Instead of having Milliband as Prime Minister and Salmond as Deputy reverse the proposition. Salmond is smart, wins elections, debates, is popular in Liverpool, doesn't start wars and charges students no fees at all. Milliband won't be half as scary as a Deputy and being goofy and a bit silly won't really matter. Salmond will get rid of the incredible Balls and the odious Murphy before you can say Devo Max. The reason Labour are struggling is lack of credibility in their offer of talent at the top. At a stroke this solves the problem.
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Alanbrooke..Are you suggesting the Tax Collector in Italy is putting the money into a bank in Switzerland..There are plenty of dofdy banks at home..Try the Vatican one for starters.
Well, you pays your penny and makes your choice, Nigel.
I started backing NOM just after the previous election and haven't stopped yet, but if you know different, good luck to you.
Wouldn't try to second guess Barney....or Jonjo O'Neill. Far too difficult.
I struggle with Mark Johnston as well, though I have made good money following Luca Cumani for 30 years.
I think NOM is definitely the call and well done you for backing it when it was value, I just think it may well be Tory most seats.
Although I do the All Weather, I've never been much of a flat man, so I wouldn't know - but I have heard other pro-punters comment about the difficulty of following Mark Johnston.
'Most Seats' is anybody's guess, although I'd have the two sides much closer to evens than the current odds suggest.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
Well, I'm glad I've got an ISA - interest rates being so crap and all. Might as well get as much as possible tax-free.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
Alanbrooke..Are you suggesting the Tax Collector in Italy is putting the money into a bank in Switzerland..There are plenty of dofdy banks at home..Try the Vatican one for starters.
No I'm suggesting he's giving the money to some dodgy blokes who then put in Switzerland.
OT - Cameron has often said to be a lucky PM. He certainly has been this week. The revelation of Jihadi John's identity completely pushed the Tory importation of Tory voters into the country off the front pages and reduced discussion of it to a minimum.
I wonder if Jihadi John is still repaying his student loan ?
He lives abroad so does not need to.
What you mean he didn't inform the Student Loan Company of his intention to relocate abroad and arrange a repayment schedule?
This in a way actually brings up a very important point with the whole student loans system, as it has now massively expanded beyond simply providing some support for living costs. If you do decide to go abroad or if you are originally from elsewhere in the EU and go home, the student loan company are extremely poor at chasing that up if in fact they actually have any power if you do go to certain parts of the world.
In an increasingly global economy, with many people constantly on the move, this will become increasingly an issue, especially with massive amounts to repay.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Ha nonono!!
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
Have you tried living in Somalia ?
I stayed in a Holiday Inn in Bradford once, so - yes.
I'm not sure that media coverage is heavy enough to create a strong impression one way or the other for those who just skim the news. For the minority who dig into the detail, not being able to deposit more than £30,000/year tax-free in a pension fund doesn't sound a very serious problem to most people, and those £53,000 nurses aren't very common, but on the other hand students tend to be sceptical and low-turnout. I'll be interested to see if it comes up on the doorstep this weekend.
But we needn't worry, Nick. I'm sure that the unions are explaining the implications of Labour's pension proposals to their members in a unbiased and dispassionate way
How many Labour-affiliated union members do you think this will affect?
Quite a lot, because it won't stop there, and inflation together with the inevitable extension of abolition of pension tax relief and inevitable further lowering of lifetime allowance will eventually hit anyone with a private pension.
Inevitable because they will not be able to further resist raiding the pot to fund bread and circuses for their client vote.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
So who pays for your roads and your army?
It's the double and treble taxation which irk. Once the taxman has stolen a percentage of my incoming cash through my corporation tax, then income tax, NI etc there must be a point where it actually becomes mine. If I choose to put it into a pension scheme (and maybe take it out) then that should be my untaxed right. Why should the state feel entitled to cream off a percentage for me moving my own money around?
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Ha nonono!!
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
So I win if the Tories poll above UKIP or less than 6.5% less than UKIP? I'd be up for that, £25?
To Other_Richard: I have several non-bookie bets and just use a spreadsheet.
We shouldn't underestimate the effect to which the great British public can become very well boiled frogs in the whole pension/student loan debate/debacle.
I'm not sure that media coverage is heavy enough to create a strong impression one way or the other for those who just skim the news. For the minority who dig into the detail, not being able to deposit more than £30,000/year tax-free in a pension fund doesn't sound a very serious problem to most people, and those £53,000 nurses aren't very common, but on the other hand students tend to be sceptical and low-turnout. I'll be interested to see if it comes up on the doorstep this weekend.
But we needn't worry, Nick. I'm sure that the unions are explaining the implications of Labour's pension proposals to their members in a unbiased and dispassionate way
How many Labour-affiliated union members do you think this will affect?
Quite a lot, because it won't stop there, and inflation together with the inevitable extension of abolition of pension tax relief and inevitable further lowering of lifetime allowance will eventually hit anyone with a private pension.
Inevitable because they will not be able to further resist raiding the pot to fund bread and circuses for their client vote.
That's going to happen not just with pensions but generally and regardless of which parties are in government.
The UK simply cannot create enough wealth to pay for all the things we've been told we're entitled to.
So increasingly the debates will be about which Peters to rob to pay which Pauls.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
So who pays for your roads and your army?
Does Gibraltar have its own roads and army?
Yes, and paid for in a successful low tax environment!
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.
That was dealt with more than one hundred and fifty years ago with the depopulation of Ireland. Nowadays their food surplus is roughly equal to our deficit. I think most of their trade flows through Britain.
This means that the British Isles is self sufficient in food production.
That is quite a stunning achievement by the agricultural sector as the UK after the Corn Laws in 1846 (which included Republic of Ireland until 1922) was a net importer and this carried on right through until after World War 2, despite just about every open space in the country being turned into a vegetable plot.
