But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
What was that famous Jesuit comment about 7 year olds?
Mr. Sandpit, I wonder if Johnson's a bigger risk to Clinton than Trump.
Trump has a lot of passionate supporters and opponents. Clinton seems to have a largely lukewarm, but broader, level of support. Might they be likelier to peel off for a third party chap?
I think a lot of voters on both sides could be persuaded to stay at home - the two main candidates are terrible and the campaign itself is going to be relentlessly negative between Hillary and Donald. Johnson could conceivably take voters from both, but maybe more in the states that are safe one way or the other
Do we have any historical turnout numbers for the 'swing' states, in other words does all that advertising actually get people out to vote?
It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.
I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.
I think this was the school day:
8:30 - register, house 8:45 - assembly, main hall 9:00 - period 1 10:00 - period 2 11:00 - break 11:30 - period 3 (double session, usually PE or technology class) 13:00 - lunch 14:00 - period 4 15:00 - period 5 16:00 - end
The school library was open until 5pm though so anyone who's parents couldn't pick them up until later would usually just hang around there doing homework for an hour, but most people got the bus home.
So 90 minutes of breaks. The average now would I think be an hour (20+40) but there are plenty where it doesn't clear 45 minutes - and there's a big chunk of your difference right away.
However, the average teaching time would be 5 hours rather than 5.30 as well, so very slightly shorter.
Probably one reason why younger millenials are wilting flowers worried about work life balance in their first jobs. We had a proper lunch break during which we had time to eat, digest, and play a bit of sport. We were all healthier and happier for it. And we had a revolutionary approach to bullying - punish those responsible.
Seriously, schools finish too early. Should be 8-5 to prepare children for life.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Mr. Sandpit, I wonder if Johnson's a bigger risk to Clinton than Trump.
Trump has a lot of passionate supporters and opponents. Clinton seems to have a largely lukewarm, but broader, level of support. Might they be likelier to peel off for a third party chap?
I think it depends on the state. Johnson appeals to a lot of small government Republicans, and the Republican base in the West is full of those.
So: Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (all of which are at least slightly difficult for Trump now) are the places where I'd expect Johnson could weigh on the Republican vote.
On the East coast - Conneticut, New Hampshire, etc - I'd expect him to take from both, but perhaps more from Clinton.
Mr. Mortimer, we used to dream of having a lunch break. We had to steal food just so we didn't starve to death, and we only got a sodding tunic (just one, mind!) when we were twelve. Got so cold at night we had to sting ourselves with nettles just to stay warm.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
Finland also spends 60% of its GDP on public services, I'm not sure that the British public would want tax increases worth 22% of GDP. It would be a brave government who tries anyway.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
But remember that the effect of the non-white population is not ubiquitous and the electoral college are bound by the electorate's choice.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
*General Election since 1992. Though the mistake is understandable, they are beginning to look like Presidential contests.
There's certainly a lot of room for turnout in the US to increase. Could be that like Leave, Trump is ahead already because he's mobilising non-voters, and the polls aren't picking it up. I'm sceptical though, Clinton is enjoying significantly bigger poll leads than Remain had at this stage, so the error would have to be monumental.
Sorry general election yes. Remain had up to 10% leads weeks before polling day and still led in most polls in the final week. Trump presently trails by about 5%, if he can win the debates and cut that lead to 1 or 2% in the final week anything can happen
Although Leave had the big boost from the existing postal votes. Do we know how much postal voting there is in the US?
Also: oldies. Does anyone have breakdown of support for Clinton and Trump by age?
It is usually the case that when there is a teachers' strike the parents interviewed on TV complain that they will have to take time off work to look after their children - never that the children's education is being disrupted.
Probably because a solitary day's missed school in isolation won't materially affect children's education - which is why penalising parents whose children have a perfect attendance record in general for taking a holiday is absurd.
It's weird because kids today all finish at 3, when I was at school it was 8:30 to 4:00 they must have shortened the school day since then.
I would guess you had an hour plus for lunch? Most schools especially comprehensives only have 20-30 minutes as extra-curricular has withered away and they twigged that about 75% of all serious bullying incidents happened in the second half of lunch hours.
I think this was the school day:
8:30 - register, house 8:45 - assembly, main hall 9:00 - period 1 10:00 - period 2 11:00 - break 11:30 - period 3 (double session, usually PE or technology class) 13:00 - lunch 14:00 - period 4 15:00 - period 5 16:00 - end
The school library was open until 5pm though so anyone who's parents couldn't pick them up until later would usually just hang around there doing homework for an hour, but most people got the bus home.
