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.
This Government has been doing real stuff on FGM, as you can see from this....
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.
I am not sure the party that only a few days ago sabotaged a vote on enforcing the ban on gender selective abortion in favour of "dialog on culture change" has anything to brag about on women's rights. Yes, I noticed you avoided commenting on that when I raised it earlier.
Labour the part of women's rights - unless it means upsetting minority voters in the marginals
When is the conservatives election campaign going to begin, it feels like Labour are letting off their big guns early with weekly attempts at stealing the news agenda, but tories are nowhere to be seen, are they keeping powder dry - waiting for budget to launch, they seem silent at the moment, is this intentional or are they just complacent?
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
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.
True enough. If there is no-one to detect it in the first place you have a big problem. Another issue is the threshold for a criminal conviction and how you get one. Unless you actually catch it being done, you'll often have to rely on very young children testifying against parents and other relations, which is hard - to say the least.
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
No teaching union is affiliated to the Labour party, neither is the Royal College of Nursing.
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
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.
True enough. If there is no-one to detect it in the first place you have a big problem. Another issue is the threshold for a criminal conviction and how you get one. Unless you actually catch it being done, you'll often have to rely on very young children testifying against parents and other relations, which is hard - to say the least.
Put the onus on the parents. If your child has FGM and you don't report it you are concealing a crime. If they don't point the finger at someone else then they are guilt of a failure of care of their child and inter alia child abuse.
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell·2 mins2 minutes ago .@IsabelHardman Isabel, as you we'll know from the tweet I sent you, I was doing a BBC interview in Cambridge. You know you're being unfair
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·3 mins3 minutes ago @DouglasCarswell what's being unfair to point out that some of your colleagues didn't seem that impressive at you weren't there?
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·3 mins3 minutes ago @DouglasCarswell and when you texted me, you just said you had to be in Cambridge. Someone else told me you were doing panel.
And so he blabs to his followers - interesting spin???
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell·2 mins2 minutes ago I mention to @IsabelHardman that I happen to be in Cambridge doing BBC regional interview. She uses it as evidence of Ukip splits. Seriously
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
1000 deaths isn't scary enough?
No. Compare to how many die in India annually or how many die from regular flu annually. 1000 is not significant.
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.
Gets done on regular basis , in Scotland at least.
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
It should mean sending doctors to jail who carry out the unlawful procedure.
Surely, Mr SO, it’s like bruising, broken bones etc in a child. You don’t need a young child to give evidence in those circumstances; the child IS the evidence!
What it does need is enough properly trained law-enforcement team.
I can understand a relucatance to impose a prison term on the mother in these particular circumstances, though. How can society create a climate of shame for the perpatrators?
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
Do both if able as both are tax free.
The more that's built up within a Cash ISA, the more you are geared to benefit materially when interest rates do eventually rise. You can beat the 'average luck' return of 1.35% tax free of PB's BUT for fun value, PB's have the potential excitement of winnings!
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.
To an extent, yes. The classic example being the excessive baubles that pensioners get. But it's rare to have a policy proposed that is actively destructive vs.just a waste of money.
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
It should mean sending doctors to jail who carry out the unlawful procedure.
MPs of all parties voted against it, the Tory-led government did not support it. Again, nothing to do with evil lefties.
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
Do both if able as both are tax free.
The more that's built up within a Cash ISA, the more you are geared to benefit materially when interest rates do eventually rise. You can beat the 'average luck' return of 1.35% tax free of PB's BUT for fun value, PB's have the potential excitement of winnings!
Stick anything you owe to the taxman in there until you have to pay.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief is easily justified because pension contributions are, and always have been, deferred income that is taxed as income when taken in retirement.
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
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.
Gets done on regular basis , in Scotland at least.
We’ve had one here in Essex. And, incidentally, two lots of Labour camapign material, including a canvassing call.
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.
Because you are agreeing to lock it away until you are 65+
If there was no advantage in doing so, why would someone accept the reduction in flexibility vs saving outside of a pensions vehicle?
