Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
There is plenty of scope to look at disability benefits, as there are curious anomalies. The problem as ever with welfare reforms is that it is hard to target the bludgers without penalising some in genuine hardship. People who work the system are often very good at working the system.
I can't disagree with that. There is also a major legacy issue in that from the 80s onwards governments of both stripes turned a blind eye to the dumping of large numbers of people onto disability to hide the true level of unemployment. This government has no need to do that and is seeking to get large numbers of people on disability either back into work or onto conventional benefits. Many of those who are losing DLA are in that category.
Doesn't mean that there are not genuine hardship cases for the reasons you state however.
Meantime over in our teutonic cousins, Angie is having a hard time as the CSU refuse to rule out standing across Germany and not just in Bavaria. This is primarily as a result of the immigrationn crisis where Bavaria is in the frontline and not helped by the majority of AfD voters in the recent regionals saying they would consider voting CSU instead.
It's probably posturing but Frau Merkel is running out of wriggle room.
Perhaps there could be an earmarked (for the NHS) obesity tax based on one's annual "body-MOT" - it would, at least, be a tax which fell on the broadest buttocks.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Not true. The higher rate tax threshold change is worth £400 and the increase in personal allowance is only worth £100. Everyone earning north of £43k will benefit from the former, which is the lions share of the tax cut.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
Don't union members have to vote on whether the political levy is paid?
Perhaps there could be an earmarked (for the NHS) obesity tax based on one's annual "body-MOT" - it would, at least, be a tax which fell on the broadest buttocks.
I fear the bankruptcy courts would be seeing rather too much of Nicholas Soames ample rump and certainly would have to be undertaken in closed session ....
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
Don't union members have to vote on whether the political levy is paid?
And there's an opt-out (or is it an opt-in these days?) Mind you, there's nothing to stop a libertarian from feeling abused by having to share the planet with lefties. Is there, Philip?
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
No it wouldn't because the money is coming from the company rather than the shareholders. Whereas the political levy is coming from the members income rather than the union.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
Why? As Roger helpfully points out down thread, if you don't like the political leanings of the business you can sell the shares, and invest elsewhere. Simple, and ethical.
Unless of course, you're really more interested in the fat returns on your shareholding, and the rest is merely posturing.
We see this a lot here. 'I hate my fellow Brits' they cry, but any threat to live elsewhere is never carried through, as the poster doesn't want to pay higher taxes for residing in France, as an example.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
Don't union members have to vote on whether the political levy is paid?
And there's an opt-out (or is it an opt-in these days?) Mind you, there's nothing to stop a libertarian from feeling abused by having to share the planet with lefties. Is there, Philip?
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
Hey the SFO couldn't find anyone to prosecute for foreign exchange fraud, it seems to be the season for it.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Not true. The higher rate tax threshold change is worth £400 and the increase in personal allowance is only worth £100. Everyone earning north of £43k will benefit from the former, which is the lions share of the tax cut.
Why are you looking at nominal figures only when tax is done by percentages?
If there is a £100 reduction in the tax of someone earning £12k then that is a tax cut of 0.83% of their income. If there is a £400 reduction in the tax of someone earning £80k then that is a tax cut of 0.5% of income.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
Why? As Roger helpfully points out down thread, if you don't like the political leanings of the business you can sell the shares, and invest elsewhere. Simple, and ethical.
Much shareholding is via pensions or unit trusts so individual investors cannot make that choice.
One of the reasons my ISA is self invested is so that I can choose what to invest in. No tobacco or arms companies for me, and I aim to be a net drain on the bookies thanks to this site ;-)
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
...If they had to pay the company every year to be a shareholder...
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
No it wouldn't because the money is coming from the company rather than the shareholders. Whereas the political levy is coming from the members income rather than the union.
Totally different.
The companies income belongs to the shareholders, it is a spurious distinction.
Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Not true. The higher rate tax threshold change is worth £400 and the increase in personal allowance is only worth £100. Everyone earning north of £43k will benefit from the former, which is the lions share of the tax cut.
Once again the Tory religion "to those that hath shall be given"
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
No it wouldn't because the money is coming from the company rather than the shareholders. Whereas the political levy is coming from the members income rather than the union.
Totally different.