@GeoffM You want your tax bill reduced, but want the rest of the UK to protect your tax reduced lifestyle from the Spanish people? I can see where you are coming from Geoff. Without such an arrangement, the tobacco smugglers and the rest would go out of business from a start? How about we hand Gib back to Spain, then you can learn to whine in Spanish? Ole
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Ha nonono!!
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
So I win if the Tories poll above UKIP or less than 6.5% less than UKIP? I'd be up for that, £25?
To Other_Richard: I have several non-bookie bets and just use a spreadsheet.
Imagine for a second that tuition fees are the biggest thing in our lives and a determining factor in how we vote.
The competing offers:
Tory/Lib Dem: £9,000 a year Labour: £6,000 a year Green/SNP* : £0 a year.
Who are you going to vote for?
Miliband is in the same kind of no-man's land that Cameron is on immigration and the EU.
He can out-bid his major 2010 rival, but he's constantly being blind-sided by the 2015 newcomers.
* the devolved responsibility is acknowledged, but the general Labour signal is the same.
But in Lab/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in England with the Greens not in the picture....
its £6000 v £9000
Now who are you going to vote for?
Certainly not the party that in 2004 introduced the £3000 tuition fees in the first place ie Labour
And only got the legislation through parliament with the support of Scottish Labour MPs who whose own constituents were exempt from paying due to devolution and far more per head of taxpayers money going to Scotland.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
As foxes highlights below - a pension contribution is an exercise of prudence.
It is deferring benefiting from some of your taxable income now until a later time, ie when not working and retired, so you have more income then when you need it. Rather than living for the immediate now and getting as much in as you can. Why should any one be taxed at the point of deferring the income?
All this rubbish about how much money is 'spent' on higher rate tax relief is as usual the assumption that your money is actually the state's unless they generously let you keep it.
No wonder Labour and pensions are so alien to each other - compare how many pension ministers they had in power vs Steve Webb in this one..
mind you they don't need to be with their cocooned diamond-crusted pensions.
Since March 2012, the university’s Islamic society is estimated to have hosted 22 events featuring speakers with a history of radical Islamist views, according to the Henry Jackson Society thinktank.
Previous speakers have included Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in September 2011; Hizb ut-Tahrir member Jamal Harwood; and Dr Khalid Fikry, who has given speeches in which he appears to suggest that Shia Muslims believe “raping a Sunni woman is a matter that pleases Allah”.
In 2011, the university was in the spotlight after it emerged that the then-president and a vice-president of its students’ union had links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has long called for the establishment of an Islamic state.
In 2012, a series of jihadist videos were posted on the Islamic society’s Facebook page in support of al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist terrorist group that on 21 February this year called for attacks on US, UK and Canadian shopping malls.
@Scrapheap_as_was A deferred part of your salary that should not be taxed so that on your death you have more money to pass on to your family. That sounds pretty sensible, except to those whose salary is taken up by their present day existence, and whose tax credits you want to cut? You are a leading light in equitable taxation sir.
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.
That was dealt with more than one hundred and fifty years ago with the depopulation of Ireland. Nowadays their food surplus is roughly equal to our deficit. I think most of their trade flows through Britain.
This means that the British Isles is self sufficient in food production.
That is quite a stunning achievement by the agricultural sector as the UK after the Corn Laws in 1846 (which included Republic of Ireland until 1922) was a net importer and this carried on right through until after World War 2, despite just about every open space in the country being turned into a vegetable plot.
Especially given that populations have risen, there being more food wastage and a much reduced agricultural workforce.
Increasing productivity, as always, being vital.
Graphs of the number of people supported by one farm worker are almost exponential.
A downside to this is that many people now have lost all touch with farming and the countryside generally.
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Ha nonono!!
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
So I win if the Tories poll above UKIP or less than 6.5% less than UKIP? I'd be up for that, £25?
To Other_Richard: I have several non-bookie bets and just use a spreadsheet.
I'm not sure that media coverage is heavy enough to create a strong impression one way or the other for those who just skim the news. For the minority who dig into the detail, not being able to deposit more than £30,000/year tax-free in a pension fund doesn't sound a very serious problem to most people, and those £53,000 nurses aren't very common, but on the other hand students tend to be sceptical and low-turnout. I'll be interested to see if it comes up on the doorstep this weekend.
But we needn't worry, Nick. I'm sure that the unions are explaining the implications of Labour's pension proposals to their members in a unbiased and dispassionate way
How many Labour-affiliated union members do you think this will affect?
Quite a lot, because it won't stop there, and inflation together with the inevitable extension of abolition of pension tax relief and inevitable further lowering of lifetime allowance will eventually hit anyone with a private pension.
Inevitable because they will not be able to further resist raiding the pot to fund bread and circuses for their client vote.
That's going to happen not just with pensions but generally and regardless of which parties are in government.
The UK simply cannot create enough wealth to pay for all the things we've been told we're entitled to.
So increasingly the debates will be about which Peters to rob to pay which Pauls.
With the Peters often being future generations.
Indeed, so it comes down to deciding who to take the money off when you vote.
People who work hard and get paid for it or people who are receiving benefits because they are not working hard for whatever reason. Not a difficult choice.
I hear a lot say that you might as well blow your savings and pension now and live off benefits in 20 years time when you retire as you will be no worse off. The main argument against that is that those benefits will have either ceased to exist or be worth trivial amounts due to not being uprated by inflation by that time.
I suspect also that means testing will be replaced with 1930s style means testing (even for healthcare) requiring you to sell all your assets including your home and furniture to qualify for the paltry benefits available (as is the case in South Africa)
Its only a matter of time and Labour coming in and wrecking the economy will make it happen faster.
@Scrapheap_as_was A deferred part of your salary that should not be taxed so that on your death you have more money to pass on to your family. That sounds pretty sensible, except to those whose salary is taken up by their present day existence, and whose tax credits you want to cut? You are a leading light in equitable taxation sir.