Personally speaking, I look to ISAs first, then EIS and don't put anything into pensions part from what my employer contributes
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·5 mins5 minutes ago @DouglasCarswell I can understand why you want to accuse me of being unfair because persecution complex helps party bind together
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
It should mean sending doctors to jail who carry out the unlawful procedure.
MPs of all parties voted against it, the Tory-led government did not support it. Again, nothing to do with evil lefties.
Surely, Mr SO, it’s like bruising, broken bones etc in a child. You don’t need a young child to give evidence in those circumstances; the child IS the evidence!
What it does need is enough properly trained law-enforcement team.
I can understand a relucatance to impose a prison term on the mother in these particular circumstances, though. How can society create a climate of shame for the perpatrators?
I don't know the law well enough to be precise here, but I'd have thought that in such circumstances the injury to the child is evidence that a crime was committed, but it does not necessarily tell you who did it.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief is easily justified because pension contributions are, and always have been, deferred income that is taxed as income when taken in retirement.
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
If you retire early, please feel free to become an IFA! You do however need to think of IHT related implications of pension pots vs ISAs albeit there are options here too nowadays.
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.
You are no Tory then "God, King & Country"
For High Tories it's "Family, God, Queen & Country". It's why we are patriots not nationalists.
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
It should mean sending doctors to jail who carry out the unlawful procedure.
MPs of all parties voted against it, the Tory-led government did not support it. Again, nothing to do with evil lefties.
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.
Because you are agreeing to lock it away until you are 65+
If there was no advantage in doing so, why would someone accept the reduction in flexibility vs saving outside of a pensions vehicle?
Personally speaking, I look to ISAs first, then EIS and don't put anything into pensions part from what my employer contributes
With a SIPP you can take your pension, or a part of it, way before you are 65.
Surely, Mr SO, it’s like bruising, broken bones etc in a child. You don’t need a young child to give evidence in those circumstances; the child IS the evidence!
What it does need is enough properly trained law-enforcement team.
I can understand a relucatance to impose a prison term on the mother in these particular circumstances, though. How can society create a climate of shame for the perpatrators?
I don't know the law well enough to be precise here, but I'd have thought that in such circumstances the injury to the child is evidence that a crime was committed, but it does not necessarily tell you who did it.
SO, however you would expect the victim to tell you who did it and the parents to have been complicit. Unlikely the child will be snatched off the street , suffer FGM and not mention it to the parents. Compulsory checks in school and immediate 10 years in the pokey for the parents sounds sensible way to at least reduce it.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief is easily justified because pension contributions are, and always have been, deferred income that is taxed as income when taken in retirement.
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
The tax threshold for an ISA is much lower than for pension contributions, isn't it? I put money in both and can put far more in my SIPP than in my ISA.
@Indigo - As I understand MPs in all parties voted against a proposal to criminalise gender specific abortion. In theory, it sounds a no-brainer; in practice, what it would have meant is sending women to prison who are pressured by their families to have abortions because they are carrying female babies.
It should mean sending doctors to jail who carry out the unlawful procedure.
MPs of all parties voted against it, the Tory-led government did not support it. Again, nothing to do with evil lefties.
@SouthamObserver During the last Labour government (except possibly the first year or so) one thing that made me cringe was the "blame Maggie" cries for every ill. I had sympathy in many cases with the Tories who complained about it, sympathy I now regret, because they do exactly the same. Politics and business is the art of avoiding responsibility.
@SouthamObserver During the last Labour government (except possibly the first year or so) one thing that made me cringe was the "blame Maggie" cries for every ill. I had sympathy in many cases with the Tories who complained about it, sympathy I now regret, because they do exactly the same. Politics and business is the art of avoiding responsibility.
I would say the opposite was the usual charge. Conservatives usually point about that when Labour bitch about the Conservative's not doing something, its having not done the same thing themselves for the 13 years they were in charge (or 98% of the time they were in charge in the case of the 50% tax band)
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.
We got one too this morning, I had thought everyone had to register as individuals.