The companies income belongs to the shareholders, it is a spurious distinction.
Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either.
It is not a spurious distinction, if it was then the company could give its income to its shareholders tax free. HMRC would have a lot to say about that!
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
rogerh..I asked you on a previous thread but you didn't answer..Why do yo think only Tories are the ones earning above 40k...maybe you should drop the red banner and do some research.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
Squirrel!
If you are going to misrepresent statistics at least do it with some style
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government. This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
It's remarkable how when people discover that their postal ballots have gone missing but somehow the've already "voted", or a dozen people are registered to vote at one small flat, or a Judge presiding over an Electoral Court can find multiple cases of electoral malpractice, the Met can never find evidence of crime.
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
It's remarkable how when people discover that their postal ballots have gone missing but somehow the've already "voted", or a dozen people are registered to vote at one small flat, or a Judge presiding over an Electoral Court can find multiple cases of electoral malpractice, the Met can never find evidence of crime.
The difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard?
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
It's remarkable how when people discover that their postal ballots have gone missing but somehow the've already "voted", or a dozen people are registered to vote at one small flat, or a Judge presiding over an Electoral Court can find multiple cases of electoral malpractice, the Met can never find evidence of crime.
The difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard?
Also I would guess a civil standard for an election court would require evidence that something wrong was done. A criminal standard for a criminal court would require evidence that something wrong was done by this particular person to a higher standard of proof.
Petitioner Andy Erlam claims the police never had 'any serious intent' to investigate disgraced former mayor Lutfur Rahman
Scotland Yard has dropped its investigation into electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets after finding "insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed".
It's remarkable how when people discover that their postal ballots have gone missing but somehow the've already "voted", or a dozen people are registered to vote at one small flat, or a Judge presiding over an Electoral Court can find multiple cases of electoral malpractice, the Met can never find evidence of crime.
The difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard?
Perhaps, but I suspect that their reasoning is much closer to that of South Yorkshire Police.
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
That's sickening and I would like an apology. I have never said anything like that. Nor have I ever made such a crass insult to anyone else.
rogerh..I asked you on a previous thread but you didn't answer..Why do yo think only Tories are the ones earning above 40k...maybe you should drop the red banner and do some research.
I did not make the claim that there were no Labour voters earning above the top personal allowance.My bet would be that the majority of high earners ie 40% taxpayers would be Tories rather than Labour voters.And if pointing out that the personal allowance is more favourable to the better off is waving the red flag i wonder what colour flag you are waving?
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there are more disabled now it will be due to us having an ageing population with an increasing life expectancy under the successful Tory management of the NHS. Of course twenty years into devolution life expectancy is higher in Tory England than socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
That's sickening and I would like an apology. I have never said anything like that. Nor have I ever made such a crass insult to anyone else.
'The difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard?'
Well you can choose to believe that if you want. I do find it remarkable the extent to which people on the left are happy to overlook or explain away this kind of thing though.
You might think they would be rather concerned about the systemic perversion of the democratic process and people having their votes stolen.
This is refreshingly honest from a journalist who doesn't think it's his job to stop Trump.
Of course Trump has received disproportionate air time of his rallies and speeches in a way that is unfair to his rivals. But he also subjects himself to seemingly endless rounds of interviews—including the morning shows yesterday--taking all manner of journalistic questions in a way that his opponents do not. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has gone about 100 days without holding a news conference.
...As for the avalanche of Trump coverage in the rest of the media, it’s hard to argue that people aren’t getting enough information--including lots of negative information--to make a decision.
At the heart of these accusations of media failure is the notion that if they were just more hostile, the dumb readers and viewers would see Donald Trump for the clear and present danger that has so unnerved his critics.
roger h..What evidence do you have that supports your claim..
Richard here is some evidence. You Gov poll 23rd March 2014 Voting intentions by household income: < 25K Con 29%,Lab 42% 25-40K Con 33%,Lab 42% 40-60K Con 45% Lab 30% >60k Con 49% Lab 29%
Wasn't electoral fraud rampant in Tower Hamlets? It seems crazy there wasn't any evidence. The plod seem to be very reluctant to investigate political crime. Also see the complete lack of action on the Tories hiding spending from the electoral commission by having an aide put hotel rooms on her credit card and not reporting it so they didn't break spending limits.
