My attempts to flog a reasonably risk free (99.5+% chance of landing) £50 for a £500 bet on Ratesetter not going bust in the next month are failing miserably. Are people just naturally cautious or does noone have £500 to spare in their account these days ;p.
They think: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true?
It's an introductory marketing offer ^^; like the £150 First Direct or TSB pay out when you switch bank accounts. (Or Corals 5-1 £5 Man U corner thingy)
I've got a whole bunch more if people want them, but those really do involve some level of time, effort and risk. So I'm not going to bother anyone here with them.
Check your vanilla
Thanks, and really appreciated. I wouldn't post things up on here if I thought people might possibly lose out.
Avoid Wellesley imo, you can get much higher rates, flexibility and diversity at around 12-13% for the bridging loan stuff they offer at around 6-7%, as they spend all their spare cash spamming up daytime TV.
Since Jezza's investiture (11 polls) = 7% Before Jezza's leadership victory, and after the GE (14 polls) = 9%
And that too because of the weird 2 ComRes polls.
Lol - you mean the 2 polls from the one company which has changed it's methodology in response to the shambolic performance from pollsters at the recent GE. The rest have yet to change so are as likely to be as wrong now as they were then.
Ipsos were a real oddity in the run up to the election, being the one phone pollster that consistently gave Labour the lead while ComRes, Ashcroft and ICM almost always had Tory leads.
"I doubt that the Chancellor realised any of this when he set out to reform tax credits. I suspect he is having one of his omnishambles moments, when the implications of his proposals are evident only after their publication. He kept this a secret during the campaign, and is now paying the price – because it meant very little proper analysis has been done. As Osborne found out during the Omnishambles Budget, the Treasury isn’t very good at working out unintended consequences of its actions.
In tearing tax credits away from people – rather than phasing them out, which is the obvious thing to do – Osborne now risks inflicting grave damage to his party’s reputation. Doing it his way will save just £3.5 billion, not much for a government that spends north of £600 billion. There are many, many other ways to find this saving. Economically, it is just not necessary. Politically, this could be an epic act of self-harm."
This reminds me of the Brown budget of 2007, which abolished the 10p tax rate to pay for a cut in the basic rate. It was wrong economically, wrong socially, wrong fiscally - wrong in just about every possible way. All it was designed to do was guarantee that Brown would replace Blair as PM, which was going to happen anyway. .....And of course, in the end it proved wrong politically - it caused chaos in the Labour party and wrecked Brown's lingering reputation for competence and fairness.
I agree. Osborne's spread himself too thin and is making mistakes. Notenough time spent thinking through the implementation and the HoL. If he had used legislation rather than SI he could have got it through quicker. Modelling the impacts looks inept for the first years since he could take most of that pain away for the loss of a billion.
Ipsos were a real oddity in the run up to the election, being the one phone pollster that consistently gave Labour the lead while ComRes, Ashcroft and ICM almost always had Tory leads.
Thanks for reminding us. Polling companies polls should come with some level of sanity warning.
I never understand this line of argument from you. Farage or any of the other "Out" leaders are not going to be the ones in charge of what happens after a Brexit, so I don't understand why you keep saying the onus is on them to give a "vision".
Because they are being dishonest. They say, or imply, that if we were to leave the EU we'd have 'control of our borders'. When challenged about the economic risks, they say it's OK because we could stay in the EEA. One of those might be true, but they can't both be.
It's called 'trying to have your cake and eat it', is it not? I'm not suggesting Farage would be in charge, I'm asking him to be honest about which of the above two contradictory positions he personally is taking.
That does seem like a contradictory position. Perhaps their position is "well first we'd leave to the EEA, and then once we had signed trade deals outside it, we could then feel confident to leave the EEA too and control our borders"?
I haven't heard them be explicit about that though. What I'd really like from the Leave campaign is a clear picture of what Brexit could look like: what sort of trade agreements, how could money be reassigned, what regulations could be removed and which ones should be replaced at the UK level, what a skills-based immigration policy could look like. It would be good to have one consolidated picture so a future is presented with trade-offs accepted. I know that wouldn't be the only future available, but it would be nice to see one coherent idea of what it could look like.
