The lawyer thinks for a moment and says, we yes, possibly, but I need to look at the alternatives as well.
Somewhat surprised, St. Peter agreed to let him spent one day in heaven and one day in hell before making up his mind.
First heaven: a lovely day spent sitting on clouds, flapping wings and plucking at a harp. Very nice. Just a little, slow. Then the day in hell: a round of golf with his friends, a nice dinner afterwards, wine and laughter: a great time had by all.
The next day St. Peter asks him his choice. The lawyer pauses for a moment. "I'd like to go to hell" he says. St. Peter looks very surprised. "Are you sure? You know you can't change your mind once you sign the contract." "Yes, St. Peter. I'm certain."
The ground opens up, and the lawyer finds himself on a desolate plain, ringed with volcanoes and searingly hot. Next to him is the devil. "I don't understand!" protest the lawyer. "What happened to the golf course and all my friends?"
"Ah," said the devil. "Yesterday you were a prospect. Today you're a client."
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Do you need any more reasons, I could go on.
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Yet less strange than the US and the UK supporting, training and arming sunni militants in Syria so they can come back here and pick up where they left off.
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
The beauty of free education is that it allows failure without consequence. That may be a bad thing in industry or business but in education having people with too many qualifications is not always a bad thing. Even Carlotta (unknowingly) supported this with her defence of English Lit as a course choice.
As the education is free, once you get on in your career if your degree isn't benefiting you, there is the option of returning to study without another £50k of debt, further improving the skills base of the country as a whole and you no longer penalise people for making the wrong choice - often through no fault of their own.
Dair: you want education to be free to the user at the tertiary level. And that is a fine and noble desire.
(I'm a philosophy graduate, and didn't pay for my degree, and am very grateful.)
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have a mismatch between the skills needed by businesses and the NHS and the like, and what our universities produce. The evidence for this can be seen in the combination of high unemployment levels for British people, and high levels of immigration.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
you took the better option !
Well, strictly speaking, it was law & politics vs. banking...
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
If UKIP had the balls to scrap uni fees and pay for it by cutting DFID budget they'd get my vote. The big untapped pool of votes isn't necessarily the young but parents who are pissed off paying an unjust tax on their kids. As oldies we turn out and vote.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
Cut the DfID budget ???
Are you mad ???
You clearly don't have the strategic genius of your namesake.
Don't you know that the UK is an AID SUPERPOWER and we have Putin quaking in his boots.
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
I think we may see tactical voting on the right: Many who would love to vote UKIP but as GE2015 is so close and they don't want Labour or more so Miliband will vote Con to play safe.
There is certainly some of that. I think a strong issue is that lots of potential kippers are worried that their vote won't count because they don't feel the kippers are in contention in their constituency. There was a poll just before Christmas I think which suggested around a third of voters would consider voting UKIP if they thought it could win in their constituency. A strong showing of second places in GE2015 might transform the number of votes cast for UKIP in GE2020.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
If UKIP had the balls to scrap uni fees and pay for it by cutting DFID budget they'd get my vote. The big untapped pool of votes isn't necessarily the young but parents who are pissed off paying an unjust tax on their kids. As oldies we turn out and vote.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
Again as I've pointed out this is one of the reasons the SNP isn't doing too badly at all amongst the middle classes in Scotland.
There are almost no seats where Con, Lab and LD all have an obvious chance - Cambridge and, er...?
Brecon?
Or a Labour win in Brecon.
Don't know anything about Cambridge, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off all chances of a Labour win in Brecon. About one-third of Roger Williams' vote is tactical. If that unwinds there will be three parties on around 10,000 votes each, as was the case in the late 80s/early 90s.
I agree it's unlikely given Williams is standing again and is personally popular, but it's not unrealistic.
EDIT - it's worth pointing out that Brecon and Radnor is not just grassy hillsides with a lot of sheep. It also includes ex-industrial areas like Ystradgynlais and major public sector areas like Llandod itself, where I doubt somehow if the Coalition programme has been well received.