My thoughts for Cheltenham today , got two good winners yesterday, Sprinter Scare and Diego du Charmil. After breakng even Monday I am up from yesterday , hopefully can repeat today
1:30 Bristol De Mai 2:10 Missed Approach 2:50 Taquin Du Seuil ( place ) 3:30 Saphir Du Rheu (place ) 4:10 Stilletto 4:50 Limini , (Smart Talk for place ) 5:30 The Giant Bolster
Andrew Neil Deep in Treasury Red Book: Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15 Oil revs close to zero 2015/16 Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
My thoughts for Cheltenham today , got two good winners yesterday, Sprinter Scare and Diego du Charmil. After breakng even Monday I am up from yesterday , hopefully can repeat today
1:30 Bristol De Mai 2:10 Missed Approach 2:50 Taquin Du Seuil ( place ) 3:30 Saphir Du Rheu (place ) 4:10 Stilletto 4:50 Limini , (Smart Talk for place ) 5:30 The Giant Bolster
I am the opposite won quite a bit Tuesday gave a bit back yesterday.
Wasn't electoral fraud rampant in Tower Hamlets? It seems crazy there wasn't any evidence. The plod seem to be very reluctant to investigate political crime. Also see the complete lack of action on the Tories hiding spending from the electoral commission by having an aide put hotel rooms on her credit card and not reporting it so they didn't break spending limits.
It's almost like people haven't read the Telegraph article.
Police had received 164 complaints of election malpractice in Tower Hamlets in and around the election on 22 May 2014, which led to two people being cautioned and one criminal trial, which has yet to go ahead.
The review launched last year identified five new allegations, one of which could not be pursued as the one-year time limit had expired, the Yard said.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it ou
It would be more convincing if the left wingers were telling the truth though. The share of tax paid by the better off has gone up not down so hang your heads in shame lefties.
The truth is that this budget benefited the wealthy and took support away from the disabled. That's not the fault of dreadful lefties, it's the result of decisions made by the chancellor.
let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Which disability benefits have been increased?
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
socialist Scotland or Wales.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
England had a Labour government for 13 years - doubtless if the life expectancy had decreased during that time, you'd be telling us so at the top of your voice...
Did Wales have a Tory government during that time? No it didn't last time I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
Thats a pretty disgusting thing to say.
He has form.
And when people don't react to it well, he takes it personally and flounces off the whole site in a huff.
Andrew Neil Deep in Treasury Red Book: Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15 Oil revs close to zero 2015/16 Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.
Credit to Sadiq Khan for saying this, I also suspect the Tories will use these quotes a lot.
Sadiq Khan has said he “never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within Labour” in 2016 and called for those harbouring anti-Semitic views to be permanently kicked out of the party....
....I’m truly disgusted with the growing problems of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party over recent weeks,” he told the Jewish News. “I never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within the party in 2016. I thought we’d kicked these views out in the 1980s. I pledged to take tough action on anti-Semitism in London. We need the same approach to the Labour party.”
Miss Plato, cheers, I'll give that a look [don't always watch F1 documentaries, although there was a very good one on how dangerous it was in the 1970s a while back].
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it ou
It would be more convincing if the left wingers let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
ime I looked. But the gap has increased further since 2010. I'd call that a success for Tory England and a failure for socialism but perhaps you don't and are pleased to see people in devolved nations die younger?
Since the people dying younger are socialists I'd've thought you'd be cheering. After all, in your book the only good pinko is a dead pinko, isn't it?
Thats a pretty disgusting thing to say.
He has form.
And when people don't react to it well, he takes it personally and flounces off the whole site in a huff.
Once. But no right-winger ever gave a tuppenny damn about the truth.
Ah, but, say the Corbynites. These people are just being picked on because they are anti-Israel, and the Establishment is pro-Israel. Critics are conflating being anti-Israel with being anti-Semitic.
They are not. Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, whether it first derives from a left-wing hatred of Israel or not. It has pretty clear definitions, for a start (although amazingly some on the far left of the union movement have tried to play with those definitions, as well, to avoid being labelled anti-Semites. And that same union movement has long been riddled with the same kind of prejudices now hitting Labour, as Nick Cohen noted back in 2011 when he boycotted the TUC).