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
No teaching union is affiliated to the Labour party, neither is the Royal College of Nursing.
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
1000 deaths isn't scary enough?
I'd imagine it's within the normal mortality rate for influenza (which, despite it's reputation, is a seriously nasty little virus)
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
No teaching union is affiliated to the Labour party, neither is the Royal College of Nursing.
So?
I never raised affiliation
There seemed t be an implication in your original point. If there wasn't, I apologise. I am sure that the relevant unions will be advising their members dispassionately. Why wouldn't they?
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
1000 deaths isn't scary enough?
No. Compare to how many die in India annually or how many die from regular flu annually. 1000 is not significant.
But this is within the last month or so.
And almost had a scare at work, my boss's husband went to India on business a couple of weeks back, returned to the UK with flu like symptoms, and within 48 hrs both she and their son caught it too. Really quick onset too, a colleague and I had to drive her from work to her GP, as she was almost unconscious, but luckily she didn't need to go to hospital. They are all fine now, fortunately.
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.
We all know where the issue is. There are no depths Labour will not sink to in order to win the BME vote. In this case they will turn a blind eye to female infanticide in order to keep their voters happy.
@Indigo I have this strange notion that governments should stop blaming, and instead tell us how they intend to fix things. Deranged I know, but there it is.
@Charles No one particularly wants to highlight flu cases this year since the vaccine purchased is only around 3% effective this time.
That happens. Because off egg based manufacturing, they have to make a guess on the dominant influenza strain in the early spring (usually around when it reaches Australia) in order to manufacture enough vaccine for the autumn innoculation campaign. They are usually pretty good, and even when they are wrong, the vaccine usually offers a degree of cross-strain protection. I suspect they have been very unlucky this year.
It's one of the reasons why I've invested in a peptide based vaccine manufacturing platform
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
Do both if able as both are tax free.
The more that's built up within a Cash ISA, the more you are geared to benefit materially when interest rates do eventually rise. You can beat the 'average luck' return of 1.35% tax free of PB's BUT for fun value, PB's have the potential excitement of winnings!
I put all my ISAs into equities - PBs are better than a cash savings account - I use them plus RPI-linked NS&I bonds to warehouse 6 months salary (currently only have 4 months, but want to build them up)
@Charles I am not blaming any part of the system, just pointing out that the papers and political parties are not going to want to use the normal scare stories and headlines that usually occur. (for different reasons certainly, but for the moment there is a degree of consensus)
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.
We all know where the issue is. There are no depths Labour will not sink to in order to win the BME vote. In this case they will turn a blind eye to female infanticide in order to keep their voters happy.
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.
We got one too this morning, I had thought everyone had to register as individuals.
They do: I guess (and it is just a guess) that these letters are sent as a reminder, and to act as a barrier against people registering at addresses they do not live at.
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
No teaching union is affiliated to the Labour party, neither is the Royal College of Nursing.
So?
I never raised affiliation
There seemed t be an implication in your original point. If there wasn't, I apologise. I am sure that the relevant unions will be advising their members dispassionately. Why wouldn't they?
There wasn't. I am sure the likes of UNISON (which has 500,000 members working for the NHS) will not allow their affiliation to affect what they do or don't publish before the election. Similarly for the non-affiliated unions.
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.
It takes time to be rehabilitated from 10+ years of lefty-dominated political and social culture at school and University. The older you are the more likely you are to have come to your senses.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief is easily justified because pension contributions are, and always have been, deferred income that is taxed as income when taken in retirement.
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
The tax threshold for an ISA is much lower than for pension contributions, isn't it? I put money in both and can put far more in my SIPP than in my ISA.
The difference is that SIPP is tax free going in and taxed coming out, while ISA's are taxed going in and untaxed coming out.
The current limit on SIPP is £40 000 per year (though can make use of previous years) while ISA's are £15 000 and cannot be carried over.
ISAs are accessible at any time but SIPP is tied up until age 55 and can be targeted by future Chancellors.