So you stand against Labour's support of pension auto enrolment?
@GeoffM You want your tax bill reduced, but want the rest of the UK to protect your tax reduced lifestyle from the Spanish people? I can see where you are coming from Geoff. Without such an arrangement, the tobacco smugglers and the rest would go out of business from a start? How about we hand Gib back to Spain, then you can learn to whine in Spanish? Ole
I have two tax bills; UK and Gib - and the UK one is objectionable. Tobacco exports are of course a result of poor Spanish tax policy. Independence is the way forward. Colin Roberts, the Governor of the Falkland Islands has just last week mooted the idea for there too. And I suspect that my Spanish is already better than yours.
Oh also offering an even money bet on South Thanet
Ukip (-6.5) Cons (+6.5)
Just to clarify, does that mean both kick in (ie. will Cons come within 13% of UKIP) or one side (ie. will the gap be less than 6.5%)? I'm tempted on the Con side at evens, though I think I might be on the wrong side in truth.
Ha nonono!!
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
So I win if the Tories poll above UKIP or less than 6.5% less than UKIP? I'd be up for that, £25?
To Other_Richard: I have several non-bookie bets and just use a spreadsheet.
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
As foxes highlights below - a pension contribution is an exercise of prudence.
It is deferring benefiting from some of your taxable income now until a later time, ie when not working and retired, so you have more income then when you need it. Rather than living for the immediate now and getting as much in as you can. Why should any one be taxed at the point of deferring the income?
All this rubbish about how much money is 'spent' on higher rate tax relief is as usual the assumption that your money is actually the state's unless they generously let you keep it.
No wonder Labour and pensions are so alien to each other - compare how many pension ministers they had in power vs Steve Webb in this one..
mind you they don't need to be with their cocooned diamond-crusted pensions.
Private pensions are good because they make people financially secure in retirement and therefore not a burden on the state.
It also makes them more independent of the government which is why socialists don't like them.
Eds policy is typical socialism. Attack pensions making older people dependent upon the state and easier to manipulate, replace tution fees with government grants enabling he who pays the piper to call the tune with the universities, while students still have to pay a hefty £6000 a year.
The people running labour are typical secularist atheists. They claim not to believe in an all powerful omnipotent God. Actually they believe the State is or should be an all powerful omnipotent God. I think it was G.K Chesterton who described Socialism as a Christian Heresy.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
Yes. but to date they lose votes rather than gain them.
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
So who pays for your roads and your army?
It's the double and treble taxation which irk. Once the taxman has stolen a percentage of my incoming cash through my corporation tax, then income tax, NI etc there must be a point where it actually becomes mine. If I choose to put it into a pension scheme (and maybe take it out) then that should be my untaxed right. Why should the state feel entitled to cream off a percentage for me moving my own money around?
If you save and invest out of taxed income you have to pay tax on the interest or divdends you receive. I don't see why saving for a pension should be treated differently.
I agree it is double and treble taxation. There is an oddity here. The government wants people to spend not save in order to create demand to grow GDP and increase tax revenue. So we have very low interest rates to discourage saving and encourage spending. Yet we subsidise saving for pensions. I assume that is because it will save goverment money in the long term in reducing benefits for those without an adequate pension. But it is a fraud. For most people it is to their financial advantage to spend now and live on benefits later rather than save now for the same level of income later. There are other solutions such as the Green Party basic income for everyone - but it has to be paid for.
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
Yes. but to date they lose votes rather than gain them.
Indeed, the difference between Milipede and Gideon is that Gideon is competent at acting in such an unprincipled way for tactical advantage and usually thinks it through and aims his grenades quite well, rather than have them blow up in his face as soon as he gets them out of the box.
Since March 2012, the university’s Islamic society is estimated to have hosted 22 events featuring speakers with a history of radical Islamist views, according to the Henry Jackson Society thinktank.
Previous speakers have included Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in September 2011; Hizb ut-Tahrir member Jamal Harwood; and Dr Khalid Fikry, who has given speeches in which he appears to suggest that Shia Muslims believe “raping a Sunni woman is a matter that pleases Allah”.
In 2011, the university was in the spotlight after it emerged that the then-president and a vice-president of its students’ union had links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has long called for the establishment of an Islamic state.
In 2012, a series of jihadist videos were posted on the Islamic society’s Facebook page in support of al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist terrorist group that on 21 February this year called for attacks on US, UK and Canadian shopping malls.
Nope nothing to see at University of Westminster,,,move along....
This has been growing before our very eyes for 40-50 years while anyone who mentioned was abused and marginalised
"At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."
Gerrard Batten of UKIP suggested that people claiming to represent Muslims be required to sign a charter expressing their condemnation of terrorism and jihadism.
Guardianistas and some Conservatives gave him dogs abuse for even mentioning it.. they should read what CAGE have been doing all along, and hang their heads in shame. Blood on their hands
Aside from national food security now being deemed as irrelevant as national energy security how are we to pay for all these extra imports given that the UK's current account deficit is already at an all time high ?
Presumably by selling houses to each other, by being world leaders in outreach diversity coordinators and through our high productivity hand car wash industry.
That was dealt with more than one hundred and fifty years ago with the depopulation of Ireland. Nowadays their food surplus is roughly equal to our deficit. I think most of their trade flows through Britain.
This means that the British Isles is self sufficient in food production.
That is quite a stunning achievement by the agricultural sector as the UK after the Corn Laws in 1846 (which included Republic of Ireland until 1922) was a net importer and this carried on right through until after World War 2, despite just about every open space in the country being turned into a vegetable plot.
This is not necessarily accurate - it will only be accurate if the ROI charges the same prices for the same food, that is exported as the UK is charged for the food it imports.
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
Pensioner bonds.
Yes pensioner bonds are equally unprincipled but rather more competent than Milipede reminding the public of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls destroying private pensions with their 1997 pension dividend raid.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
Mr. Beds, as an atheist I must refute that claim of yours most vehemently.