How do you know that the skills you support today will be relevant in 10 years time when you decide to support education in those areas today? I'm sure Journalism students in 1995 rolled in to their first year at Uni with a skip in their step and looked forward to a good career. Didn't really work out for most of them,
The problem is that the list of "good questions" is probably endless. It is certainly large enough to be considerable beyond "hard" to do. Personally, I don't have much faith in Planning as being capable of delivering reliable outcomes, it is the core for the failure of the Socialist model.
You're not addressing that point. You're making points about "availability of information" for 17 year olds, and suggesting there is no way to measure demand for skills, and therefore abrogating any suggestion that the state should do more than offer more Media Studies degrees.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
you took the better option !
Well, strictly speaking, it was law & politics vs. banking...
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
I am not sure why you are giving such authority to a report produced by our government, we are well out of the European mainstream on the Ukraine which is why we are excluded by France and Germany.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
you took the better option !
Well, strictly speaking, it was law & politics vs. banking...
I believe you commented along the lines of "where did my profession go so wrong" when the HSBC story broke.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
Selecting a sentence of the middle of a paragraph that suits you is a bit naughty as well.
In the short term, it is likely that the EU’s engagement with Russia will focus on the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues. However, a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions. On the other hand, if there is a further deterioration in eastern Ukraine, the EU should move to target individuals close to the regime and broaden sanctions into the Russian financial sector. The dismemberment of a sovereign independent state is not acceptable.
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
Um, and here's what continues in the Exec. summary where you choose to stop your quote:
'...However,a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions.'
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
I am not sure why you are giving such authority to a report produced by our government, we are well out of the European mainstream on the Ukraine which is why we are excluded by France and Germany.
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
There's a good lesson for you here. Actually, you haven't linked directly to the report, or even the executive summary of the report. You've linked to the UK Parliament website description of the report. THIS is the direct link to the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldeucom/115/115.pdf
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Why didn't they lead with it? Because it would have been an egregious distortion of the report.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
I am not sure why you are giving such authority to a report produced by our government, we are well out of the European mainstream on the Ukraine which is why we are excluded by France and Germany.
Even on that basis the report doesn't say what he wants it to.
OT..slightly..The Papers are full of angst about three girls who have gone off to join ISIS..Do the British public really care..except to make sure they never get back in.
They would have seen IS burn people alive, throw elderly gay men off buildings and sell women as sex slaves. They went anyway. I have limited sympathy and they deserve what they recieve in a life of misery.
Its the fifty shades approach that attracts: treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.
It would be interesting to know what plans their families had for them.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
People whose values collide with our own should surely be encouraged to emigrate rather than be stopped, it is after all why we all divided up into different nations.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
If UKIP had the balls to scrap uni fees and pay for it by cutting DFID budget they'd get my vote. The big untapped pool of votes isn't necessarily the young but parents who are pissed off paying an unjust tax on their kids. As oldies we turn out and vote.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
Again as I've pointed out this is one of the reasons the SNP isn't doing too badly at all amongst the middle classes in Scotland.
Yep some of their freebies are certainly beneficial to the middle class. Looking at the referendum I just wonder whether the new nationalism (younger,poorer, west coast) could cause them problems. Their strategy from what I could tell always seemed to be relentlessly populist policies mixed with independence. Looking at the referendum result they seemed to have scared off some of the 'Tartan Tories' and traded them in for more left wing support. But what if there is a left of centre government at Westminster led by Miliband?
There are almost no seats where Con, Lab and LD all have an obvious chance - Cambridge and, er...?
Brecon?
Or a Labour win in Brecon.
Don't know anything about Cambridge, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off all chances of a Labour win in Brecon. About one-third of Roger Williams' vote is tactical. If that unwinds there will be three parties on around 10,000 votes each, as was the case in the late 80s/early 90s.
I agree it's unlikely given Williams is standing again and is personally popular, but it's not unrealistic.
Even on that basis the report doesn't say what he wants it to.
You suggested that it said that it blamed the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation.
In fact, it enthusiastically supports an ambitious package of sanctions against Russia.
Of course if Russia starts behaving itself, sanctions should be wound down. Others can read the report for themselves and make their own minds up as to how sympathetic it is to the Russian line. It seems pretty clear to me that the answer is not at all.
That's about it. The easiest solution is probably to replace the loan system with what the loans were supposed to be and almost are: an income-contingent graduate tax.
