politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the third London Mayoral election in succession CON hop

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited June 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the third London Mayoral election in succession CON hopes look set to rest on a blond old-Etonian

According to Joe Murhpy in the Standard Zac’s candidature is dependent on the outcome of a referendum he is holding in his Rixhmond Park constituency.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    edited June 2015
    Old Etonians FTW

    He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited June 2015
    After the GE has the tag "old Etonian" contributed to the shortening of Zac's price ?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Were he to become London Mayor, as a trading bet, Zac Goldsmith as next Tory Leader is 66/1 looks good.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    blackburn63 said:

    Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?

    Did you check his family name, and his wifes... they probably lose than much down the back of the sofa ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    edited June 2015
    Indigo said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Who pays for the letter Zac is sending out?

    Did you check his family name, and his wifes... they probably lose than much down the back of the sofa ;)
    Oh God, he's backed by Jewish Banking Money. The loons and tin foilers are going to be unbearable.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Old Etonians FTW

    He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......

    I only got 20/1
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    New endorsements for Burnham

    Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) Holly Lynch (Halifax), Alan Meale (Mansfield), Kate Hollern (Blackburn) & Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central)
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.

    Just as well they're getting that pay rise.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    blackburn63 said:

    So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.

    Just as well they're getting that pay rise.

    £50K's a rounding error for a Goldsmith.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Old Etonians FTW

    He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......

    I only got 20/1
    You got £50 on though, the 22-1 was limited to £17.05
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    watford30 said:

    blackburn63 said:

    So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.

    Just as well they're getting that pay rise.

    £50K's a rounding error for a Goldsmith.
    Especially one married to a Rothschild who's wife's mother is a Guinness.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited June 2015
    Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) declares for Yvette

    Tom Blackinshop (Middlesbrough South) and Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) for Liz
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    End of the Union?

    @paulhutcheon: TNS poll: 80% of 25-34 year olds will vote @thesnp; only 6% will vote @scottishlabour
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Old Etonians FTW

    He was 22/1 a few weeks ago......

    I only got 20/1
    You got £50 on though, the 22-1 was limited to £17.05
    £100 actually, shop job. Only bet I have had on the Mayoralty so far - finding the Labour side tough to call though obviously just backing both frontrunners at a net 11/10 or so is sensible if uninspired.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The last time I spoke to Zac Goldsmith was in 2010 outside a polling station on election day. He looked very worried and uneasy about being elected. I told him not to worry and that he was sure to be elected.

    I, as one of the local voters look forward to receiving his letter and consent form.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    In all honesty someone super rich and concerned with greeny type causes, as apparently Zac (if he's to be the successor to Boris I guess he needs to start going purely by first name) is, for a Tory anyway, seems like the perfect fit for the image London cultivates, notwithstanding all those residents who are not in that bracket.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.

    As an attendee of a very minor public school, I and others including those that attended state schools, have this theory, that the most important thing private education gives, is self confidence in oneself, and general intellectual self confidence.

    So if you attended the likes of Eton, Harrow or Millfield, then you super self confidence.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Tissue_Price said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
    Don't forget Sol!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
    Don't forget Sol!
    Ah yes. 1/6 then.

    However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,234
    So why didn't Zac declare as a candidate for mayor 6 months ago, and let someone else run for parliament?

    If it is Zac v Tessa, I would have had a problem if I had still been registered to vote in London.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
    Don't forget Sol!
    Ah yes. 1/6 then.

    However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html
    I get the feeling Dan is rather enjoying the validation of many of his views after years of being mocked by many (myself included, though I always thought he was a pretty decent writer), and so penning a piece giving those justifications for backing or not backing the leadership candidates, when now his views will be taken much more seriously, seems like a bit of an in joke. Quite an interesting piece though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Zac could well bring in the 5-2 too I guess.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    blackburn63 said:

    So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.

    Just as well they're getting that pay rise.

    I would have thought spending money this way would almost guarantee Goldsmith loses the election if he ends up nominated.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.

    As an attendee of a very minor public school, I and others including those that attended state schools, have this theory, that the most important thing private education gives, is self confidence in oneself, and general intellectual self confidence.

    So if you attended the likes of Eton, Harrow or Millfield, then you super self confidence.
    I can see that. Knowing your parents can afford it and have the connections for you to mix with the Eton crowd must be a confidence booster. That must be why I have the self confidence of a pessimistic lemming, or so I shall maintain as an excuse.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    edited June 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?

    Next Monday, 15th.