Atheists are only alike in the same way people who don't like football are alike. There's no unifying feature beyond lack of belief in a god. It's certainly not an inherently leftwing perspective.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
We actually import a smaller proportion of our calories today than we did in 1900.
That sounds right but in 1900 we had the exports of manufactured goods and coal to pay for it. Now we import food, import energy and import manufactured goods with our exports of services are insufficient to pay for them all. And what happens if the UK loses its services surplus just as it lost its manufactured goods surplus two generations ago ?
Plus the current trend is, and has been for a generation, towards a greater proportion of our food being imported.
Mr. Beds, as an atheist I must refute that claim of yours most vehemently.
Atheists are only alike in the same way people who don't like football are alike. There's no unifying feature beyond lack of belief in a god. It's certainly not an inherently leftwing perspective.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
To be frank, I'm not even sure Harman can be classed a feminist or, at best, she's a political feminist, which is a very odd beast.
The problem with many 'feminist organisations' (and indeed many campaigning 'organisations') is that they are more interested in the politics than the ends, or indeed the people. The actual real-life adherents (who may have very different viewpoints) do not get a look-in.
I've heard feminists take on Harman (and another politician - I can't remember who) on the TV and radio in the past. But many of the media-luvvie feminists are similar to Harman.
Before anyone says: I'm not a feminist: for instance I disagree fundamentally with positive discrimination (which most, although not all, feminists seem to want).
But I am an equalist. If someone can do something, regardless of gender, then they should get equal chance. And if it means it's harder for me to get a job, so be it.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
It's all talk while Labour continues to court the Muslim vote. Labour's policy position on feminism (pink bus excepted) is absolutely incompatible with their support of multiculturalism wrt to Muslim immigrants.
It is pretty blatant where the problem is but none of the political parties have the cojones to call a spade a spade.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
Good article David. I think you have summed up the politics of this in one line "It exposes the Lib Dems pefidy on the subject". In my opinion that's what it's all about. Few will be interested or worried by the details of pensions with £1,000,000 tag in front of it even if it affects them. The young never think they'll reach pension age and it wont affect those on a pension already.
It's not about attracting the tiny band of Lib Dems still n existance but reminding those who once voted Clagg that Labour really can be an an honest alternative.
Milliband is proving smarter than many of us thought
It is typical of Milliband all over. Short term electoral tactics at the expense of long term sensible strategy.
It also does not build bridges to one of two viable coalition partners. It is a gamble on winning an absolute majority.
I defended Milliband on here long after others gave up on him but have to concede that others here were right. He is crap.
In his own terms - purely political tactics - he's rather good.
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
You can say the same about your Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne. So often policy driven by tactical advantage than what is right.
Pensioner bonds.
Yes pensioner bonds are equally unprincipled but rather more competent than Milipede reminding the public of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls destroying private pensions with their 1997 pension dividend raid.
The massive payment holidays that various companies took along with skimming of Pension fund 'surpluses' into general company profits in the '90s was also a major factor.
UKIP MEP and PPC for Romford.. apparently these views horrify The Guardian, and some Tories on here
This would only apply to people claiming to be spokesman for the muslim community remember, not all muslims.. only people from organisations such as CAGE, that say they are acting as representatives of Muslims
"Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party's executive, told the Guardian on Tuesday that he stood by a "charter of Muslim understanding", which he commissioned in 2006.
The document asks Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence and says parts of the Qur'an that promote "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic
In a statement to the Guardian, Batten later said: "I would expect the fundamentalists to agree with me that democracy is incompatible with fundamentalist Islam. Moderate Muslims have to decide which side of the argument they are on.
"Who is in favour of jihad? Apart from the jihadists of course? I was, and still am, happy to speak out against it. It is amusing that the Guardian equates being opposed to extremism and jihadism as 'overlapping with the far-right'. So are left-wing liberals in favour of jihad? If not, do they overlap too?" ".
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
So she talked about zero tolerance to FGM and yet was Minister for Women in a government which showed 100% tolerance.
And talked about FGM in Egypt but not FGM in Peckham.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
So she talked about zero tolerance to FGM and yet was Minister for Women in a government which showed 100% tolerance.
And talked about FGM in Egypt but not FGM in Peckham.
How BRAVE she was.
No she was the minister in a government that tightened the laws against FGM and which sought to co-ordinate action against it across government departments and within local government. She was, in fact, actively doing things long before many people in this country even knew it was an issue.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
And the total number of convictions under that law... ever... is ?
And that is the fault of Harriet Harman and the Labour party. I see.
"In March 2014, a doctor from the Whittington Hospital near Highgate London was the first person charged with an offence contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,[5] he was cleared in February 2015."
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
To be frank, I'm not even sure Harman can be classed a feminist or, at best, she's a political feminist, which is a very odd beast.
The problem with many 'feminist organisations' (and indeed many campaigning 'organisations') is that they are more interested in the politics than the ends, or indeed the people. The actual real-life adherents (who may have very different viewpoints) do not get a look-in.
I've heard feminists take on Harman (and another politician - I can't remember who) on the TV and radio in the past. But many of the media-luvvie feminists are similar to Harman.
Before anyone says: I'm not a feminist: for instance I disagree fundamentally with positive discrimination (which most, although not all, feminists seem to want).
But I am an equalist. If someone can do something, regardless of gender, then they should get equal chance. And if it means it's harder for me to get a job, so be it.
Yes, I agree with all that.
Have a good afternoon everyone, I'm off to see some football and then some rugby.
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
You obviously don't listen to what many feminists (itself, a word that carries a wide variety of views - a bit like PBTory) have been saying on the issue.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
If those feminist organisations are happy to let the likes of Harman be the public face of 'feminism' they can't complain if they get tarred with the same brush.
I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
So she talked about zero tolerance to FGM and yet was Minister for Women in a government which showed 100% tolerance.