Repayments are taken at a rate of 9 % of salary above the minimum entry point.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax'.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
So a young graduate with a family and in receipt of tax credits will be paying a marginal rate of 82% income tax on every pound earned over £21k
20% Income Tax 12% NI 9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment 41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
If UKIP had the balls to scrap uni fees and pay for it by cutting DFID budget they'd get my vote. The big untapped pool of votes isn't necessarily the young but parents who are pissed off paying an unjust tax on their kids. As oldies we turn out and vote.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
Again as I've pointed out this is one of the reasons the SNP isn't doing too badly at all amongst the middle classes in Scotland.
Yep some of their freebies are certainly beneficial to the middle class. Looking at the referendum I just wonder whether the new nationalism (younger,poorer, west coast) could cause them problems. Their strategy from what I could tell always seemed to be relentlessly populist policies mixed with independence. Looking at the referendum result they seemed to have scared off some of the 'Tartan Tories' and traded them in for more left wing support. But what if there is a left of centre government at Westminster led by Miliband?
Won't be an issue before the GE tbh I reckon - after perhaps.
OT. My Oscar favourites in the top six categories. Some will be very short odds because they're certainties. However these are my picks. NB All the films are well worth seeing and most are on in lots of cinemas for a very short run. (PS Anna Pinnock should win Best Production Design for Grand Budapest Hotel but I can't find a bookmaker who'll take the bet) Best Film- Boyhood (Boyhood) Best Director-Richard Linklater (Boyhood Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (Theory of Everything) Best Actress-Julianne Moore (Still Alice) Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (Boyhood) Best Supporting Actor-JK Simmons (Whiplash)
Roger, thanks you understand this better than most. I found Boyhood a big disappointment as it just stumbled along (like real life). Interesting to see the visual changes to the actors, but otherwise unremarkable.....a bit like a Mike Leigh film. Which is why I will not use my own judgement!
I find it bizarre that UKIP supporters favour Putin. Maybe they should read this. Events since the article was published 3 weeks ago have shown how right it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
OT..slightly..The Papers are full of angst about three girls who have gone off to join ISIS..Do the British public really care..except to make sure they never get back in.
They would have seen IS burn people alive, throw elderly gay men off buildings and sell women as sex slaves. They went anyway. I have limited sympathy and they deserve what they recieve in a life of misery.
Its the fifty shades approach that attracts: treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.
It would be interesting to know what plans their families had for them.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
People whose values collide with our own should surely be encouraged to emigrate rather than be stopped, it is after all why we all divided up into different nations.
I think you’ll find that we divided up into different tribes, nations etc first, then developed different customs.
Even on that basis the report doesn't say what he wants it to.
You suggested that it said that it blamed the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation.
In fact, it enthusiastically supports an ambitious package of sanctions against Russia.
Of course if Russia starts behaving itself, sanctions should be wound down. Others can read the report for themselves and make their own minds up as to how sympathetic it is to the Russian line. It seems pretty clear to me that the answer is not at all.
I guess you can read into it what you want, it did blame the EU.
So you think it is worth killing people just because they want some level of autonomy in their own region. I suppose it's a position.
OT..slightly..The Papers are full of angst about three girls who have gone off to join ISIS..Do the British public really care..except to make sure they never get back in.
They would have seen IS burn people alive, throw elderly gay men off buildings and sell women as sex slaves. They went anyway. I have limited sympathy and they deserve what they recieve in a life of misery.
Its the fifty shades approach that attracts: treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.
It would be interesting to know what plans their families had for them.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
People whose values collide with our own should surely be encouraged to emigrate rather than be stopped, it is after all why we all divided up into different nations.
I think you’ll find that we divided up into different tribes, nations etc first, then developed different customs.
Tribes are based on ethnicity from which customs and nations derive.
I find it bizarre that UKIP supporters favour Putin. Maybe they should read this. Events since the article was published 3 weeks ago have shown how right it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
It's on the BBC, cannot be trust don't you know? May as well be Pravda at it's worst, and our government either knowing nothing or as bad or worse than any authoritarian regime apparently.