Check out Iain Mansfield's Blueprint for Brexit. He covers what sort of trade deals we should aim for based on the ease at which they can be signed and the economic benefit to the UK. There is a more in depth analysis in the annex. FDI is also covered which indicates that it will more than likely remain economically neutral in the event of a Brexit.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time, the huge numbers of self-employed can't be simultaneously a sign of the Tories' wonderful economic management AND a big problem that needs to be urgently tackled.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time.
Nonsense. The vast majority of the new jobs are very much real jobs.
However, the selection of case studies chosen by the Guardian - the Guardian - to show how dreadful Osborne's reforms are is quite remarkable. Either they seem to be nonsense - the full-time teacher one, for example - or cases where it's unclear why tax payers are subsidising them.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time.
Nonsense. The vast majority of the new jobs are very much real jobs.
However, the selection of case studies chosen by the Guardian - the Guardian - to show how dreadful Osborne's reforms are is quite remarkable. Either they seem to be nonsense - the full-time teacher one, for example - or cases where it's unclear why tax payers are subsidising them.
And where are the fathers' contributions?
I was puzzled by the one claiming to receive no maintenance.
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time.
Nonsense. The vast majority of the new jobs are very much real jobs.
That depends on your definition of "real job". In terms of self-employed people who are making a profit (which seems to be what PBTories' definition of "real job" is when talking about people being subsidised by tax credits), I suspect the Tories would be surprised to see just how grim the stats would be on that front.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
What has the number of public sector jobs got to do with the number of private sector jobs? Your post seemed to suggest that the cut in public sector jobs caused the private sector not to recover.
That depends on your definition of "real job". In terms of self-employed people who are making a profit (which seems to be what PBTories' definition of "real job" is when talking about people being subsidised by tax credits), I suspect the Tories would be surprised to see just how grim the stats would be on that front.
It doesn't depend on the definition at all. Most of the new jobs created have comprised conventional, full-time employment.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
What has turnout got to do with it? We don't have mandatory voting.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time, the huge numbers of self-employed can't be simultaneously a sign of the Tories' wonderful economic management AND a big problem that needs to be urgently tackled.
I'm not saying that people aren't in real jobs.
I'm saying that some are exercising comfortable choices and that tax credits being used as pseudo-grants and to bump up credit ratings isn't their purpose, is it?
Tax credits to fund Norwich-London train tickets for students.
One thing that is noticeable is the inadequate quality of the people that the Government is putting up to explain their case. Last week on one DP show it was John Hayes..... Today we had the uninspiring Matthew Hancock. On sunday it was Nicky the Ed Secy a clear case of over-promotion. For such a key policy, the govt are using third and fourth division people. A sign of trouble.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
What has the number of public sector jobs got to do with the number of private sector jobs? Your post seemed to suggest that the cut in public sector jobs caused the private sector not to recover.
The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
What has the number of public sector jobs got to do with the number of private sector jobs? Your post seemed to suggest that the cut in public sector jobs caused the private sector not to recover.
The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs.
Yeah, I was questioning statement that the private sector "NEVER recovered" from public sector job cuts. Not sure how the latter causes the former.
One thing that is noticeable is the inadequate quality of the people that the Government is putting up to explain their case. Last week on one DP show it was John Hayes..... Today we had the uninspiring Matthew Hancock. On sunday it was Nicky the Ed Secy a clear case of over-promotion. For such a key policy, the govt are using third and fourth division people. A sign of trouble.
Or a sign the policy will be tweaked and no senior figure wants to have to reverse ferret before Christmas.
One thing that is noticeable is the inadequate quality of the people that the Government is putting up to explain their case. Last week on one DP show it was John Hayes..... Today we had the uninspiring Matthew Hancock. On sunday it was Nicky the Ed Secy a clear case of over-promotion. For such a key policy, the govt are using third and fourth division people. A sign of trouble.
Or a sign the policy will be tweaked and no senior figure wants to have to reverse ferret before Christmas.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
What has the number of public sector jobs got to do with the number of private sector jobs? Your post seemed to suggest that the cut in public sector jobs caused the private sector not to recover.
The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs.
Tax credit claims have decreased by 1.8m since 2010, and the bill was higher back then so your suggested issue was already there under Labour.
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
Again, these may all be legitimate arguments on their own, but the problem is they directly contradict the Tories' main economic argument for the past few years. They've been jubilantly celebrating the supposed "jobs miracle" - yet you're now looking down your nose at the employment arrangements of a great swathe of the population, saying they're not in real jobs, and that they're being unjustly subsidised. They can't be both at the same time.