And talked about FGM in Egypt but not FGM in Peckham.
How BRAVE she was.
No she was the minister in a government that tightened the laws against FGM and which sought to co-ordinate action against it across government departments and within local government. She was, in fact, actively doing things long before many people in this country even knew it was an issue.
As ever it's lots of activity but no action.
Perhaps the betting community would like to strike the odds on do we get a conviction on Rotherham before we get one of Swiss tax avoidance ?
Do we know how accurate the constituency betting markets were last time.
At a guess they under predicted Labour and over predicted the LibDems.
By my reckoning Lab (283) and Con (273) are about right (sob), but I'd adjust the smaller parties as follows: SNP 35 --> 46 LibDem 28 -->23 UKIP 7 --> 3 Others (incl. N.I.) 24 --> 22
UKIP MEP and PPC for Romford.. apparently these views horrify The Guardian, and some Tories on here
This would only apply to people claiming to be spokesman for the muslim community remember, not all muslims.. only people from organisations such as CAGE, that say they are acting as representatives of Muslims
"Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party's executive, told the Guardian on Tuesday that he stood by a "charter of Muslim understanding", which he commissioned in 2006.
The document asks Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence and says parts of the Qur'an that promote "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic
In a statement to the Guardian, Batten later said: "I would expect the fundamentalists to agree with me that democracy is incompatible with fundamentalist Islam. Moderate Muslims have to decide which side of the argument they are on.
"Who is in favour of jihad? Apart from the jihadists of course? I was, and still am, happy to speak out against it. It is amusing that the Guardian equates being opposed to extremism and jihadism as 'overlapping with the far-right'. So are left-wing liberals in favour of jihad? If not, do they overlap too?" ".
Can I suggest that part of the problem is because Sunni Muslims at any rate don’t have a (religious at any rate) hierarchical structure, as we in the West understand it. Again as I undestand it anyone can be a preacher, a bit like evangelical Christians have fragmented into a multitude of sects, each originally at least following a particular leaders set of views and interpretation of the sacred texts. There’s also the issue that the definitive Qu’ran is in medieval Arabic and, as with translating the original Biblical texts, different translators can choose different words.
As a matter of principle, I am against all social engineering inspired taxpayer funded bribes includng ISAs and pension contributions. It is up to individuals whether they want to save or not. I don't see why the rest of us should subsidise them.
There should be no tax imposed on what I choose to do with my own money.
Have you tried living in Somalia ?
I stayed in a Holiday Inn in Bradford once, so - yes.
Do we know how accurate the constituency betting markets were last time.
At a guess they under predicted Labour and over predicted the LibDems.
By my reckoning Lab (283) and Con (273) are about right (sob), but I'd adjust the smaller parties as follows: SNP 35 --> 46 LibDem 28 -->23 UKIP 7 --> 3 Others (incl. N.I.) 24 --> 22
Still very much on the same page as you, O Right-Leaning Tower.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
And the total number of convictions under that law... ever... is ?
And that is the fault of Harriet Harman and the Labour party. I see.
"In March 2014, a doctor from the Whittington Hospital near Highgate London was the first person charged with an offence contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,[5] he was cleared in February 2015."
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
As I understand it, Labour has not been in power for five years or so now and it has been in the gift of the present government to revisit the law if it was felt not to be adequate. It seems clear that the laws are in place, what we lack are the means by which to detect wrongdoing. Obviously, throwing accusations at "lefties" is delightfully comforting, but given that dreadful lefty groups have been at the forefront of raising awareness on and campaigning about the issue it's nothing more than posturing.
The two biggest factors in pension deficits, I believe, are longevity ( and the previous underestimates of it), and low gilt yields ( linked to low interest rates effectively). Holidays in the 80/90's didn't help ( and not all schemes did - our works one didn't I believe), but they were also partly driven by the tax man not allowing funds to be overly funded ( ironic, as had longevity been better measured they weren't). G Brown's infamous tax didn't help and still doesn't, and was a great scam in lifting £5 billion without the bill coming in for decades. It was and is a disgrace and the man should hang his head in shame.
What pensions badly need to put them back on an even keel is later retirement dates ( aggressively introduced I'd argue), a rise in interest rates to say 3/4% ( the higher the better but let's be sensible), and politicians who actually bloody well understand them and stop making life difficult.
Those who say that new universities were just a rebadging of old polys, it is a bit more complicated. In order to become a uni, they had to expand the range of courses they offered, so many that specalised in teaching training or mechanical engineering, had to offer courses they had no experience in from gender studies to maths.
If they have managed to do that successfully and the courses they offer are of a high enough standard is a different matter.
I'm not sure why Labour is doing so badly amongst pensioners but it should be the party's number one problem. I saw a poll that had the Tories with a 20 point advantage amongst over 65s. That's the sort of thing that means they'll always be running uphill unless they can fix it. It can't just be about the perks the coalition have protected because it was evident in the 2010 election. We know pensioners are often most unhappy about social changes like immigration or gay marriage, but those are two areas where you might have expected the Tories to lose support since 2010. It may have something to do with changes to the pension system under Brown, but the old are also the most supportive of the welfare state and NHS. Labour shouldn't be giving up on them.
We just got a letter through the post asking if the electoral roll information for this property was correct (which it was).
I wonder how many councils are sending similar letters out? As someone noted before, it seems like a good idea if there are concerns about the validity of the electoral roll.
UKIP MEP and PPC for Romford.. apparently these views horrify The Guardian, and some Tories on here
This would only apply to people claiming to be spokesman for the muslim community remember, not all muslims.. only people from organisations such as CAGE, that say they are acting as representatives of Muslims
"Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party's executive, told the Guardian on Tuesday that he stood by a "charter of Muslim understanding", which he commissioned in 2006.