I find it bizarre that UKIP supporters favour Putin. Maybe they should read this. Events since the article was published 3 weeks ago have shown how right it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
It's on the BBC, cannot be trust don't you know? May as well be Pravda at it's worst, so we're told, and our government either knowing nothing or as bad or worse than any authoritarian regime apparently.
Yes, Labour supporters do probably feel on the whole more inclined to the Lib Dems than the Tories but is this enough for them to opt for the Lib Dems over Labour in a Con/LD seat when the Lib Dems put the Tories in last time? Might not we see more (not all) of the Labour-inclined actually going Red in 2015?
A tactical vote is only worth the while if a voter sees their second-preference as only marginally inferior to the first and well ahead of the third.
Not just that, any Labour voter in a notional CON/LD marginal who is watching the polls and noticing the woeful placing of the LDs at the moment, might feel that the LD vote will crumble and move Labour into contention, especially if they are not miles behind.
If one were in Watford (Con:19,291 Lab:14,750 LD:17,866) as a LAB voter you have got to wonder if the LD vote is going to crumble enough and gift enough votes to LAB to put you in contention, and possibly win the seat. If I was a LAB voter there I would fancy my chances and vote LAB.
Indeed, though even without the Lib Dem collapse, Watford should really be thought of as a three-way marginal.
But I agree with the general point. Taking the specifics of the Watford constituency out the equation, if there were a seat which in 2010 had been Con 21k, LD 18k, Lab 11k a Labour-inclined voter would still be well advised to consider whether going on the national figures Labour might outpoll the Lib Dems there and so their first preference would in fact be their best tactical option too.
Are there many seats like that? Doubt there are many Con/Lib Seats which still have a large Labour vote in third place. Mostly the Labour vote will have been relentlessly squeezed, such as in the Newton Abbot seat.
The situation looks grim for an anti-Tory/Coalition voter in such a seat. 84.9% for the Coalition in 2010 (though they didn't know it when they cast their vote).
OT..slightly..The Papers are full of angst about three girls who have gone off to join ISIS..Do the British public really care..except to make sure they never get back in.
They would have seen IS burn people alive, throw elderly gay men off buildings and sell women as sex slaves. They went anyway. I have limited sympathy and they deserve what they recieve in a life of misery.
Its the fifty shades approach that attracts: treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.
It would be interesting to know what plans their families had for them.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
People whose values collide with our own should surely be encouraged to emigrate rather than be stopped, it is after all why we all divided up into different nations.
I think you’ll find that we divided up into different tribes, nations etc first, then developed different customs.
Tribes are based on ethnicity from which customs and nations derive.
That’s what I said; you originally inferred the opposite. TBH I’m a bit doubtful about ethnicity as well, apart from clear phyisical distinctions.
I find it bizarre that UKIP supporters favour Putin. Maybe they should read this. Events since the article was published 3 weeks ago have shown how right it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 21/02/2015 09:41 I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
The Kipper / Putin love in is bizarre.
No, the MSM shreiking about Putin and Russia is bizarre. UKIP supporters are more likely to be favourable toward Putin for several reasons:
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Putin supports any party opposed to the EU, from Syrizia in Greece, to Jobbik in Hungary to the FN in France. The Kippers are just reciprocating by supporting Putin against the EU.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
It's on the BBC, cannot be trust don't you know? May as well be Pravda at it's worst, and our government either knowing nothing or as bad or worse than any authoritarian regime apparently.
Philiosophy ? I hope you're not going to add Politics and Economics to that :-)
You really are prejudiced, aren't you!
How about judging people on their individual merits
Look on the bright side Charles, at least you're not a lawyer.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
I had a free choice between law and banking for my career...
you took the better option !
Well, strictly speaking, it was law & politics vs. banking...
I believe you commented along the lines of "where did my profession go so wrong" when the HSBC story broke.
I did warn you about complacency ;-)
Don't worry. I had a very interesting conversation with my father about complacency about 20 years ago. (His main competitor had begun the downward spiral that continues today. I thought that was a good thing: he explained that he was worried that he'd become complacent without a competitor to keep him on his toes)
Has anyone had the misfortune to read this TheGoodRight tosh by Tim Montgomerie and Stephan Shakespeare. Its a sort of Conservative Manifesto for people that think Ken Clarke was a dangerous right-winger. Are they closet kippers or something ? Its the sort of idiotic weak-tea wet centrist cant that will have half the party heading for the door if it gets any currency.