Nonsense. The vast majority of the new jobs are very much real jobs.
However, the selection of case studies chosen by the Guardian - the Guardian - to show how dreadful Osborne's reforms are is quite remarkable. Either they seem to be nonsense - the full-time teacher one, for example - or cases where it's unclear why tax payers are subsidising them.
And where are the fathers' contributions?
CiF is funny - check out the top-rated (I think) comment:
"Yes, the Tories are here and they hate you - having your children, playing music, being ill, being old, being young, - how dare you if you aren't filthy rich?
Get it in your head - the Tories are the party of the filthy rich, they are only interested in the filthy rich and everyone else in this country is a mark, a stooge and a waste of air - yes, you. If you are not filthy rich your turn will soon come to be fleeced. They have not finished yet, they have still got years to get around to you, to destroy your home, your family and your community and to stuff their pockets before the next election."
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
Why? Are only people in receipt of them allowed to make a comment, or only those that pay for it?
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
CiF is funny - check out the top-rated (I think) comment:
"Yes, the Tories are here and they hate you - having your children, playing music, being ill, being old, being young, - how dare you if you aren't filthy rich?
Get it in your head - the Tories are the party of the filthy rich, they are only interested in the filthy rich and everyone else in this country is a mark, a stooge and a waste of air - yes, you. If you are not filthy rich your turn will soon come to be fleeced. They have not finished yet, they have still got years to get around to you, to destroy your home, your family and your community and to stuff their pockets before the next election."
Quite a few of the CIFers are in favour of the changes, or say that these examples don't support the contention that the changes are bad. For example:
bandwagoned 7h ago
Are these the best examples of hardship we can get?
1. WTCs not intended to subsidise PhD studies. 2. Having a young family in your 50s is often financially demanding. 3. An experienced teacher dependent on WTCs? Really? 4. WTCs not designed to encourage cultural enrichment. 5. He/she has a point. 6. Flat owner in Edinburgh - lucky woman.
Any debate I have ever taken part in.. and there have been many..the contributors were always asked to declare their personal interest..why not on PB..
''Quite a few of the CIFers are in favour of the changes, or say that these examples don't support the contention that the changes are bad. For example:''
Perhaps this is why the government should have stood its ground. Looks unlikely now.
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
I've received them in the past, and they were fantastic in that it was a time when I was too ill to work full-time, but tax credits allowed me to work part-time and still have a liveable income. Had it not been for them, I would've remained unemployed on sickness benefits.
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
Most of us didn’t want a Tory government.
But even more of us didn't want a Labour or LibDem government
It's a good Mori poll for Corbyn, and it shows the strong boundaries for any change in voting intention.
I can't see the Tories doing much worse than 36% since 38% are satisfied with the government and can't see them going above 42% since that is the number of people satisfied with Cameron. Likewise I can't see Labour going bellow 32% since that is the number of people against removing Corbyn or above 37% which is the number satisfied with him. It's also crucial that he continues his improvement in those ratings, Milliband started at 41% and immediately slid to the low 30's
However I'm surprised that Farage is now the most popular political leader and at new record highs for him, what happened? Is it the EU referendum, the immigration crisis or both?
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
I have been commenting continuously. I have never claimed any benefit [ apart from CB - now cut ] ever. That, of course, includes TC.
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
Most of us didn’t want a Tory government.
But even more of us didn't want a Labour or LibDem government
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
''It's a good Mori poll for Corbyn, and it shows the strong boundaries for any change in voting intention.''
Yes but that is before labour footsoldiers have to sell Corbyn's policies on the doorstep. They are not the same as the policies of labour in the past.
Unlimited benefits. Open door immigration. A by-election in a safe labour seat will tell us more.
In real meaningful elections in the past 5 years labour has always underperformed its poll score.
'The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs'
How many of the public sector jobs that were cut, were legitimate as in real jobs ?
We seem to have managed remarkably well without them.
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
I've received them in the past, and they were fantastic in that it was a time when I was too ill to work full-time, but tax credits allowed me to work part-time and still have a liveable income. Had it not been for them, I would've remained unemployed on sickness benefits.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
What has the number of public sector jobs got to do with the number of private sector jobs? Your post seemed to suggest that the cut in public sector jobs caused the private sector not to recover.