The document asks Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence and says parts of the Qur'an that promote "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic
In a statement to the Guardian, Batten later said: "I would expect the fundamentalists to agree with me that democracy is incompatible with fundamentalist Islam. Moderate Muslims have to decide which side of the argument they are on.
"Who is in favour of jihad? Apart from the jihadists of course? I was, and still am, happy to speak out against it. It is amusing that the Guardian equates being opposed to extremism and jihadism as 'overlapping with the far-right'. So are left-wing liberals in favour of jihad? If not, do they overlap too?" ".
Can I suggest that part of the problem is because Sunni Muslims at any rate don’t have a (religious at any rate) hierarchical structure, as we in the West understand it. Again as I undestand it anyone can be a preacher, a bit like evangelical Christians have fragmented into a multitude of sects, each originally at least following a particular leaders set of views and interpretation of the sacred texts. There’s also the issue that the definitive Qu’ran is in medieval Arabic and, as with translating the original Biblical texts, different translators can choose different words.
Indeed, Sunni Muslims are much like Baptists where each church is a separate independent organisation.
Shia Muslims are more like Catholics and the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) is Gods representative on earth, and as the Pope once could, can veto parliamentary legislation.
So we have a Prime Minister with a Catholic wife of Irish descent who deposed an Iraqi regime run by a Sunni ("Protestant") minority mainly living in the North who dominated and repressed the majority Shia (Catholic) population who mainly live in the south, hmmmm.
I've often wondered how Blair talked Claire Short into supporting the war in that vote...
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
And the total number of convictions under that law... ever... is ?
And that is the fault of Harriet Harman and the Labour party. I see.
"In March 2014, a doctor from the Whittington Hospital near Highgate London was the first person charged with an offence contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,[5] he was cleared in February 2015."
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
As I understand it, Labour has not been in power for five years or so now and it has been in the gift of the present government to revisit the law if it was felt not to be adequate. It seems clear that the laws are in place, what we lack are the means by which to detect wrongdoing. Obviously, throwing accusations at "lefties" is delightfully comforting, but given that dreadful lefty groups have been at the forefront of raising awareness on and campaigning about the issue it's nothing more than posturing.
It might be my imagination, but current government hasn't been driving around in (unlawfully registered) pink van flaunting its feminist credentials. Which is where this topic started, Labour "political" feminism, lots of activity, no action.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
And the total number of convictions under that law... ever... is ?
And that is the fault of Harriet Harman and the Labour party. I see.
"In March 2014, a doctor from the Whittington Hospital near Highgate London was the first person charged with an offence contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,[5] he was cleared in February 2015."
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
As I understand it, Labour has not been in power for five years or so now and it has been in the gift of the present government to revisit the law if it was felt not to be adequate. It seems clear that the laws are in place, what we lack are the means by which to detect wrongdoing. Obviously, throwing accusations at "lefties" is delightfully comforting, but given that dreadful lefty groups have been at the forefront of raising awareness on and campaigning about the issue it's nothing more than posturing.
It might be my imagination, but current government hasn't been driving around in (unlawfully registered) pink van flaunting its feminist credentials.
Got it - so that means it's Labour's fault that there have been no FGM convictions. Yes, that makes complete sense.
But what did she actually DO about it, when Labour were in government ?
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
And the total number of convictions under that law... ever... is ?
And that is the fault of Harriet Harman and the Labour party. I see.
"In March 2014, a doctor from the Whittington Hospital near Highgate London was the first person charged with an offence contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,[5] he was cleared in February 2015."
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
As I understand it, Labour has not been in power for five years or so now and it has been in the gift of the present government to revisit the law if it was felt not to be adequate. It seems clear that the laws are in place, what we lack are the means by which to detect wrongdoing. Obviously, throwing accusations at "lefties" is delightfully comforting, but given that dreadful lefty groups have been at the forefront of raising awareness on and campaigning about the issue it's nothing more than posturing.
Reducing the school nursing service didn’t help. After all, a schoolgirl who is identified by a nurse as having undergone FGM must have had it done by someone, and in those circumstance isn’t there a case for at least asking questions of the parents.
Comments
I think NOM is definitely the call and well done you for backing it when it was value, I just think it may well be Tory most seats.
Instead of having Milliband as Prime Minister and Salmond as Deputy reverse the proposition. Salmond is smart, wins elections, debates, is popular in Liverpool, doesn't start wars and charges students no fees at all. Milliband won't be half as scary as a Deputy and being goofy and a bit silly won't really matter. Salmond will get rid of the incredible Balls and the odious Murphy before you can say Devo Max. The reason Labour are struggling is lack of credibility in their offer of talent at the top. At a stroke this solves the problem.
the NHSCrossover'Most Seats' is anybody's guess, although I'd have the two sides much closer to evens than the current odds suggest.
A round of your best testa di caballo signore.
This in a way actually brings up a very important point with the whole student loans system, as it has now massively expanded beyond simply providing some support for living costs. If you do decide to go abroad or if you are originally from elsewhere in the EU and go home, the student loan company are extremely poor at chasing that up if in fact they actually have any power if you do go to certain parts of the world.
In an increasingly global economy, with many people constantly on the move, this will become increasingly an issue, especially with massive amounts to repay.
I was just putting both sides of the bet!
Bit misleading actually, as I wouldn't have taken the UKIP side at EVENS
If you want to take the Conservatives with a 6.5 point start at EVENS then I am game
Remarkable how silent all those wimmins lib organisations have been on this issue.
And given the constituencies this crime is concentrated in, Labour MPs.
Instead Harriet Harman wore a sweatshop made Tshirt to show what a feminist looks like.
£25 at Even Money
Inevitable because they will not be able to further resist raiding the pot to fund bread and circuses for their client vote.
At a guess they under predicted Labour and over predicted the LibDems.
The word has evolved and it's modern sense means bossy posho who wants to tell WWC blokes what they can do.
Once the taxman has stolen a percentage of my incoming cash through my corporation tax, then income tax, NI etc there must be a point where it actually becomes mine.