Personally I plan to use my full ISA allowance as soon as the new tax year starts as ISAs are also a soft target for Balls and Miliband in an early budget, which could drastically lower limits either for annual deposits or total held in the wrapper.
Obviously, I am not a financial advisor so do your own research.
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?
Any union member in a final salary scheme who aspires to become a headmaster/mistress, a senior nurse or equivalent in other public services.
No teaching union is affiliated to the Labour party, neither is the Royal College of Nursing.
So?
I never raised affiliation
There seemed t be an implication in your original point. If there wasn't, I apologise. I am sure that the relevant unions will be advising their members dispassionately. Why wouldn't they?
There wasn't. I am sure the likes of UNISON (which has 500,000 members working for the NHS) will not allow their affiliation to affect what they do or don't publish before the election. Similarly for the non-affiliated unions.
My guess is that almost no UNISON member will be affected by the proposals; the leader maybe?
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.
We got one too this morning, I had thought everyone had to register as individuals.
They do: I guess (and it is just a guess) that these letters are sent as a reminder, and to act as a barrier against people registering at addresses they do not live at.
Yebbut It says in bold near the bottom:
* If all the information is correct you do not need to do anything.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief is easily justified because pension contributions are, and always have been, deferred income that is taxed as income when taken in retirement.
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
The tax threshold for an ISA is much lower than for pension contributions, isn't it? I put money in both and can put far more in my SIPP than in my ISA.
The difference is that SIPP is tax free going in and taxed coming out, while ISA's are taxed going in and untaxed coming out.
The current limit on SIPP is £40 000 per year (though can make use of previous years) while ISA's are £15 000 and cannot be carried over.
ISAs are accessible at any time but SIPP is tied up until age 55 and can be targeted by future Chancellors.
Personally I plan to use my full ISA allowance as soon as the new tax year starts as ISAs are also a soft target for Balls and Miliband in an early budget, which could drastically lower limits either for annual deposits or total held in the wrapper.
Obviously, I am not a financial advisor so do your own research.
Thanks. SIPPs look a lot more tax efficient than ISAs, even with the Labour proposals. Lucky are those who have these worries.
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
Do both if able as both are tax free.
The more that's built up within a Cash ISA, the more you are geared to benefit materially when interest rates do eventually rise. You can beat the 'average luck' return of 1.35% tax free of PB's BUT for fun value, PB's have the potential excitement of winnings!
I put all my ISAs into equities - PBs are better than a cash savings account - I use them plus RPI-linked NS&I bonds to warehouse 6 months salary (currently only have 4 months, but want to build them up)
I I were you i'd take out half of them and use them to Bet on Ed Miliband being next prime minister - you can't lose.
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.
It takes time to be rehabilitated from 10+ years of lefty-dominated political and social culture at school and University. The older you are the more likely you are to have come to your senses.
I guess you also like the fact that the Tories have protected all your taxpayer-funded goodies.
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.
We all know where the issue is. There are no depths Labour will not sink to in order to win the BME vote. In this case they will turn a blind eye to female infanticide in order to keep their voters happy.
I think it is more a case that there are no depths that abortion enthusiasts will sink to in order to protect the "right to choose". Those supporting it were not just Labour.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
Top rate tax payers get more pension perks than regular taxpayers at the moment. Can anyone explain why that is fair?
Clearly, students who end up in high paying jobs will be affected by the changes more than those who do not end up in such jobs as the new pension provisions will not apply to them.
Finally, the idea that even a significant minority will be affected by this is ridiculous.
Ed is certainly crap. But I just cannot see this being a big issue.
Higher rate tax relief
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
The tax threshold for an ISA is much lower than for pension contributions, isn't it? I put money in both and can put far more in my SIPP than in my ISA.
The difference is that SIPP is tax free going in and taxed coming out, while ISA's are taxed going in and untaxed coming out.
The current limit on SIPP is £40 000 per year (though can make use of previous years) while ISA's are £15 000 and cannot be carried over.
ISAs are accessible at any time but SIPP is tied up until age 55 and can be targeted by future Chancellors.