So 90 minutes of breaks. The average now would I think be an hour (20+40) but there are plenty where it doesn't clear 45 minutes - and there's a big chunk of your difference right away.
However, the average teaching time would be 5 hours rather than 5.30 as well, so very slightly shorter.
Probably one reason why younger millenials are wilting flowers worried about work life balance in their first jobs. We had a proper lunch break during which we had time to eat, digest, and play a bit of sport. We were all healthier and happier for it. And we had a revolutionary approach to bullying - punish those responsible.
Seriously, schools finish too early. Should be 8-5 to prepare children for life.
Long break times were good for exactly that reason. I get the feeling it is the teachers unions who have been pushing for shorter school (work) days. I don't see any benefit from shortening the school day from what I had to the current 9-3, it makes very little sense to me.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
By "free" you actually mean "paid for by everyone including those without children", yes?
Yes, because children grow up to be tax payers and the better start hey have in life the more tax they pay later.
That's an astonishing assertion.
It's a perfectly reasonable argument. But there are short term benefits too. It will enable many parents to return to work and hence boost the tax base.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
They obviously all got scared of Brown's gulags for slags and started using contraception!
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
They obviously all got scared of Brown's gulags for slags and started using contraception!
Yep the current issue is the 3rd / 4th new tax credit child as your youngest approaches 16...
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
Several hundred thousand?
It was 40,000 in 2009, and the rate has fallen since. And that also includes adults (18 and 19 year olds), which is a bit different to 15/16 year olds.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
Utilities also seem rather high: £1180 for the first family per month. Even including mobile phones, council tax and insurance that seems extremely high.
A free, national childcare service would sort these families out. Could be vote winner for a party that was serious about it. Finland has the right idea. Muncipal day care for all under 7s. Trained staff, including degree-level teachers in all the centres.
Or they could stop spending £1200 a month on utilities.. madness
How on Earth does a small house generate a £1200 a month utility bill? Do they have air conditioning at 10 degrees in the summer and heating at 30 degrees in the winter, with every family member having a bath twice a day?
Burning fivers on the stove perhaps?
Our place is smaller than those quoted I would think, but our utilities are around 40% of those quoted, including Sky. Which we have because it’s the only place one can watch top quality cricket! Apart from going to the games of course!
If you only watch test matches then Now TV is £11 for a weekly pass. A four test summer series and five test winter series comes to £100 per year rather than £30/m, if you watch other sports then obviously it isn't a good option, but I use the the daily passes for Spurs matches and the weekly passes for cricket. I just don't care enough about golf, ATP tennis or club rugby.
Thanks for the thought, Mr PB. We ... wife’s a cricket watcher as well ..... watch ODI’s and T20 (when our local side’s involved) as well as tests. However, I’ll look into it.
On a related subject I got fed up with people offering to insure my Sky box. Costs seem astronomical compared with replacement cost for a box if it does go wrong. However, as they don’t have a recognisable number I just don’t answer the calls now.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
But if one of them stopped work the net effect would be to reduce the income by more than the childcare saving.
Edited for FFS.
The net salary gain minus childcare is less than £400 for most of them. That is before commuting costs, clothes for work, meals at wor, petrol to drive round to the child minder, more expensive supermarket food than food prepared at home from scratch.
Basically these women are paying to work and the family would be financially better off and have a vastly better quality of life if they were not working.
If you look at the figures, the women aren't all the lower earners, by any means.
I am glad no-one begrudges the monthly £20 so the Guinea pig doesn't starve...
That is quite an impressive guinea pig food bill
It won't be just food. Having just sold our two guinea pigs, £20/mth doesn't sound too far out if you're looking after them properly: dry food, fresh food, straw, sawdust, vets' bills, hutch etc. (some capital spend there but average it over 7 years and it'll still be several pounds a month).
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
They obviously all got scared of Brown's gulags for slags and started using contraception!
Yep the current issue is the 3rd / 4th new tax credit child as your youngest approaches 16...
Limiting tax credits to 2 or 3 children is an absolute must do for the government. Three in total, not maximum concurrent allowance either.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
One thing that would really scare them is a significant fall in house values and the new level stabilise.. The loss of equity could spell disaster in the medium term.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
Trump needs to stop insulting people. First, because he takes out his own supporters with friendly fire, as when his attacks on Hillary seem misogynistic or when he attacks military families (the armed forces (a) vote and (b) vote overwhelmingly Republican). Second because it is unseemly; it is not presidential -- Americans need to feel their country is secure and prosperous, leader of the free world, not liable to start world war three because Putin's got bigger hands.