If I choose to put it into a pension scheme (and maybe take it out) then that should be my untaxed right. Why should the state feel entitled to cream off a percentage for me moving my own money around?
The fact that he pursues a tactical advantage at the expense of good policy makes him unfit to be prime minister. I doesn't make him crap though.
To Other_Richard: I have several non-bookie bets and just use a spreadsheet.
The UK simply cannot create enough wealth to pay for all the things we've been told we're entitled to.
So increasingly the debates will be about which Peters to rob to pay which Pauls.
With the Peters often being future generations.
Pulpstar has many many more I believe, I shouldn't think I am in the top 5 PBers in terms of GE Bets numbers
UK Food Net Imports: £6 Billion
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/food-gap-in-the-land-of-plenty-british-farmers-are-good-at-producing-but-the-uk-still-has-a-pounds-6bn-trade-deficit-in-the-foods-sector-diane-coyle-says-one-reason-is-that-the-processing-industry-lacks-both-investment-and-organisation-1445706.html
RoI net food Exports E9Billion = £6.56 Billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
This means that the British Isles is self sufficient in food production.
That is quite a stunning achievement by the agricultural sector as the UK after the Corn Laws in 1846 (which included Republic of Ireland until 1922) was a net importer and this carried on right through until after World War 2, despite just about every open space in the country being turned into a vegetable plot.
You want your tax bill reduced, but want the rest of the UK to protect your tax reduced lifestyle from the Spanish people?
I can see where you are coming from Geoff.
Without such an arrangement, the tobacco smugglers and the rest would go out of business from a start?
How about we hand Gib back to Spain, then you can learn to whine in Spanish?
Ole
I guess exactly 6.5% would be a tie...
£25 you are on.. I am due a win against you 0/3!
(last week got a leaflet from his opponent Wes Streeting)
And only got the legislation through parliament with the support of Scottish Labour MPs who whose own constituents were exempt from paying due to devolution and far more per head of taxpayers money going to Scotland.
http://www.feminist.org/global/fgm.html
http://www.feminist.com/violence/spot/fgm.html
... and many more.
As for feminism more generally (and away from FGM), Harriet Harman's slightly odd view of the world is not necessarily shared by many feminists. Sadly, she gets the airtime.
There are many things to say for and against feminism, but I'd not use Harman and Labour's misandry wrt domestic violence as examples of 'feminism'.
It is deferring benefiting from some of your taxable income now until a later time, ie when not working and retired, so you have more income then when you need it. Rather than living for the immediate now and getting as much in as you can. Why should any one be taxed at the point of deferring the income?
All this rubbish about how much money is 'spent' on higher rate tax relief is as usual the assumption that your money is actually the state's unless they generously let you keep it.
No wonder Labour and pensions are so alien to each other - compare how many pension ministers they had in power vs Steve Webb in this one..
mind you they don't need to be with their cocooned diamond-crusted pensions.
Previous speakers have included Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in September 2011; Hizb ut-Tahrir member Jamal Harwood; and Dr Khalid Fikry, who has given speeches in which he appears to suggest that Shia Muslims believe “raping a Sunni woman is a matter that pleases Allah”.
In 2011, the university was in the spotlight after it emerged that the then-president and a vice-president of its students’ union had links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has long called for the establishment of an Islamic state.
In 2012, a series of jihadist videos were posted on the Islamic society’s Facebook page in support of al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist terrorist group that on 21 February this year called for attacks on US, UK and Canadian shopping malls.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/27/mohammed-emwazi-university-westminster-refuses-to-cancel-preacher-talk-islamic-society
Nope nothing to see at University of Westminster,,,move along....
A deferred part of your salary that should not be taxed so that on your death you have more money to pass on to your family.
That sounds pretty sensible, except to those whose salary is taken up by their present day existence, and whose tax credits you want to cut?
You are a leading light in equitable taxation sir.
Increasing productivity, as always, being vital.
Graphs of the number of people supported by one farm worker are almost exponential.
A downside to this is that many people now have lost all touch with farming and the countryside generally.
People who work hard and get paid for it or people who are receiving benefits because they are not working hard for whatever reason. Not a difficult choice.
I hear a lot say that you might as well blow your savings and pension now and live off benefits in 20 years time when you retire as you will be no worse off. The main argument against that is that those benefits will have either ceased to exist or be worth trivial amounts due to not being uprated by inflation by that time.
I suspect also that means testing will be replaced with 1930s style means testing (even for healthcare) requiring you to sell all your assets including your home and furniture to qualify for the paltry benefits available (as is the case in South Africa)
Its only a matter of time and Labour coming in and wrecking the economy will make it happen faster.
Tobacco exports are of course a result of poor Spanish tax policy.
Independence is the way forward. Colin Roberts, the Governor of the Falkland Islands has just last week mooted the idea for there too.
And I suspect that my Spanish is already better than yours.
We actually import a smaller proportion of our calories today than we did in 1900.
Prior to the 1990's there were less than 70 Universities in the UK. From '92 to '94 a further 38 were created.
Unless you believe in the magic money tree where was the money to pay for those Universities to come from?
It also makes them more independent of the government which is why socialists don't like them.
Eds policy is typical socialism. Attack pensions making older people dependent upon the state and easier to manipulate, replace tution fees with government grants enabling he who pays the piper to call the tune with the universities, while students still have to pay a hefty £6000 a year.
The people running labour are typical secularist atheists. They claim not to believe in an all powerful omnipotent God. Actually they believe the State is or should be an all powerful omnipotent God. I think it was G.K Chesterton who described Socialism as a Christian Heresy.
I agree it is double and treble taxation. There is an oddity here. The government wants people to spend not save in order to create demand to grow GDP and increase tax revenue. So we have very low interest rates to discourage saving and encourage spending. Yet we subsidise saving for pensions. I assume that is because it will save goverment money in the long term in reducing benefits for those without an adequate pension. But it is a fraud. For most people it is to their financial advantage to spend now and live on benefits later rather than save now for the same level of income later. There are other solutions such as the Green Party basic income for everyone - but it has to be paid for.