But what is the most depressing thing about these events is the continuing lack of specific condemnation from the leadership, when words and not deeds are demanded. As Mike Dugher MP put it: “Labour will be judged by what we do, not by what we say. We must take these issues incredibly seriously straightaway and act immediately.”
@Innocent Abroad: you talk like you've figured it all out, in your tender old age, that your prejudices are axiomatic, obvious and not up for debate.
In reality, you've reached some pretty warped and bizarre conclusions. You make a fool of yourself every time you post them, whilst also being personally offensive to several regular posters here.
Why don't you focus on giving people the benefit of the doubt, and engaging with what they actually say, and perhaps we'd all enjoy and get a bit more out of it, eh?
OT. Victoria Coren interviewing Sandy Toksvig. The two funniest and most interesting comediennes around. Interesting fact that I didn't know.;The PM of Iceland is the only openly gay leader in the world.
Credit to Sadiq Khan for saying this, I also suspect the Tories will use these quotes a lot.
Sadiq Khan has said he “never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within Labour” in 2016 and called for those harbouring anti-Semitic views to be permanently kicked out of the party....
....I’m truly disgusted with the growing problems of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party over recent weeks,” he told the Jewish News. “I never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within the party in 2016. I thought we’d kicked these views out in the 1980s. I pledged to take tough action on anti-Semitism in London. We need the same approach to the Labour party.”
One of the reasons my ISA is self invested is so that I can choose what to invest in. No tobacco or arms companies for me, and I aim to be a net drain on the bookies thanks to this site ;-)
I recommend Ethical Investors Ltd for those who have preferences - they have a really extensive questionnaire on what you like and don't like and advise accordingly - e.g. I don't want to invest in arms companies or animal experimenters, but unsurprisingly am not too bothered by bookies. They're professional and unjudgmental and simply follow your leanings with appropriate advice.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
If individual shareholders had to opt in to political donations then there would be parity.
No it wouldn't because the money is coming from the company rather than the shareholders. Whereas the political levy is coming from the members income rather than the union.
Totally different.
The companies income belongs to the shareholders, it is a spurious distinction.
Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either.
Political donations by companies could be approved by individual and institutional shareholders if they could only be made in the form of deductions from dividend payments: shareholders would have the option of approving (or not) the deduction.
Comments
Not long until F1 resumes.
Doesn't mean that there are not genuine hardship cases for the reasons you state however.
How long before biscuits, crisps, chocolate?
Food tax.
Higher parking charges, higher petrol charges etc
It's probably posturing but Frau Merkel is running out of wriggle room.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-seehofer-keine-garantie-fuer-verzicht-auf-bundesweite-csu-14129576.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-33006631
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12196394/Met-Police-decision-to-drop-Tower-Hamlets-electoral-fraud-investigation-branded-utter-disgrace.html
This budget saw an increase in both the total and share of taxes paid by the wealthy compared to the past/last Labour government.
This budget saw payments to the disabled increased to a record high, more than Labour ever paid.
But don't let facts get in the way of your cherrypicking that one payment to the disabled is being cut (while ignoring increased payments elsewhere).
Whereas the political levy is coming from the members income rather than the union.
Totally different.
Unless of course, you're really more interested in the fat returns on your shareholding, and the rest is merely posturing.
We see this a lot here. 'I hate my fellow Brits' they cry, but any threat to live elsewhere is never carried through, as the poster doesn't want to pay higher taxes for residing in France, as an example.
It is not a mark of Tory virtue that more people are disabled and therefore qualify for the REDUCED benefits that exist
If there is a £100 reduction in the tax of someone earning £12k then that is a tax cut of 0.83% of their income.
If there is a £400 reduction in the tax of someone earning £80k then that is a tax cut of 0.5% of income.
One of the reasons my ISA is self invested is so that I can choose what to invest in. No tobacco or arms companies for me, and I aim to be a net drain on the bookies thanks to this site ;-)
But investing that way is already a choice - as the second part of your post points out.
Which is sad, in 1988-90 England and Wales had the same life expectancy but now the Welsh are expected to get a whole years less life than the English.
What a tragedy that socialism leads to people dying early. But yes I suppose you get to deal with less end of life disabilities, good for you *rolleyes*
Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either.