The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs.
Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
you realise that self employed people minimise their income to maximise tax credits? There will be self employed builders out there driving around in 64 / 65 range rovers claiming full tax credits.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
Most of us didn’t want a Tory government.
Is that actually even true? Compared to any other alternative government option or PM in GE2015, a forced choice, I'd expect a Conservative-led government with David Cameron as PM would have beaten any other.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
An interesting question, albeit only tangentially relevant to the topic.
But in answer to your question:
1) I'm unsure why 'registered electors' is relevant; if people cannot be bothered to vote, they should not have a say on their local representative. However, I'm in favour of compulsory voting with caveats. If the 'registered electors' thing bothers you, I assume you are as well?
2) The arguments on voting systems are well rehearsed (maybe TSE will do an AV thread sometime - we're about due one). So what system do you want? AV? PR? PR^2? TSE's dictatorship?
Mr. Cooke, that's a very surprising fact. And it's good to see you on
Thanks I still lurk, but with being busy for work and other reasons, by the time I catch up to comment, I usually feel I don't have anything worthwhile to say. So I don't
I did find it amusing that Blair's 2001 landslide was achieved on support from 24.2% of the electorate as against Cameron's 24.4% in 2015. Seems to get overlooked when the latter stat is banded about.
Apart even delaying the Tax Credits bill is "unconstitutional". WTF do we have that place ?
I would indeed like Cameron to create a 100 peers and the Queen to assent to that !
World average for all bicameral parliaments = Upper House 44% the size of Lower House.
A gradual solution could be [ a typical British one ] to elect, say , 100 Upper House members every 4 years on PR basis until we reach 300 members and the current voting Lords remain in situ until they die or resign. No further appointments.
300 is still far too many. We could get by quite happily with half that.
A rolling method of introduction / removal of existing peers, on the other hand, has a great deal to commend it. Personally, I'd go for elections for one-third of the House every three years (i.e. a nine-year term), but removing existing peers by natural wastage (perhaps with an 18-year limit), would be sensible.
I would go along with that ! But 300 isn't far too many considering we do not have two tiers [ Senate and Assemblies ] in every county. Not even Scotland and Wales.
Existing appointed peers will have to resign at the time of the first election when they are older than 75. They can get elected , of course.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
2005, surely (not 2001?)
2001 = 40.7% x 59.4% = 24.2% 2005 = 35.2% x 61.4% = 21.6%
It would be helpful for the rest of us on PB if those posters who make comments about the new tax credit laws stated their position... as being in receipt of those benefits or not..
I received Trainspotting Allowance for roughly three months in each of 2004, 2007 and 2010, and then for six months in 2011 - but then my NI contributions were deemed to have run out, so I received nothing from October 2011 till I found work again in November 2013.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
2005, surely (not 2001?)
In 2005, Blair had the support of 21.6% of the electorate. In 2001, he had 24.2%
In 2010, Cameron had the support of 23.5% of the electorate (The Lib Dems had a further 15.0%). In 2015, he had the support of 24.4% of them.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
2005, surely (not 2001?)
In 2005, Blair had the support of 21.6% of the electorate. In 2001, he had 24.2%
In 2010, Cameron had the support of 23.5% of the electorate (The Lib Dems had a further 15.0%). In 2015, he had the support of 24.4% of them.
We will still have a democracy - the HoC remains the place which decides on laws. There's no reason why the revising chamber needs to be elected, and plenty of reasons why it should not.
Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?
Interesting stat (probably been posted before, but...): In 2015, Cameron received a greater mandate from the electorate than Blair did in 2001.
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
2005, surely (not 2001?)
2001 = 40.7% x 59.4% = 24.2% 2005 = 35.2% x 61.4% = 21.6%
2015 (for Cam) = 36.9% x 66.1% = 24.4%
OMG I stand corrected, I didn't account for low turnout in '01...
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
I'd expect a Scots Nat to prefer truthiness to a well-sourced independently researched article.
One unfortunate thing about the impending climbdown on tax credit cuts is that it will convince the collection of wealthy great and the good people who stymied it that they matter. Not the electorate who voted in a tory government. No. What were the voters thinking?
Most of us didn’t want a Tory government.