Personally I plan to use my full ISA allowance as soon as the new tax year starts as ISAs are also a soft target for Balls and Miliband in an early budget, which could drastically lower limits either for annual deposits or total held in the wrapper.
Obviously, I am not a financial advisor so do your own research.
Thanks. SIPPs look a lot more tax efficient than ISAs, even with the Labour proposals. Lucky are those who have these worries.
Not really. The advantage of higher rate tax relief is most advantageous if likely to be paying basic rate tax in retirement.
The Labour proposals affect the annual deposit limit, the total pot size but most of all the those in the 45% (50% under Balls plans) band. They do not at present seem to be targetting those in the 40% band.
Anyone in the 45% band now would most likely not be on the basic rate in retirement. So will get tax relief at 20% now, but be taxed at 40% (at current rates) in retirement. No one with any sense would do so.
For my situation ISAs are much more tax efficient as I will be a higher rate taxpayer in retirement and all income and Capital gains on these are tax free.
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.
It takes time to be rehabilitated from 10+ years of lefty-dominated political and social culture at school and University. The older you are the more likely you are to have come to your senses.
I guess you also like the fact that the Tories have protected all your taxpayer-funded goodies.
While shafting them with 0% interest for years. Pensioners have suffered most from quantative easing. It's not all one way.
Your problem is that Gideon is a competent doler out of bread and circuses to gain political advantage Ed and Ed are hopeless at it.
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.
I am not a financial adviser, and this is not financial advice.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
Stashing cash in the various high interest savings accounts and circulating it round each moth is way better for your first few tens of thousands of pounds of savings.
Premium Bonds are a terrible investment at the moment.
All influenza viruses originate either in poultry or swine. It's just sensationalist reporting to write about "swine flu" or "avian flu" as if it was something particularly scary.
1000 deaths isn't scary enough?
I'd imagine it's within the normal mortality rate for influenza (which, despite it's reputation, is a seriously nasty little virus)
But is it? Flu deaths in America are probably about 500 compared to 600,000 by heart disease. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html I am happy to be corrected by our resident medics but I think this point is of interest. ''For example, "stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community-acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic," ''
A lot of people take such drugs and my wife thought she was having a heart attack but it turned out to be 'acid', she suffers from a hiatus hernia. Rather than take drugs she now eats low acid foods and has lost weight and is feeling far healthier. Lots of people are on these medications when perhaps a change in diets would be far better.
Love immigration. Common curriculum is bad. Tax cuts are good. Build a coalition against ISIS Invade Syria to overthrow Assad. No deal with Iran. No jobs for islamists. Netanyahu is good. Tax cuts for companies are good. Abortion is bad. No gay marriage. No to drugs. Obama is a failure. America uber alles. Expanding love for America.
The oligarchs wishlist, apart from gay marriage. Also Hilary's platform, apart from gay marriage.
Russia’s top Oligarch in the late 1990s had the idea to set up a fake two-party system in which the liberal and the neo-conservative parties would ferociously fight over every hot-button ideological issues while quietly being run by the same people. With the public safely distracted, the looting of the national wealth by the various oligarchs could continue undisturbed. I would guess he got this idea from the US.
@Charles No one particularly wants to highlight flu cases this year since the vaccine purchased is only around 3% effective this time.
That happens. Because off egg based manufacturing, they have to make a guess on the dominant influenza strain in the early spring (usually around when it reaches Australia) in order to manufacture enough vaccine for the autumn innoculation campaign. They are usually pretty good, and even when they are wrong, the vaccine usually offers a degree of cross-strain protection. I suspect they have been very unlucky this year.
It's one of the reasons why I've invested in a peptide based vaccine manufacturing platform
Quite. It was always going to happen sometime and this year it did. What is worrying is if people say” it didn’t work last year, so we won’t bother this”, vaccination rates drop and we get something really nasty. "Herd immunity" isn’t very good at the best of times and we could be back to a 1957/8 (I think. IIRC), stuation.