Comments
May be worth looking at Button/Alonso not to be classified come Oz, but also worth noting the terrible reliability in testing was replaced by a strong performance in 2014, so consider it carefully.
As for UKIP, much as I dislike them, I reckon they'll do about twice as well as you're predicting too.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/setting-the-record-straight/#more-67217
The two fifteen and their sixteen year-old compatriot remain under UK protection within Turkey: Entering Syria makes them 'beyond-the-pale'. Very brave of their families to flag this up.
As for Al-Beeb:
Their statement about the RAF bombing them only applies in Iraq. Anything within Syria is safe-and-secure thanks to Miliband.
But they also had some lass on this morning suggesting that sites like 'Jihadi Dating' are where paedophiles are actively grooming. It was at 05:32-ish so - maybe - targeted at the global market and not your average Labour voter in Tower Hamlets or Broxtowe....
http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=26405
21/02/2015 09:41
I wonder if every time Cameron threatens Putin that Putin has a fit of the giggles...
And with apologies for that vulgar image, I must be off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147643/Bertie-Gladwin-Britains-oldest-student-graduates-degree-military-intelligence-aged-91.html
If one were in Watford (Con:19,291 Lab:14,750 LD:17,866) as a LAB voter you have got to wonder if the LD vote is going to crumble enough and gift enough votes to LAB to put you in contention, and possibly win the seat. If I was a LAB voter there I would fancy my chances and vote LAB.
This, in effect, means that any graduate earning over c.£43,000 is already on 51% 'tax' if they are repaying the loan. Changing the name to tax from loan repayment has political repercussions.
In trying to roll back the things that are already in place, there are lots of young people who've already taken on debts at £9k p.a. and they are bound to ask, "where's my refund?" if someone suggests future cuts to fees.
20% Income Tax
12% NI
9% Graduate Tax Student Loan Repayment
41% Tax Credits Withdrawal
So for every £ over £21k they earn they keep 18p
Not really surprising the government are discovering a lot more graduates are earning less than £21k than they thought?
Prey: Seven Tales of Beastly Terror is a new anthology of horror stories, with all proceeds going to charity. There's even a story by some chap called Thaddeus White:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prey-Seven-Tales-Beastly-Terror/dp/1507626800/
Which, for those of us old enough to remember the USSR is an astonishing turnaround, but one which of course was prophesised in Fatima, Portugal in 1917, soon after the Russian Revolution.
Its quite astonishing that we read things like this now in the Russian Media, Pravda of all things:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/18-02-2013/123825-obama_catholic_church-0/
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/18-05-2011/117943-science_religion-0/
If the debates do take place, the Greens ought to be one of the beneficiaries. Never mind that Bennett came completely unstuck against Andrew Neil, a 5+ way debate has a very different dynamic, she couldn't be cross-examined in the same way as a 1:1 interview and the other leaders will have different targets and limited time to hit them. Skipping the specifics and offering 'we feel your pain' / 'the world is unjust' sloganising should work well.
I recall seeing some research recently that put a significant proportion of jobs as being appropriate to an education level of about thirteen years of age.
People with fag-end degrees flipping burgers is a ridiculous position to be in, the degree cost the country a packet because it has no hope of being repaid, and the recipient lost four years of income doing the degree and feels dissatisfied and disillusioned at the end of it when the high powered job then expected didn't materialise.
There is a separate and relative problem with qualifications like pure sciences. As a friend of mine studying Microbiology at uni commented: "There are two sorts of Microbiologists in this world, those with PhDs and those that wash bottles (or spread stool samples on slides)". The number of research jobs and jobs in pure science is tiny, and only accept the very best, everyone else is disappointed.
As for a graduate tax - would it be imposed retrospectively on all graduates? All the ones who got free university back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?
The second question is a political call, not an economic one. I would argue no, since they are not servicing a student loan today either. The practicalities might be prohibitive as well, I doubt there is a central register of people holding degrees, and lots of people who no longer need to flaunt their qualifications and are in jobs that don't require a degree (ie the majority) will just "forget" that they have one. Then there are immigrants that got their degree in another country, do they pay (having probably already paid for their degree in their country of origin).