But even more of us didn't want a Labour or LibDem government
Sadly true.
It's neither sad or otherwise it's the system we have - I'm sure you never complain when you win by it. Get a life.
Apart even delaying the Tax Credits bill is "unconstitutional". WTF do we have that place ?
I would indeed like Cameron to create a 100 peers and the Queen to assent to that !
World average for all bicameral parliaments = Upper House 44% the size of Lower House.
A gradual solution could be [ a typical British one ] to elect, say , 100 Upper House members every 4 years on PR basis until we reach 300 members and the current voting Lords remain in situ until they die or resign. No further appointments.
300 is still far too many. We could get by quite happily with half that.
A rolling method of introduction / removal of existing peers, on the other hand, has a great deal to commend it. Personally, I'd go for elections for one-third of the House every three years (i.e. a nine-year term), but removing existing peers by natural wastage (perhaps with an 18-year limit), would be sensible.
I would go along with that ! But 300 isn't far too many considering we do not have two tiers [ Senate and Assemblies ] in every county. Not even Scotland and Wales.
Existing appointed peers will have to resign at the time of the first election when they are older than 75. They can get elected , of course.
44% of 650 = 286 (Or if you prefer, 44% of 600 = 264)
I'm getting the feeling that a slight reversal may be coming our way. Probably a more gradual introduction of the same policy?
spelt UUUUUUUUUU turn
There's nothing worse than making a mistake and then not willing to change it. Some on the left of British politics might be taking heart about what they see as a change of minds amongst Tories for tax credits. This is not the case, the change is merely a technocratic one of phasing in the decision, rather than all in one go.
The government seem to understand that businesses need time to phase in and adjust to the national living wage, to adjust their staffing, pricing and how they manage their business, but they seem to not appreciate that people need time to adjust themselves as well.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
I'd expect a Scots Nat to prefer truthiness to a well-sourced independently researched article.
I am very dubious, most of them earning that type of cash are not budding entrepreneurs, it gets them the best bang for the buck I would bet. I doubt we suddenly had hundreds of thousands thinking they would start their own business. Call me cynical but maybe just coincidental it links up with tax credits and other benefits.
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
It's neither sad or otherwise it's the system we have
The thing is that it is true of ALL political systems. Under PR systems, you almost never get a government which more than 50% of people want either. How could you, when they want lots of different, and mutually contradictory, things? What you get is whatever stitch-up can be cobbled together after the election - often one which no-one knew they might be voting for.
Of course the 2010-2015 UK government was the one with the biggest 'mandate' of recent times. Having tried a coalition, voters seem to have decided that they don't like the idea after all.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
I thought this was the most insightful line of that article:
"I now wish I’d worked the minimum and joined the queue for a council house instead"
This is the one completely unreformed part of our welfare system. If you are poor enough, at one point in time, you get a house with below market rent for life, and your kids likely get it after you too. It's a terrible system of incentives, and isn't incorporated into the calculations for the universal credit.
The very minimum we need to do is to charge market rents for council houses. Poor people should be subsidised equally whether they rent privately or from the local authority. If we need to put up benefits slightly to make up for it, then so be it.
One important factor for the Government (and apologies if it's been discussed to death; I've missed quite a bit of discussion) is the importance of picking your battles.
Regardless of the actual right and wrongs, this has gathered a lot of political baggage. Is it important enough for the Government to expend a considerable chunk of political capital on it (capital that, by definition, will not be available to expend elsewhere?)
If it is not, then the primary consideration should be how to extricate ones forces without fighting that battle and without losing any other political capital (such as being seen to make a U-turn). The obvious thing to do would be to introduce a change, threshold, or phasing to it ("which we were always going to do after we finished an analysis to see the best way to mitigate any pain to HardWorkingFamilies (tm)") and taking any residual hit (it is, after all, still early in their term).
If it is deemed as being that important, then they should continue. But they should do so with eyes wide open as to the potential hit they'll incur.
The best thing about FPTP is that it gives voters an opportunity to clear out an entire political cabal in one go, whereas with PR you can often have the same tired old faces turning up in coalitions for years on end with seemingly no way to get rid of them.
'Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?'
Did you miss the referendum 5 years ago when changing the voting system was massively rejected by the electorate ?.