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/598513837869015040
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    According to the Standard piece - which is based on an interview with Zac - he is expected to stand down if he wins. I don't think the Tories would fear the by-election.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tory-mp-zac-goldsmith-announces-his-bid-to-run-for-london-mayor-10306819.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Flightpathl said:

    blackburn63 said:

    So if he's funding it himself I guess we're looking at approx £50k.

    Just as well they're getting that pay rise.

    I would have thought spending money this way would almost guarantee Goldsmith loses the election if he ends up nominated.
    Nah, given he has access to almost infinite cash * ( http://www.therichest.com/business/5-lesser-known-facts-about-the-rothschild-family/?view=all ), all he can do is use it in the right way. Asking his constituents if he should run is a decent enough use of the money.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.


    If that's all Cameron gets, I can see OUT winning by a mile.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,234
    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    SandyRentool said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?
    How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    edited June 2015
    @LadPolitics: Ladbrokes quote 2/1 that the #SNP win ALL 73 constituency seats at 2016 Holyrood election. http://ow.ly/O4faD
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    SandyRentool said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?
    Hmm he's not really doing it for the money tbh !
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @LadPolitics: Ladbrokes quote 2/1 that the #SNP win ALL 73 constituency seats at 2016 Holyrood election. http://ow.ly/O4faD

    Orkney will hold out. As will something in the Borders.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    MarkHopkins said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.


    If that's all Cameron gets, I can see OUT winning by a mile.

    Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.

    EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    Can I just say that I went to Eton... by crossing the bridge over the Thames at Windsor a couple of weekends ago!

    :lol:
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
    Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.

    Same applies to University.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    There is an argument for saying that no-one should get anything out of the welfare system unless they have put something in. You could extend that to say that if your parents have contributed that should benefit the child. Equally, if a school leaver has parents, then many would argue that the obligation to support the child should rest with them and not the rest of us.

    But the EU point is that this is something for us. If we had such a "contribute to get benefits" rule then there would be no problem with applying it to Poles as much as the British. I do not see it as a vital British interest to argue for the right to discriminate against Poles working here and it is pathetic if this is what the argument with the EU resolves itself into.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
    Don't forget Sol!
    Ah yes. 1/6 then.

    However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html
    Liz doesn't come out too well from this one.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Philip_Thompson said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?
    How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?
    One of the articles suggested he would stand down, if elected.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    rottenborough said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Best price for any Tory is 5-2, given Zac is 4-6 isn't 3-1 a bit skinny for him to win it ?

    Alternatively the 5/2 is big. In the absence of Lord Coe & Karren Brady (which must be taken as read now) Zac looks like a 1/5 poke for the nomination.
    Don't forget Sol!
    Ah yes. 1/6 then.

    However I have bad news for fellow Yvette Cooper backers though, as an unwanted endorsement threatens to derail her bid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11662201/Andy-Burnham-didnt-let-me-play-for-his-football-team.-Now-hes-going-to-get-it....html
    Liz doesn't come out too well from this one.
    Ladbrokes have cut their odds on Zac winning the nomination twice today.

    You could have got 1.9 even after his candidacy was announced.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited June 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    There is an argument for saying that no-one should get anything out of the welfare system unless they have put something in. You could extend that to say that if your parents have contributed that should benefit the child. Equally, if a school leaver has parents, then many would argue that the obligation to support the child should rest with them and not the rest of us.

    But the EU point is that this is something for us. If we had such a "contribute to get benefits" rule then there would be no problem with applying it to Poles as much as the British. I do not see it as a vital British interest to argue for the right to discriminate against Poles working here and it is pathetic if this is what the argument with the EU resolves itself into.

    Much of the anti-Europe feeling is about immigration. UKIP amongst other bangs on on this point voiciferously. (Worth noting that remaining in the EEA continues freedom of movement).

    So I see why that is the hot topic. Few other issues about Europe crop up in conversation apart from with committed europhobes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    The pay, for one thing. The London Mayor gets £143k for what, it is now clear, is very much a part-time job. This is slightly more than the PM gets.

    Either the mayoralty is a full-time job worth the money, or it is part-time and should be paid for as such. Even better, look into the post to see whether it's really needed. Both Boris and Ken treated it more as an extension of their personalities than an important job.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    Two full time salaries for two part time jobs. What's not to like?
    How's it different to any of the other 100 ministers who are MPs?
    One of the articles suggested he would stand down, if elected.
    Charlotte Vere, Laura Trott or Shaun Bailey to be the PPC ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited June 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    You answered your own question.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
    Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.

    Same applies to University.
    If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Cyclefree said:


    Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.

    EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.

    You are confusing the media circus with the negotiations.