How long do you think, Mr Charlers, before your investment bears fruit?
Love immigration. Common curriculum is bad. Tax cuts are good. Build a coalition against ISIS Invade Syria to overthrow Assad. No deal with Iran. No jobs for islamists. Netanyahu is good. Tax cuts for companies are good. Abortion is bad. No gay marriage. No to drugs. Obama is a failure. America uber alles. Expanding love for America.
The oligarchs wishlist, apart from gay marriage. Also Hilary's platform, apart from gay marriage.
Russia’s top Oligarch in the late 1990s had the idea to set up a fake two-party system in which the liberal and the neo-conservative parties would ferociously fight over every hot-button ideological issues while quietly being run by the same people. With the public safely distracted, the looting of the national wealth by the various oligarchs could continue undisturbed. I would guess he got this idea from the US.
The accursed power, which stands on Privilege And goes with women, champagne and bridge, Broke And democracy resumed her reign. Which goes with bridge, women and champagne!
From about the turn of the 20th C, IIRC. Jack W will know!
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.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
Wow. You think gay people should be aborted. Why stop there? Maybe you could find a gene for left-wingers too.
What a nasty post.
Very nasty indeed.
As I said almost straight after posting, I made a typo and meant to say that "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds." (just as last week they voted against restricting abortion on the grounds that the foetus is female).
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
Wow. You think gay people should be aborted. Why stop there? Maybe you could find a gene for left-wingers too.
What a nasty post.
Very nasty indeed.
As I said almost straight after posting, I made a typo and meant to say that "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds. (just as last week they voted against restricting abortion on the grounds that the foetus is female).
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
Wow. You think gay people should be aborted. Why stop there? Maybe you could find a gene for left-wingers too.
What a nasty post.
Very nasty indeed.
As I said almost straight after posting, I made a typo and meant to say that "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds. (just as last week they voted against restricting abortion on the grounds that the foetus is female).
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
Hole. Digging! Stop
Not at all, I posted very quickly that I had made a typo, before that lot started flaming me.
I'm vehemently against aborting anybody, for any reason, and have said so here before in the past.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
Wow. You think gay people should be aborted. Why stop there? Maybe you could find a gene for left-wingers too.
What a nasty post.
Very nasty indeed.
As I said almost straight after posting, I made a typo and meant to say that "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds. (just as last week they voted against restricting abortion on the grounds that the foetus is female).
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
Hole. Digging! Stop
Not at all, I posted very quickly that I had made a typo, before that lot started flaming me.
I'm vehemently against aborting anybody, for any reason, and have said so here before in the past.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
Wow. You think gay people should be aborted. Why stop there? Maybe you could find a gene for left-wingers too.
What a nasty post.
Very nasty indeed.
As I said almost straight after posting, I made a typo and meant to say that "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds. (just as last week they voted against restricting abortion on the grounds that the foetus is female).
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
Hole. Digging! Stop
Not at all, I posted very quickly that I had made a typo, before that lot started flaming me.
I'm vehemently against aborting anybody, for any reason, and have said so here before in the past.
It was a great way to make a couple of trolls wriggle out of the woodwork into the light though. So busy rubbing their hands with glee they didn't notice the original sentence made no sense.
@Luckyguy1983 The original statement :- "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds."
It was a great way to make a couple of trolls wriggle out of the woodwork into the light though. So busy rubbing their hands with glee they didn't notice the original sentence made no sense.
I don't think they had actually read my original post. Just the reply from Smarmeron who only quoted the last sentence of my post (but I think understood what I actually meant to say). The full post makes it manifestly obvious I made a typo by missing off "restricting" on the original post.
ie
"I think it is more a case that there are no depths that abortion enthusiasts will sink to in order to protect the "right to choose". Those supporting it were not just Labour.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds."
@Luckyguy1983 The original statement :- "Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds."
In what structural way does it not make sense?
It only makes sense when taken out of context (ie written without the sentence above it:
"I think it is more a case that there are no depths that abortion enthusiasts will sink to in order to protect the "right to choose". Those supporting it were not just Labour.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against [restricting *] abortion on those grounds."