It's neither sad or otherwise it's the system we have
The thing is that it is true of ALL political systems. Under PR systems, you almost never get a government which more than 50% of people want either. How could you, when they want lots of different, and mutually contradictory, things? What you get is whatever stitch-up can be cobbled together after the election - often one which no-one knew they might be voting for.
Of course the 2010-2015 UK government was the one with the biggest 'mandate' of recent times. Having tried a coalition, voters seem to have decided that they don't like the idea after all.
Ironically, and probably saying something uncomplimentary about me, it converted me from being hostile to coalitions to in favour of them
(I do also recall at the time of the election (anecdote alert) hearing quite a few people saying they wanted a continuation of the Coalition. Most of these voted Tory, they later told me, and many of those explained that it was due to the SNP message. Which, if it's remotely reflected across the rest of the electorate, means that whoever came up with the "SNP threat" message in the Conservative campaign should have been paid far more than whatever he or she actually was paid!)
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Mr. 565, it's not legitimate to pronounce yourself a self-employed musician (or writer...) then hold out your hand and demand taxpayers' money is given to you.
I kind of agree - but this is what us lefties have been arguing to the Tories for years. The "real" jobs market has NEVER recovered from the government slashing the number of public-sector jobs, and the only reason the unemployment statistics have recovered on paper is because of the huge spike in self-employed people who are topped up by tax credits.
Self-employed people, while less well-paid than employees, are happier on average in their work than employed people and the RSA believes that most of the recent surge in self-employment happened because people preferred being their own boss rather than as a way to avoid unemployment:
If you believe that you are not the full shilling. It gets them more than they would on JSA as they can get more benefits, so anyone would change to self employed if they cannot get a job. Tories love it as they can claim UK is booming.
I know many in my acquaintance who have gone self employed to escape the drudgery of being a wage slave. It's been a choice they've made, not a matter of having to, usually leaving the public sector's stairway to hell, running as fast as they could with their pay offs and pensions.
If you are poor enough, at one point in time, you get a house with below market rent for life, and your kids likely get it after you too.
JEO - agree with the rest of what you say - but on this particular point I know it's not necessarily the case. I know of a family living with a grandparent in their council house who were forced to leave when the grandparent died. That said, both parents work full time so that might have contributed to the council's lack of compassion. My parents bought their council house and I am grateful that they did.
I'm getting the feeling that a slight reversal may be coming our way. Probably a more gradual introduction of the same policy?
spelt UUUUUUUUUU turn
There's nothing worse than making a mistake and then not willing to change it. Some on the left of British politics might be taking heart about what they see as a change of minds amongst Tories for tax credits. This is not the case, the change is merely a technocratic one of phasing in the decision, rather than all in one go.
The government seem to understand that businesses need time to phase in and adjust to the national living wage, to adjust their staffing, pricing and how they manage their business, but they seem to not appreciate that people need time to adjust themselves as well.
That is because they never consider people when they are doing it , they look to how they can benefit and hang the impact on ordinary people. They are so out of touch with reality that they probably think it is just a bottle of Bolly a week so no big issue. None of them ever have to consider payment of bills or wondering iof they can buy something , heat their homes etc.
It's neither sad or otherwise it's the system we have
The thing is that it is true of ALL political systems. Under PR systems, you almost never get a government which more than 50% of people want either. How could you, when they want lots of different, and mutually contradictory, things? What you get is whatever stitch-up can be cobbled together after the election - often one which no-one knew they might be voting for.
Of course the 2010-2015 UK government was the one with the biggest 'mandate' of recent times. Having tried a coalition, voters seem to have decided that they don't like the idea after all.
Ironically, and probably saying something uncomplimentary about me, it converted me from being hostile to coalitions to in favour of them
(I do also recall at the time of the election (anecdote alert) hearing quite a few people saying they wanted a continuation of the Coalition. Most of these voted Tory, they later told me, and many of those explained that it was due to the SNP message. Which, if it's remotely reflected across the rest of the electorate, means that whoever came up with the "SNP threat" message in the Conservative campaign should have been paid far more than whatever he or she actually was paid!)
The problem for Labour is that it is a threat that will continue to exist as long as the SNP win most seats in Scotland.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
It's worth remembering that even the SNP were forced to back-track on their anti-monarchy position. Even in Scotland the monarchy is extremely popular. Amongst Labour target voters in English marginals, even more so.