    An easy mistake to make, admittedly. Almost everyone makes it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what the syllabus at Eton on government is made up of. Just a parade of British and world leaders and lesser statesmen coming by for a chat I should think.

    That's about right. Add in rhetoric, logic, ethics, constitutional law and social, political and economic history in the long nineteenth century
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Cyclefree said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
    Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.

    Same applies to University.
    If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?

    Do you count disability benefits in this?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Quite. But it's also a feint because we already have the remedy in our own hands. Cameron should be concentrating on those issues where he does need EU agreement and where there is a vital British interest at stake. Control of financial services, for instance, or of our criminal justice system e.g. what if the EU were to alter the rules on the burden of proof in criminal trials or seek to abolish trial by jury (which does not exist in other European countries) etc.

    EU migrants coming here for benefts is not such an issue, first, because the majority come here to work and, second, because the problem is caused by having in effect a non-contributory welfare system rather than a contributory one as in much of the rest of Europe. That latter issue is not imposed on us by EU rules.

    You are confusing the media circus with the negotiations.

    An easy mistake to make, admittedly. Almost everyone makes it.
    I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT I order a lot of things online and the most surprising speediest delivery I've had was a bunch of silk flowers from China that arrived in 4 days. Amazon have outdone themselves this morning.

    I ordered a 12kg sack of cat litter about 6pm yesterday - it arrived today at noon. It came from France. Whoever is in charge of their logistics is doing a stunning job.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Tissue_Price said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    According to the Standard piece - which is based on an interview with Zac - he is expected to stand down if he wins. I don't think the Tories would fear the by-election.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tory-mp-zac-goldsmith-announces-his-bid-to-run-for-london-mayor-10306819.html
    Perhaps Vince Cable could stand for retreading?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Cyclefree said:

    I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.

    You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.

  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?

    Whenever the franchise has been increased in the past, it has always been on the basis that the recipients should have the same civil rights and responsibilities as the rest of those exercising the franchise. It seems very odd to argue that children are too irresponsible to sit on a jury, yet are responsible enough to cast a vote on the most important national issue of the day.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Yup. I did wonder how many would notice that.
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.

    You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Plato said:

    Yup. I did wonder how many would notice that.

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.

    You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.

    Got to present it as a fait accompli. If it ran through the press, the German press would have a field day on Merkel, the French on Hollande, and so on, and the feedback effect would be catastrophic.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited June 2015
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    When is the nomination deadline for the Labour leadership ?

    Next Monday, 15th.

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/598513837869015040
    Interesting - and smart - that the Deputy Leader close of nominations is two days later than the Leader close. What price Mary Creagh? 25/1 at PP.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.

    Much of the anti-Europe feeling is about immigration. UKIP amongst other bangs on on this point voiciferously. (Worth noting that remaining in the EEA continues freedom of movement).

    So I see why that is the hot topic. Few other issues about Europe crop up in conversation apart from with committed europhobes.
    Oh, I can understand why it's a hot topic. But it has nothing to do with benefits. Either we say that we must be able to opt out of the free movement of people or not. It's a nonsense because we won't get it - other countries will say that they don't want free movement of capital into or out of the UK in that case which would harm us much more. The question of benefits is irrelevant to that issue.

    If that really is the issue we could have the referendum next week and ask people whether they want to stay in the EU with that freedom or leave and have the freedom to control our borders but also find that other countries would also be able to control their borders vs people from Britain.

    And in any case we did have the power to limit migration from recent accession countries. We just chose not to use it. So again a pointless issue.

    I sometimes feel that banging on about immigration and the EU is a convenient way of masking anxieties about different sorts of concerns - immigration from other non-EU countries, for instance, which people don't for various reasons want to talk about, UKIP included.

    There are issues with Britain's relationship with and role in the EU. We have an opportunity now. How much of one, I don't know. We should not however waste it on coming up with some trivial change that is less than it seems designed to keep Nigel Farage happy. All that will do is waste chances and confirm a view in the rest of Europe that Britain is simply not serious or strategic in its approach, a view which we seem to confirm time and time again - with a few exceptions - ever since the whole idea was mooted in the 1950's.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
    Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'd be more inclined to believe you if I saw any evidence at all of the government holding a red line over justice, for instance (where they recently opted into a whole load of provisions which will certainly cause problems for us in the future), or even financial services, let alone other issues - contributions to the CAP. Admittedly the government won a case in the European court which helps in the case of financial services. But all Ministers go on about is this issue which comes across as Britain wailing about why it can't be nasty to foreigners.

    You won't see any sign. As Osborne rightly pointed out shortly after the election, the real negotiations will take place in confidence, with the main leaders. The media are and will be full of ill-informed speculation about them, which is best ignored.

