I've said before that Nigel should have stepped down in May but I'm not sure he's as toxic as some would like to think. Assuming there'll be tv debates ahead of the referendum I can't think who from Remain will be prepared to take him on, he destroyed Clegg pre the Euro elections.
Perhaps pbers would like to suggest somebody who would take him on, his knowledge of the EU is second to none.
Farage v Rose would be hysterical!
Anyone read Karren Brady's reasoning for staying in, barrels are being scraped methinks.
I've said before that Nigel should have stepped down in May but I'm not sure he's as toxic as some would like to think. Assuming there'll be tv debates ahead of the referendum I can't think who from Remain will be prepared to take him on, he destroyed Clegg pre the Euro elections.
Perhaps pbers would like to suggest somebody who would take him on, his knowledge of the EU is second to none.
Farage v Rose would be hysterical!
Anyone read Karren Brady's reasoning for staying in, barrels are being scraped methinks.
Since its unlikely that Farage's little fiefdom will be selected as the official party then Farage will not lead on any debate. I'm sure he will be interviewed enough times; heaven forbid the rancid end of Leave should be kept under wraps.
Mr. Royale, it's why some love relative poverty so much. It'll be around forever so the business/charity will always have a raise d'etre.
That is one reason why people want to use relative measures but there are, other, better ones. In my view we should try to stop people falling too far below the median. If they do they will feel (reasonably) that they have no stake in our society or our economic system and progress in general. And they'll be pissed off the whole time, prone to criminality and bad haircuts. I would prefer if the debate were around the right relative measures to use.
I have not read the Sun report but read other reports about it. You are correct if the headlines are true. However reading between the lines it may be a bit different if it revolves around the issue of ever changing tariffs. I should add I am always suspicious of modern charities and the cosy life they give themselves and AgeUK is no different. But equally whilst I did not support the witch-hunt against Murdoch's News International I am also suspicious about screaming headlines and tabloid smears.
Nice little earner running a charity. £180K salary for the Chief Exec of Age UK. And the position clearly opens other doors too.
'Last week it was announced he would join the Financial Conduct Authority as a non-executive director, where he will help regulate companies and protect consumers.'
And,
'Two weeks ago its CEO Tom Wright was appointed to head the Government’s fuel poverty commission.'
Oops.
I haven't looked into the detail, but I suspect the Sun is being hugely unfair and not comparing like with like.
Probably this is a discounted standard rate recommended by Age UK - for a fee. This would include all the benefits of the standard rate (eg no termination fee) and should be compared against the normal standard rate.
What the Sun is doing is comparing it to the cheapest possible rate - which will be internet only, have termination fees, lock ins, etc. They are not suitable for all customers & they are only cheap because of the restrictions
It's colossally unfair. But the headlines are still sh1t
But one point to bear in mind is that the centre of politics moves too. The social values of today's Conservatives are way to the left of where Labour was when today's pensioners were twenty-somethings, for example.
That's a good point. But I think that leftism and rightism (to use lazy labels) are attitudes of mind rather than specific policies. and they move with the spectrum, always a bit left or right of the current consensus. For instance, when gay couples had no legal standing I used to think that civil partnerships were clearly desirable while gay marriage would probably be a provocation too far. 10 years later civil partnerships were in place, I'd moved on to feel that obviously we should allow gay marriage. Right-wingers, conversely, often resisted civil partnerships, but in due course decided they were fine, it was gay marriage that was bad.
Your example gives a good lesson in how old voters can take their cue from later generations as well. Shifting social attitudes in younger people reached a tipping point, that allowed civil partnerships to be contemplated, which in turn further softened attitudes amongst older people (very many 70 year olds now would have a more liberal attitude to homosexuality, certainly than 70 year olds a generation ago and probably than themselves when they were 30 or 40), which in turn made gay marriage a natural thing. As most of us would label, a virtuous circle.
I wonder if campaigns, particularly to legalise drugs, often miss a trick in banging on, for e.g., about the current home secretary ignoring the scientific evidence &c &c. Although theirs is clearly an issue of choice rather than nature, the home secretary will never invest that kind of political capital for a small and fairly hidden societal gain in the face of tooth and nail opposition from a large part of the public, whilst flouncy scientists naively think a sheet of data somehow trumps the needs of realpolitik. The campaigners, perhaps utilising the "ex-home secretaries suddenly in favour of reform the very day they leave office" club, need to do much more ground work at a societal level first if they want to achieve the change they crave.
Comments
Anyone read Karren Brady's reasoning for staying in, barrels are being scraped methinks.
I'm sure he will be interviewed enough times; heaven forbid the rancid end of Leave should be kept under wraps.
Probably this is a discounted standard rate recommended by Age UK - for a fee. This would include all the benefits of the standard rate (eg no termination fee) and should be compared against the normal standard rate.
What the Sun is doing is comparing it to the cheapest possible rate - which will be internet only, have termination fees, lock ins, etc. They are not suitable for all customers & they are only cheap because of the restrictions
It's colossally unfair. But the headlines are still sh1t
I wonder if campaigns, particularly to legalise drugs, often miss a trick in banging on, for e.g., about the current home secretary ignoring the scientific evidence &c &c. Although theirs is clearly an issue of choice rather than nature, the home secretary will never invest that kind of political capital for a small and fairly hidden societal gain in the face of tooth and nail opposition from a large part of the public, whilst flouncy scientists naively think a sheet of data somehow trumps the needs of realpolitik. The campaigners, perhaps utilising the "ex-home secretaries suddenly in favour of reform the very day they leave office" club, need to do much more ground work at a societal level first if they want to achieve the change they crave.