The monarchy is far from "extremely popular". Retention is supported by around 60% but that benefits greatly from small c conservative attitudes not to change things and from the utter lack of proper national debate.
For the SNP it is simply not a fight worth considering. Independence is the goal, anything else can wait. I have little doubt that the monarchy has less than 20 years left in Scotland.
Since Jezza's investiture (11 polls) = 7% Before Jezza's leadership victory, and after the GE (14 polls) = 9%
Tory lead at general election 7% so zero change and Corbyn has made no net gains. Comres which was far more accurate than Ipsos Mori at the election of course gives a Tory lead of 13% in its latest poll
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/us-post-race-analysis.html
The Constructors' is actually pretty interesting at the lower end now.
Avoid Wellesley imo, you can get much higher rates, flexibility and diversity at around 12-13% for the bridging loan stuff they offer at around 6-7%, as they spend all their spare cash spamming up daytime TV.
Notenough time spent thinking through the implementation and the HoL. If he had used legislation rather than SI he could have got it through quicker. Modelling the impacts looks inept for the first years since he could take most of that pain away for the loss of a billion.
The Guardian puts up it's badly hit tax credit recipients.
The man who chooses to travel to Mile End from Norwich to do his PhD in History; the self employed musician who feels he's undervalued; the full-time teacher who claims she will see her wages fall below those of a newly qualified teacher though it isn't clear how; the copywriter who could quite easily claim as his wife's carer; the woman who used tax credits to get a mortgage......
Wow.
Tax credits subsidising PhDs, mortgages, lifestyle occupations.
However, the selection of case studies chosen by the Guardian - the Guardian - to show how dreadful Osborne's reforms are is quite remarkable. Either they seem to be nonsense - the full-time teacher one, for example - or cases where it's unclear why tax payers are subsidising them.
And where are the fathers' contributions?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93e651ba-e5bd-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ph6g7BqZ
I'm saying that some are exercising comfortable choices and that tax credits being used as pseudo-grants and to bump up credit ratings isn't their purpose, is it?
Tax credits to fund Norwich-London train tickets for students.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs.
"Yes, the Tories are here and they hate you - having your children, playing music, being ill, being old, being young, - how dare you if you aren't filthy rich?
Get it in your head - the Tories are the party of the filthy rich, they are only interested in the filthy rich and everyone else in this country is a mark, a stooge and a waste of air - yes, you. If you are not filthy rich your turn will soon come to be fleeced. They have not finished yet, they have still got years to get around to you, to destroy your home, your family and your community and to stuff their pockets before the next election."
bandwagoned 7h ago
Are these the best examples of hardship we can get?
1. WTCs not intended to subsidise PhD studies.
2. Having a young family in your 50s is often financially demanding.
3. An experienced teacher dependent on WTCs? Really?
4. WTCs not designed to encourage cultural enrichment.
5. He/she has a point.
6. Flat owner in Edinburgh - lucky woman.
Perhaps this is why the government should have stood its ground. Looks unlikely now.
And that is different to every other government because......???
I can't see the Tories doing much worse than 36% since 38% are satisfied with the government and can't see them going above 42% since that is the number of people satisfied with Cameron.
Likewise I can't see Labour going bellow 32% since that is the number of people against removing Corbyn or above 37% which is the number satisfied with him.
It's also crucial that he continues his improvement in those ratings, Milliband started at 41% and immediately slid to the low 30's
However I'm surprised that Farage is now the most popular political leader and at new record highs for him, what happened?
Is it the EU referendum, the immigration crisis or both?
Which shows how irrelevant the "proportion of the electorate" stat actually is.
Yes but that is before labour footsoldiers have to sell Corbyn's policies on the doorstep. They are not the same as the policies of labour in the past.
Unlimited benefits. Open door immigration. A by-election in a safe labour seat will tell us more.
In real meaningful elections in the past 5 years labour has always underperformed its poll score.
'The whole idea behind cutting public-sector jobs was that it was OK, because additional private-sector jobs would eventually emerge to fill the void in the jobs market.
Well, those additional private-sector jobs only emerged IF you consider self-employed people who have to be topped up by tax credits as real, legitimate jobs'
How many of the public sector jobs that were cut, were legitimate as in real jobs ?
We seem to have managed remarkably well without them.
Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce
Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
you realise that self employed people minimise their income to maximise tax credits? There will be self employed builders out there driving around in 64 / 65 range rovers claiming full tax credits.
And really, a more gradual increase, while still getting the same result in the end, is not a U-turn. It does disservice to all the real U-turns.
But in answer to your question:
1) I'm unsure why 'registered electors' is relevant; if people cannot be bothered to vote, they should not have a say on their local representative. However, I'm in favour of compulsory voting with caveats. If the 'registered electors' thing bothers you, I assume you are as well?
2) The arguments on voting systems are well rehearsed (maybe TSE will do an AV thread sometime - we're about due one). So what system do you want? AV? PR? PR^2? TSE's dictatorship?
I still lurk, but with being busy for work and other reasons, by the time I catch up to comment, I usually feel I don't have anything worthwhile to say. So I don't
I did find it amusing that Blair's 2001 landslide was achieved on support from 24.2% of the electorate as against Cameron's 24.4% in 2015. Seems to get overlooked when the latter stat is banded about.
Existing appointed peers will have to resign at the time of the first election when they are older than 75. They can get elected , of course.
2005 = 35.2% x 61.4% = 21.6%
2015 (for Cam) = 36.9% x 66.1% = 24.4%
In 2001, he had 24.2%
In 2010, Cameron had the support of 23.5% of the electorate (The Lib Dems had a further 15.0%).
In 2015, he had the support of 24.4% of them.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b015100-c805-11e4-9226-00144feab7de.html
(Or if you prefer, 44% of 600 = 264)
Mr. P, hmm. Unfamiliar with that. Had a quick glance at a diagram, but not sure. Better than a street circuit, though.
Edited extra bit: Mr. G, maybe. The castle looks great but street circuits are not my favourite type.
Someone's got to think of the important things
The government seem to understand that businesses need time to phase in and adjust to the national living wage, to adjust their staffing, pricing and how they manage their business, but they seem to not appreciate that people need time to adjust themselves as well.
Do you know the difference between an error and a mistake?
An error is when you do something wrong. A mistake is when you fail to correct it.
Call me cynical but maybe just coincidental it links up with tax credits and other benefits.
Of course the 2010-2015 UK government was the one with the biggest 'mandate' of recent times. Having tried a coalition, voters seem to have decided that they don't like the idea after all.
"I now wish I’d worked the minimum and joined the queue for a council house instead"
This is the one completely unreformed part of our welfare system. If you are poor enough, at one point in time, you get a house with below market rent for life, and your kids likely get it after you too. It's a terrible system of incentives, and isn't incorporated into the calculations for the universal credit.
The very minimum we need to do is to charge market rents for council houses. Poor people should be subsidised equally whether they rent privately or from the local authority. If we need to put up benefits slightly to make up for it, then so be it.
Regardless of the actual right and wrongs, this has gathered a lot of political baggage. Is it important enough for the Government to expend a considerable chunk of political capital on it (capital that, by definition, will not be available to expend elsewhere?)
If it is not, then the primary consideration should be how to extricate ones forces without fighting that battle and without losing any other political capital (such as being seen to make a U-turn). The obvious thing to do would be to introduce a change, threshold, or phasing to it ("which we were always going to do after we finished an analysis to see the best way to mitigate any pain to HardWorkingFamilies (tm)") and taking any residual hit (it is, after all, still early in their term).
If it is deemed as being that important, then they should continue. But they should do so with eyes wide open as to the potential hit they'll incur.
'Well, Mr Jessop, if we are going to have one chamber which decides the laws, ought we not to make sure we have an electoral system that does not allow a party to take a majority and claim a mandate when it cannot get the support of even 25% of the registered electors?'
Did you miss the referendum 5 years ago when changing the voting system was massively rejected by the electorate ?.
(I do also recall at the time of the election (anecdote alert) hearing quite a few people saying they wanted a continuation of the Coalition. Most of these voted Tory, they later told me, and many of those explained that it was due to the SNP message. Which, if it's remotely reflected across the rest of the electorate, means that whoever came up with the "SNP threat" message in the Conservative campaign should have been paid far more than whatever he or she actually was paid!)
For the SNP it is simply not a fight worth considering. Independence is the goal, anything else can wait. I have little doubt that the monarchy has less than 20 years left in Scotland.