As those 'new' universities already existed as polytechnics.
"At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."
Gerrard Batten of UKIP suggested that people claiming to represent Muslims be required to sign a charter expressing their condemnation of terrorism and jihadism.
Guardianistas and some Conservatives gave him dogs abuse for even mentioning it.. they should read what CAGE have been doing all along, and hang their heads in shame. Blood on their hands
http://www.harrietharman.org/zero-tolerance-to-female-genital-cutting---060212
http://orchidproject.org/harriet-harman-on-egypts-fgm-and-uk-aid/ I am no fan of Ms Harman, but it's really not very hard to find examples of her speaking out strongly against FGM. Just Google it.
Atheists are only alike in the same way people who don't like football are alike. There's no unifying feature beyond lack of belief in a god. It's certainly not an inherently leftwing perspective.
Any why did Labour in the person of Ms Harman try and kill the amendment to enforce the ban on gender specific abortion the other day and instead call for "dialogue on cultural change"
Plus the current trend is, and has been for a generation, towards a greater proportion of our food being imported.
Just so everyone is aware, this is just UKIP vs Con, other parties scores are irrelevant to the bet
The problem with many 'feminist organisations' (and indeed many campaigning 'organisations') is that they are more interested in the politics than the ends, or indeed the people. The actual real-life adherents (who may have very different viewpoints) do not get a look-in.
I've heard feminists take on Harman (and another politician - I can't remember who) on the TV and radio in the past. But many of the media-luvvie feminists are similar to Harman.
Before anyone says: I'm not a feminist: for instance I disagree fundamentally with positive discrimination (which most, although not all, feminists seem to want).
But I am an equalist. If someone can do something, regardless of gender, then they should get equal chance. And if it means it's harder for me to get a job, so be it.
It is pretty blatant where the problem is but none of the political parties have the cojones to call a spade a spade.
Incidentally, Prey [horror anthology] is now up as an e-book, all proceeds going to the WWF:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prey-Seven-Tales-Beastly-Terror-ebook/dp/B00N37ZAPM/
It's surprisingly well-priced at just £1.99, and includes a story by me.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/contents
And it created an anti-FGM government co-ordinator role, which the coalition then abolished:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/30/female-circumcision-prevention-post-abolished
So at least a few things.
This would only apply to people claiming to be spokesman for the muslim community remember, not all muslims.. only people from organisations such as CAGE, that say they are acting as representatives of Muslims
"Gerard Batten, who represents London and is member of the party's executive, told the Guardian on Tuesday that he stood by a "charter of Muslim understanding", which he commissioned in 2006.
The document asks Muslims to sign a declaration rejecting violence and says parts of the Qur'an that promote "violent physical Jihad" should be regarded as "inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic
In a statement to the Guardian, Batten later said: "I would expect the fundamentalists to agree with me that democracy is incompatible with fundamentalist Islam. Moderate Muslims have to decide which side of the argument they are on.
"Who is in favour of jihad? Apart from the jihadists of course? I was, and still am, happy to speak out against it. It is amusing that the Guardian equates being opposed to extremism and jihadism as 'overlapping with the far-right'. So are left-wing liberals in favour of jihad? If not, do they overlap too?" ".
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
And talked about FGM in Egypt but not FGM in Peckham.
How BRAVE she was.
So that's, no one, in twelve years.
Maybe they should have framed a law that people had a chance of enforcing, making it apply to more than citizen and permanent residents would have been a good start.
Have a good afternoon everyone, I'm off to see some football and then some rugby.
Perhaps the betting community would like to strike the odds on do we get a conviction on Rotherham before we get one of Swiss tax avoidance ?
Personally I doubt we'll get either.
SNP 35 --> 46
LibDem 28 -->23
UKIP 7 --> 3
Others (incl. N.I.) 24 --> 22
There’s also the issue that the definitive Qu’ran is in medieval Arabic and, as with translating the original Biblical texts, different translators can choose different words.
I also found an authoritative source on University numbers, it was 52 existing Universities and 35 're-designations' in 1992.
Nothing's changed, nothing changing.
The two biggest factors in pension deficits, I believe, are longevity ( and the previous underestimates of it), and low gilt yields ( linked to low interest rates effectively). Holidays in the 80/90's didn't help ( and not all schemes did - our works one didn't I believe), but they were also partly driven by the tax man not allowing funds to be overly funded ( ironic, as had longevity been better measured they weren't). G Brown's infamous tax didn't help and still doesn't, and was a great scam in lifting £5 billion without the bill coming in for decades. It was and is a disgrace and the man should hang his head in shame.
What pensions badly need to put them back on an even keel is later retirement dates ( aggressively introduced I'd argue), a rise in interest rates to say 3/4% ( the higher the better but let's be sensible), and politicians who actually bloody well understand them and stop making life difficult.
If they have managed to do that successfully and the courses they offer are of a high enough standard is a different matter.
We just got a letter through the post asking if the electoral roll information for this property was correct (which it was).
I wonder how many councils are sending similar letters out? As someone noted before, it seems like a good idea if there are concerns about the validity of the electoral roll.
Just guesswork at this stage, though it seems plausible.
Shia Muslims are more like Catholics and the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) is Gods representative on earth, and as the Pope once could, can veto parliamentary legislation.
So we have a Prime Minister with a Catholic wife of Irish descent who deposed an Iraqi regime run by a Sunni ("Protestant") minority mainly living in the North who dominated and repressed the majority Shia (Catholic) population who mainly live in the south, hmmmm.
I've often wondered how Blair talked Claire Short into supporting the war in that vote...
Australia to bring in a foreign 'investor' levy on Aussie property purchases.