@Paul_Mid_Beds Even with the missing word, you think that the possibility a child might grow up "gay" is a good reason to terminate? Or am I missing some inner meaning?
@Smarmeron Sorry, I realised how the context changed. what are good reasons for termination, or are their none?
@Smarmeron, in my book there are no good reasons for termination.
The whole point of my post was to express my disgust at MPs refusing to ban abortion on the grounds of the sex of the foetus (with principally females being the victim)
and to point out that it follows that said MPs are so wedded to the idea of the "right to choose" that if someone discovered a "gay gene" that could be detected in a test on a foetus, our MPs would not even ban abortion on those grounds.
Comments
This Government has been doing real stuff on FGM, as you can see from this....
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/563719739512733696
Labour the part of women's rights - unless it means upsetting minority voters in the marginals
I would imagine they are having to re-jig a few policies and announcements due to unforeseen circumstances.
But I've chosen to invest in premium bonds (which are tax free) rather than a cash ISA.
No one particularly wants to highlight flu cases this year since the vaccine purchased is only around 3% effective this time.
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·1 hr1 hour ago
Quite striking that Douglas Carswell wasn't at the Ukip conference yesterday, but are Ukip split reports exaggerated? http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2015/02/are-reports-of-a-ukip-split-greatly-exaggerated/ …
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell·2 mins2 minutes ago
.@IsabelHardman Isabel, as you we'll know from the tweet I sent you, I was doing a BBC interview in Cambridge. You know you're being unfair
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·3 mins3 minutes ago
@DouglasCarswell what's being unfair to point out that some of your colleagues didn't seem that impressive at you weren't there?
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·3 mins3 minutes ago
@DouglasCarswell and when you texted me, you just said you had to be in Cambridge. Someone else told me you were doing panel.
And so he blabs to his followers - interesting spin???
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell·2 mins2 minutes ago
I mention to @IsabelHardman that I happen to be in Cambridge doing BBC regional interview. She uses it as evidence of Ukip splits. Seriously
What it does need is enough properly trained law-enforcement team.
I can understand a relucatance to impose a prison term on the mother in these particular circumstances, though. How can society create a climate of shame for the perpatrators?
The more that's built up within a Cash ISA, the more you are geared to benefit materially when interest rates do eventually rise. You can beat the 'average luck' return of 1.35% tax free of PB's BUT for fun value, PB's have the potential excitement of winnings!
If Higher rate releif on contributions goes then it is better not to save this way. It is better to put post tax income into ISA's as the capital gains and income from these in retirement are untaxed.
These changes will kill off SIPPs and personal pensions for higher rate tax payers, who should save via ISA's instead.
Obviously anyone should do their own research for their own situation, but that is the overall picture.
If there was no advantage in doing so, why would someone accept the reduction in flexibility vs saving outside of a pensions vehicle?
Personally speaking, I look to ISAs first, then EIS and don't put anything into pensions part from what my employer contributes
@DouglasCarswell I can understand why you want to accuse me of being unfair because persecution complex helps party bind together
Douglas Carswell MP@DouglasCarswell·2 mins2 minutes ago
@IsabelHardman that must be it
During the last Labour government (except possibly the first year or so) one thing that made me cringe was the "blame Maggie" cries for every ill.
I had sympathy in many cases with the Tories who complained about it, sympathy I now regret, because they do exactly the same.
Politics and business is the art of avoiding responsibility.
I never raised affiliation
And almost had a scare at work, my boss's husband went to India on business a couple of weeks back, returned to the UK with flu like symptoms, and within 48 hrs both she and their son caught it too. Really quick onset too, a colleague and I had to drive her from work to her GP, as she was almost unconscious, but luckily she didn't need to go to hospital. They are all fine now, fortunately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23FOB-idealab-t.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=The Daughter Deficit&st=cse&
I have this strange notion that governments should stop blaming, and instead tell us how they intend to fix things.