But I agree with the general point. Taking the specifics of the Watford constituency out the equation, if there were a seat which in 2010 had been Con 21k, LD 18k, Lab 11k a Labour-inclined voter would still be well advised to consider whether going on the national figures Labour might outpoll the Lib Dems there and so their first preference would in fact be their best tactical option too.
'As for a graduate tax - would it be imposed retrospectively on all graduates? All the ones who got free university back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?'
There would need to be a retrospective tax rebate for the higher levels of income tax these graduates paid in the 60's & 70's.
-A UKIP supporter is typically independent minded, and can discern the difference between facts and media smear campaigns; indeed they are currently the victim of the same thing, and the techniques employed are similar.
-UKIP supporters are against the EU, therefore more likely to blame the EU for opportunistically expanding into Ukraine regardless of the sensitivities of the international situation. An assessment now endorsed by the House of Lords: http://rt.com/uk/234023-house-lords-ukraine-report/
-A UKIP supporter supports Britain. Therefore amongst UKIP supporters, being a poodle to America (and joining all their wars, to no reward) is often as much of a bugbear as being a member of the EU. Therefore, risking a war with the world's biggest nuclear power in order to comply with an American agenda to encircle and dominate Russia is the antithesis of Kipperism.
-A UKIP supporter looks to the seas, and is attuned to the trading opportunities presented by the world beyond the declining EU, and by extension the 'West'. They would therefore be distressed by our current path of pissing off the wider world by being America's sidekick. Putin has been making massive deals with China, India, Egypt, and Latin America in recent months. He recently had talks with France and Germany on Ukraine resulting in the Minsk ceasefire. Where were we? We were making silly comments about 'Putin' from back home. Remind me who the pariah is here?
Do you need any more reasons, I could go on.
What is really needed is a Year Zero approach to the Social Contract, where all the benefits and taxes of the state are approached from the ground up, with proper public consultation and politicians removed from the mix.
Of course the chances of that happening are unlikely.
Inquiry status: concluded, report published 18 October 2014.
Awaiting Government Response
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/localised-grooming-follow-up/
Follows a pattern doesn't it:
September 2012 - Times investigation reveals industrial scale child abuse happening in Rotherham with the toleration of the public services
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
October 2012 - Home Office Select Committee strongly criticizes South Yorkshire Police
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
Jun 2013 - Home Office Select Committee produces damning report on Rotherham scandal
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
August 2014 - Jay Report reveals Rotherham scandal to be even larger than previously known
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
October 2014 - Home Affairs Select Committee produces another damning report on Rotherham scandal
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
February 2015 - Casey Report reveals abuse continuing unchanged in Rotherham with continuing toleration by the public services
Home Secretary Theresa May does nothing
Does anyone think that Home Secretary Theresa May is 'fit for purpose' ?
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu---foreign-affairs-defence-and-development-policy-sub-committee-c/news/eu-russia-report-publication/
Though the opening paragraph of the summary is so completely at odds with your distortion of it, I can see why it might not suit your purposes.
If 70% of your population go to university, which costs the country money, and most of the rest are claiming benefit or tax credits of one sort of another (which also costs the country money) there would be a pretty solid argument on just merging university funding into general taxation, and incidentally taking us back where we were 40 years ago.
International politics makes for strange bedfellows.
I've advised all my kids to avoid that profession and seek out a career in something respectable by comparison like butchering pandas or distributing prornography.
http://youtu.be/xhEqqIg9zig
Dave and the neo con nuts should be proud. Their love in with characters like Semenchenko, Yarosh and Kholominsky is worse than bizarre.
Being married off in a year or two to some non English speaking cousin from Pakistan / Bangladesh would have been a strong possibility.
David Willetts as ambassador to Syria would be an added bonus.
Best Film- Boyhood (Boyhood)
Best Director-Richard Linklater (Boyhood
Best Actor-Eddie Redmayne (Theory of Everything)
Best Actress-Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Best Supporting Actress-Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Best Supporting Actor-JK Simmons (Whiplash)
St P: "Amazing life you have had living to 149 years"
Lawyer: "How did you work that out?"
St P: "By the number of hours you charged to your clients".