I blame the Brits.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/embarrassment-for-adams-as-he-is-refused-entry-to-white-house-34547729.html
I can't imagine why that would be
If you are going to misrepresent statistics at least do it with some style
The difference between the civil standard of proof and the criminal standard?
Also I would guess a civil standard for an election court would require evidence that something wrong was done. A criminal standard for a criminal court would require evidence that something wrong was done by this particular person to a higher standard of proof.
Perhaps, but I suspect that their reasoning is much closer to that of South Yorkshire Police.
LOUISE!!!!!!!!!
Well you can choose to believe that if you want. I do find it remarkable the extent to which people on the left are happy to overlook or explain away this kind of thing though.
You might think they would be rather concerned about the systemic perversion of the democratic process and people having their votes stolen.
Clinton 44 .. Sanders 31
The only thing worse than my betting was the weather forecast. It was ****** freezing...
Anyway, onto Day 3
1.30 Zabana
2.10 Un Ace
2.50 Vautour
3.30 Thistlecrack
4.10 Fingal Bay
4.50 Limini
5.30 Cause Of Causes
Plenty of time to harass old aged pensioners without a shred of evidence against them, mind.
You Gov poll 23rd March 2014 Voting intentions by household income:
< 25K Con 29%,Lab 42%
25-40K Con 33%,Lab 42%
40-60K Con 45% Lab 30%
>60k Con 49% Lab 29%
MAP | Temporary border checks & fences in Europe #Schengen #RefugeesCrisis https://t.co/mbKauZPOR9 https://t.co/VTYoOIwJeD
1:30 Bristol De Mai
2:10 Missed Approach
2:50 Taquin Du Seuil ( place )
3:30 Saphir Du Rheu (place )
4:10 Stilletto
4:50 Limini , (Smart Talk for place )
5:30 The Giant Bolster
Deep in Treasury Red Book:
Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)
Monday????
Police had received 164 complaints of election malpractice in Tower Hamlets in and around the election on 22 May 2014, which led to two people being cautioned and one criminal trial, which has yet to go ahead.
The review launched last year identified five new allegations, one of which could not be pursued as the one-year time limit had expired, the Yard said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12196241/Man-given-vasectomy-by-mistake-after-complaining-about-waiting-times.html
And when people don't react to it well, he takes it personally and flounces off the whole site in a huff.
As for Nicola .......
Sadiq Khan has said he “never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within Labour” in 2016 and called for those harbouring anti-Semitic views to be permanently kicked out of the party....
....I’m truly disgusted with the growing problems of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party over recent weeks,” he told the Jewish News. “I never imagined racism would be alive and kicking within the party in 2016. I thought we’d kicked these views out in the 1980s. I pledged to take tough action on anti-Semitism in London. We need the same approach to the Labour party.”
http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/sadiq-khan-i-never-imagined-racism-would-be-alive-and-kicking-in-labour/
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/03/16/vicki-kirby-mccluskey-more-allegations-of-anti-semitism-as-the-partys-entry-procedures-descend-into-farce
In reality, you've reached some pretty warped and bizarre conclusions. You make a fool of yourself every time you post them, whilst also being personally offensive to several regular posters here.
Why don't you focus on giving people the benefit of the doubt, and engaging with what they actually say, and perhaps we'd all enjoy and get a bit more out of it, eh?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0738kq0
...I'm told enough Tory MPs opposed to cuts to disability benefits that Chancellor 'could not get this budget through a vote'. Big trouble.
Or just failed CoE
@duncanrobinson: And this is the kicker. https://t.co/kkgsGTQJuM
Sean O'Neill
er...... https://t.co/PO9YB508oK
It's rebel Tory MPs working out on which measure Osborne is most politically vulnerable, and then going for the jugular.
He has made a lot of enemies.
I wonder if anyone will be texting Osborne if he supports Leave, or if he wants a career?
Up to now, success (or not) in the Cameron administration has depended on a willingness to make oneself one of George Osborne's vassals.
Plenty of Tories really don't want another 5-10 years of that writ-large once Cameron goes.
Osborne's chances really do depend on what Gove does now. He is Warwick: the Kingmaker.
New Thread New Thread