Deranged I know, but there it is.
It's one of the reasons why I've invested in a peptide based vaccine manufacturing platform
I am not blaming any part of the system, just pointing out that the papers and political parties are not going to want to use the normal scare stories and headlines that usually occur.
(for different reasons certainly, but for the moment there is a degree of consensus)
The current limit on SIPP is £40 000 per year (though can make use of previous years) while ISA's are £15 000 and cannot be carried over.
ISAs are accessible at any time but SIPP is tied up until age 55 and can be targeted by future Chancellors.
Personally I plan to use my full ISA allowance as soon as the new tax year starts as ISAs are also a soft target for Balls and Miliband in an early budget, which could drastically lower limits either for annual deposits or total held in the wrapper.
Obviously, I am not a financial advisor so do your own research.
* If all the information is correct you do not need to do anything.
The older you get, the more you are liable to suffer from confusion, senility and selfishness
Last month, Lab were 1.1% ahead of the Tories.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds.
It has become a holy grail of social liberals.
The Labour proposals affect the annual deposit limit, the total pot size but most of all the those in the 45% (50% under Balls plans) band. They do not at present seem to be targetting those in the 40% band.
Anyone in the 45% band now would most likely not be on the basic rate in retirement. So will get tax relief at 20% now, but be taxed at 40% (at current rates) in retirement. No one with any sense would do so.
For my situation ISAs are much more tax efficient as I will be a higher rate taxpayer in retirement and all income and Capital gains on these are tax free.
DYOR etc...
Your problem is that Gideon is a competent doler out of bread and circuses to gain political advantage Ed and Ed are hopeless at it.
"Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds."
A fascinating statement, and more than a little scary.
Premium Bonds are a terrible investment at the moment.
Flu deaths in America are probably about 500 compared to 600,000 by heart disease.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html
I am happy to be corrected by our resident medics but I think this point is of interest.
''For example, "stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community-acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic," ''
A lot of people take such drugs and my wife thought she was having a heart attack but it turned out to be 'acid', she suffers from a hiatus hernia. Rather than take drugs she now eats low acid foods and has lost weight and is feeling far healthier. Lots of people are on these medications when perhaps a change in diets would be far better.
It would certainly cause something of a civil war among the right on Guardianista types.
What a nasty post.
http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/berezovskyanism-in-usa.html?m=1
Divide and conquer.
"Herd immunity" isn’t very good at the best of times and we could be back to a 1957/8 (I think. IIRC), stuation.
How long do you think, Mr Charlers, before your investment bears fruit?
And goes with women, champagne and bridge,
Broke
And democracy resumed her reign.
Which goes with bridge, women and champagne!
From about the turn of the 20th C, IIRC. Jack W will know!
Are you disagreeing with the statement?
Our MPs are so wedded to the right to choose that they are happy to have women aborted for being women. Now thats nasty.
I'm vehemently against aborting anybody, for any reason, and have said so here before in the past.
The original statement :-
"Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against abortion on those grounds."
In what structural way does it not make sense?
ie
"I think it is more a case that there are no depths that abortion enthusiasts will sink to in order to protect the "right to choose". Those supporting it were not just Labour.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against restricting abortion on those grounds."
"I think it is more a case that there are no depths that abortion enthusiasts will sink to in order to protect the "right to choose". Those supporting it were not just Labour.
Even if someone discovered a gay gene that could be found in foetuses in a test, this lot would vote against [restricting *] abortion on those grounds."
* The missing word.
Even with the missing word, you think that the possibility a child might grow up "gay" is a good reason to terminate?
Or am I missing some inner meaning?
Sorry, I realised how the context changed. what are good reasons for termination, or are their none?
The whole point of my post was to express my disgust at MPs refusing to ban abortion on the grounds of the sex of the foetus (with principally females being the victim)
and to point out that it follows that said MPs are so wedded to the idea of the "right to choose" that if someone discovered a "gay gene" that could be detected in a test on a foetus, our MPs would not even ban abortion on those grounds.