    I understand very well the concept of negotiations being in private. I also understand that a government which opts into all sorts of justice directives is not one which is concerned with preserving the best of English common and criminal law.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    If Londoners vote for another posh Tory Etonian, - I’m moving to Venice.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?
    edmundintokyo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    You answered your own question.
    Yes, making it contribution-dependent is an easy "win". Demand it, shout that you'll defy anyone who disagrees, then do it as you could have done anyway, and hope people will be impressed.

    The issue is tricky, because it is both a genuine issue and a proxy. Plenty of people say they're not bothered by migration per se but giving benefits to migrants who haven't paid seems unfair. Some of them mean it, some of them are using it as a civilised way of saying they don't like so many immigrants, some may not even be sure in their own minds. Only the first group will regard a solution that affects Brits as well (and probably doesn't much affect numbers) as a satisfactory solution.

    On children, I think Cyclefree underestimates the number who have reasons (sometimes good ones) not to be able to stay at home after they leave school. I'm not in favour of instantly leaving the nest, but we shouldn't make it impossible without parental support, which may not be forthcoming.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
    Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.
    Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited June 2015
    What does Salmond actually see in his mirror..that combover is ridiculous.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    JosiasJessop said:

    Cyclefree said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
    Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.

    Same applies to University.
    If someone is at school and lives with their parents, they don't get benefits. Then they leave school. They are still at home. They have no more expenses than they had the previous week. Why should they get benefits then?

    Do you count disability benefits in this?
    I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.

  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    O/T I do think it's a laugh that Belgium has now minted a commemorative €2.5 coin.

    They should have made its value €18.15....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    JosiasJessop said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.

    That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
    Exactly.

    Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.

    The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
    The pay, for one thing. The London Mayor gets £143k for what, it is now clear, is very much a part-time job. This is slightly more than the PM gets.

    Either the mayoralty is a full-time job worth the money, or it is part-time and should be paid for as such. Even better, look into the post to see whether it's really needed. Both Boris and Ken treated it more as an extension of their personalities than an important job.
    What a ridiculous waste of money - Sounds like a good opportunity for making some cuts then.

    Zac could run committing to take a ministerial salary (which is what would be appropriate) rather than both salaries in full.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    I blame the ECHR or summat

    A Chinese man is suing actress Zhao Wei for staring at him too intensely through his TV, alleging he has suffered "spiritual damage".

    Zhao is one of the country's richest and most famous movie stars, and appears in the prime-time TV show Tiger Mom.

    http://bit.ly/1HYUGjo
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
    Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.
    Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?
    Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,150
    SimonStClare said:

    If Londoners vote for another posh Tory Etonian, - I’m moving to Venice.

    Little Venice, I hope :)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Great start to the cricket by England
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2015
    So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?

    It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Salmond is actually ranting..
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited June 2015
    Roy goes first ball of the match. Nice catch by Guptill.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    NickPalmer said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?
    edmundintokyo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    You answered your own question.

    On children, I think Cyclefree underestimates the number who have reasons (sometimes good ones) not to be able to stay at home after they leave school. I'm not in favour of instantly leaving the nest, but we shouldn't make it impossible without parental support, which may not be forthcoming.
    Nick: there are always exceptions. Where there are compelling reasons why a youngster needs help and cannot get it from their family of course we should try to help. But as a general rule, where a young adult has a family who can support him or her, they should. That is the approach taken in most of Western Europe: you look to your family first and parents accept that they have the primary responsibility for their children, even after the age of 18. There should not be a general entitlement to benefit just because you've reached the age of 18 and I would like a default assumption that you have to contribute to the general pot before you start taking out of it. This was the basis on which it was first created by Beveridge et al, after all.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Great start to the cricket by England

    I saw it was 2pm, so turned on the TV, only to see Roy walking back. Nice debut, kid.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Cyclefree said:

    I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.

    A friend of mine is from a mining family in South Yorkshire. She was the first from her family to go to university, but whilst there she became ill. She managed to get a reasonable degree, but soon afterwards became incapacitated with ME and another illness, in which state she has remained for well over a decade. Her family are poor, and the state pays for her.

    I know her well (and from before she became ill), and it is one hundred percent genuine. At school she was in the RAF junior scheme (whose name I forget). She has had no chance to pay into any contributory scheme.

    If she could, she would work. I see her as a classic example of the welfare safety net. Her benefits are expensive to the state, but I see it as vital we as a society continue to pay for people like her.

    Others sadly differ.

    So what do you think should happen in this situation?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

    Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.

    Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
    If you mean leavers from school/uni then yes I'd vote for that.

    People should not be able to leave school and sign on immediately.
    Why not? Not everyone can rely on Daddy, and AFAIK the school system isn't geared up to ensure that no-one leaves without somewhere to go on to.

    Same applies to University.
    What a load of codswallop. You're seriously claiming university graduates can't find a job?

    Barring extreme disabilities there are even unskilled jobs out there, which are largely getting filled by migrants for whom our language is a second language because many natives view themselves above (or not needing) to take such a job.

    Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Barring those with severe disabilities I would have no objection to making a contribution requirement before young adults can claim benefits they've made no effort into contributing towards.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
    Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.
    Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?
    Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?

    My logic is that different issues require different levels of maturity/competency. Just as the age of criminal responsibility can be lower than the voting age, so the voting age can be higher or lower than the age required to buy cigarettes.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited June 2015
    NickPalmer said:

    There is a birthright to smoke cigarettes, though not cannabis? That's somewhere in Magna Carta, you say?

    In English law until 1998, there were no fundamental rights, only immunities from interference from others (Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054, 1065 (CA) per Browne-Wilkinson LJ). All such immunities can properly be described as birthrights of the people of England. Until the Labour Government made article 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc.) Order 2007 SI 2007/767, it was thus the birthright of certain children to buy cigarettes.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,234
    Alistair said:

    So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?

    It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?

    Along with immigrants all over europe of UK origin.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Venice is owned by very posh people..much posher than the newly rich that attend Eton.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Life_ina_market_town said:

    Labour are arguing in the Commons for children to have the vote in the referendum, yet they are not in favour of children smoking (abolishing their birthright to do so when last in government), drinking, sitting on juries etc.. Incoherent hypocrisy.

    Why should the age of competency for those things be the same?
    Because of it being the age of being a responsible adult rather than a child.
    Age of criminal responsibility is 10. Should that be the same also?
    Not in full its not. Age of full maturity is 18, unless you want to change that we shouldn't be expanding the franchise to 10 year olds - or is that not what you propose? If not, why do you deny 10 year olds the vote if that's your logic?

    My logic is that different issues require different levels of maturity/competency. Just as the age of criminal responsibility can be lower than the voting age, so the voting age can be higher or lower than the age required to buy cigarettes.
    Only if you view voting as requiring less maturity than smoking, taking out a loan, serving on a jury etc - do you? I don't voting is one of the most serious rights and responsibilities an adult has and should have the same age as other equally serious rights and responsibilities.

    What makes voting require less maturity in your eyes?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    As a matter of interest; apart from being a posh Tory, is there any reason to believe that Zac Goldsmith will make a decent mayor of London? He always struck me as a young man that has never finished his gap year through inheriting loadsamoney.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    JosiasJessop said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.

    A friend of mine is from a mining family in South Yorkshire. She was the first from her family to go to university, but whilst there she became ill. She managed to get a reasonable degree, but soon afterwards became incapacitated with ME and another illness, in which state she has remained for well over a decade. Her family are poor, and the state pays for her.

    I know her well (and from before she became ill), and it is one hundred percent genuine. At school she was in the RAF junior scheme (whose name I forget). She has had no chance to pay into any contributory scheme.

    If she could, she would work. I see her as a classic example of the welfare safety net. Her benefits are expensive to the state, but I see it as vital we as a society continue to pay for people like her.

    Others sadly differ.

    So what do you think should happen in this situation?
    Those circumstances are outside of her control, it is what a safety net (rather than a lifestyle choice) is for.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Plato said:

    OT I order a lot of things online and the most surprising speediest delivery I've had was a bunch of silk flowers from China that arrived in 4 days. Amazon have outdone themselves this morning.

    I ordered a 12kg sack of cat litter about 6pm yesterday - it arrived today at noon. It came from France. Whoever is in charge of their logistics is doing a stunning job.

    Put them in charge of the country!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SandyRentool said:

    Alistair said:

    So wait, people in Gibraltar are getting a say?

    It's an Overseas Territory - why do they get to determine if the UK stays or goes?

    Along with immigrants all over europe of UK origin.
    Immigrants all over Europe of UK origin makes sense when it was described as just the UK general election franchise, adding Gibraltar seems completely out of left field.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    @bbclaurak: Strangeness of the Labour race -one MP trying to gather nominations for Harman to get her on ballot paper as a caretaker leader today...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Great start to the cricket by England

    I saw it was 2pm, so turned on the TV, only to see Roy walking back. Nice debut, kid.
    Some wag on twitter

    Jason and the out-for-noughts
Sign In or Register to comment.