Edited extra bit: bloody hell, Julianne Moore is 1.01 for Best Actress.
Simmons and Arquette are similar. Worth laying, at those odds?
And here's a direct quote from the report:
“In the long term, three-tier sanctions are detrimental to the EU’s interests as well as to Russia’s. While they could be renewed in the short term, the prospect of the progressive removal of sanctions should be part of the EU’s negotiating position. Genuine progress by Russia in delivering the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine should be the basis for ratcheting down sanctions.”
So the summary you linked to could easily have lead with
'Russia sanctions are bad for the EU as well as Russia and should be removed progressively if the ceasefire in Ukraine holds'
rather than
'The EU must ratchet up sanctions on Russia if the situation in Ukraine worsens, a Lords report warns today.'
They didn't lead with that. Why didn't they? Any number of reasons, no point speculating. I merely point out that what you accepted glibly as 'the report' was in fact a selective reporting of its contents with a marked slant. It's an intellectually lazy approach on your part that believes we are being presented with 'facts' and everyone else's information is propaganda. Hope this is helps.
Many who would love to vote UKIP but as GE2015 is so close and they don't want Labour or more so Miliband will vote Con to play safe.
Secondly I can see two forms of TV in Scotland:
The obvious one of backing unionist candidate against SNP or Green and
The truly tactical one of centre right voters delighted for once they may not have to suffer a Labour MP, voting SNP to keep out Labour knowing full well independence has gone for 10 years anyway.
Somewhat surprised, St. Peter agreed to let him spent one day in heaven and one day in hell before making up his mind.
First heaven: a lovely day spent sitting on clouds, flapping wings and plucking at a harp. Very nice. Just a little, slow. Then the day in hell: a round of golf with his friends, a nice dinner afterwards, wine and laughter: a great time had by all.
The next day St. Peter asks him his choice. The lawyer pauses for a moment. "I'd like to go to hell" he says. St. Peter looks very surprised. "Are you sure? You know you can't change your mind once you sign the contract." "Yes, St. Peter. I'm certain."
The ground opens up, and the lawyer finds himself on a desolate plain, ringed with volcanoes and searingly hot. Next to him is the devil. "I don't understand!" protest the lawyer. "What happened to the golf course and all my friends?"
"Ah," said the devil. "Yesterday you were a prospect. Today you're a client."
Are you mad ???
You clearly don't have the strategic genius of your namesake.
Don't you know that the UK is an AID SUPERPOWER and we have Putin quaking in his boots.
From the Executive Summary:
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues."
Your deliberate misinformation is fooling no one.
I agree it's unlikely given Williams is standing again and is personally popular, but it's not unrealistic.
EDIT - it's worth pointing out that Brecon and Radnor is not just grassy hillsides with a lot of sheep. It also includes ex-industrial areas like Ystradgynlais and major public sector areas like Llandod itself, where I doubt somehow if the Coalition programme has been well received.
I did warn you about complacency ;-)
'...However,a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions.'
And you accuse me of misinformation? Oh dear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(Assembly_constituency)
And even if there was the Conservatives would win.
In fact, it enthusiastically supports an ambitious package of sanctions against Russia.
Of course if Russia starts behaving itself, sanctions should be wound down. Others can read the report for themselves and make their own minds up as to how sympathetic it is to the Russian line. It seems pretty clear to me that the answer is not at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050674y
So you think it is worth killing people just because they want some level of autonomy in their own region. I suppose it's a position.
Some flaws = beyond the pale, so we're told
Nothing trendy or pretentious, just a very good film.
anyone know why?
Don't tell OGH.....
The situation looks grim for an anti-Tory/Coalition voter in such a seat. 84.9% for the Coalition in 2010 (though they didn't know it when they cast their vote).
Otoh, none of the related markets - NOM, Next PM, Spreads etc - have moved in sync.
Odd.
http://immersive.sh/thegoodright/
(If you like your apoplexy pre-provided, Delingpole isn't impressed either http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/21/government-is-not-the-enemy-oh-really-since-when/)
Who will win in Ealing Central?
The A&E closures is a big issue in the whole of North West/West London.
What's the difference between a skunk run over by a car and a lawyer.......
There might be skid marks in front of the skunk