On scandals, something might emerge from Hillary's emails, but equally there may be a shock in Trump's tax returns and business dealings, so that is a wash. The known unknowns cancel each other out, at least while they remain unknown.
He has a new more professional team which will help but the debates are the key gamechanger left now
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
1) Circuits. Those in charge seem happy to lose classic circuits [excepting tedious Monaco, over which airhead moneymen go all gooey] in favour of rubbish but well-paying tracks. There's a risk of reaching a tipping point where more races are, frankly, at boring places than not.
2) TV. We now have pay TV in the UK, and coverage will become exclusively pay TV in a couple of years. This won't help viewing figures, and that will have a corresponding impact on sponsorship deals.
3) Shitty regulations. Aerodynamics do make things tricky, but some things (DRS) could be tossed overboard right now. Trying to replicate the 20-something Canadian Grand Prix (maybe 2009?) when the tyres crumbled was always intensely stupid. That race was exciting because no-one knew the tyres would have the longevity of Corbyn's political honeymoon. When every tyre in every race was known to be crumbly, drivers simply drove within the tyre performance, leading to far less excitement.
4) Money. Ferrari gets money just for turning up. Spa and Monza may be at risk over fees, but Monaco pays nothing. Smaller teams get paid less (as well as having less or no say in governance). It's completely unfair and could see teams go to the wall.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
And I can't see anything he is doing which will get him back educated white people or women
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
There are only 698,000 births in the UK (2013 number)!
Edit to add: I think that chart is for total births (which they've labeled conceptions) in the UK, and they've simply not labelled it properly.
There's a discrepancy between conceptions and births, for both natural and artificial reasons, but I accept that the Telegraph's graph is probably bollocks compared to other statistics - it looks like they dress an article about teenage pregnancies with a graph showing all pregnancies.
Trump doesn't need Florida. He can win with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the Rust Belt strategy as Michael Moore has named it.
Pennsylvania is a tough one, because Philadelphia and its suburbs are not going Trump. He'll have to win the rest of the state by a big margin to make up for losing Philly.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
“Conception” by no means always results in live birth, of course. A significant number of teen pregnancies end with abortions.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
A couple of weeks ago he was fourth with black voters, on 2%:
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
I suspect the non-availability of Trumps tax returns will continue to rumble on. Whether it’s going to demotivate any supporters of course is highly questionable.
Rather depends, I suppose, on how Clinton uses that non-availability. If he’s got nothing to hide .......
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
Yes, but these people appear to be in tricky middle ground where they don't qualify for rebates / credits but don't earn enough to afford strategies to minimise their obligations.
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
He won't get close to 33%, though (he'd walk the election if he did).
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
More good economic news, although Q2 data was mostly before the referendum. Hopefully Q3 will hold up, although this revision raises the baseline for the Q3 QoQ numbers.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
Yes, but these people appear to be in tricky middle ground where they don't qualify for rebates / credits but don't earn enough to afford strategies to minimise their obligations.
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
Talking of a screaming sense of entitlement, the yells for more lifeguards at Camber Sands baffle me - I grew up by the sea and in summers gone past have spent entire months at un-lifeguarded beaches.
Learn how to swim, don't get into difficulty, and you'll be fine. The sea is a great friend provided it is treated with respect.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
Just catching up on this Labour conference security thing. TBH a cancellation is probably better all around for Labour as they can use health and safety as a get out for both the conference and all the inevitable blood letting that would occur during the week in full public view.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
More good economic news, although Q2 data was mostly before the referendum. Hopefully Q3 will hold up, although this revision raises the baseline for the Q3 QoQ numbers.
Well it's the ONS estimate of June data which gave them the -0.8% figure, the real data has actually come in now and they've revise June up enough to change the QoQ figure to +0.5%. June was the height of uncertainty before the vote and it's now clear that businesses kept on as normal, I don't see why that will have changed, other than possible a two or three week blip in the final week of June and the first part of July. Clearly UK business is made of much sterner stuff that our "experts" thought they were.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
But aren't you also irritated by Brexit "experts" who say that there will be no negative consequences?
Blimey this time last year the plan was worth less than what was put into it !
Thankfully it has grown since then.
And people wonder why the property market and buy-to-let are booming.
Sort out other investments and pensions and people will invest in those, I really don't understand the interest rate cut other than the MPC wanted to be seen to do something.
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
But aren't you also irritated by Brexit "experts" who say that there will be no negative consequences?
Most Brexit "experts" said there could be some short-term risk but it would be mild and there were long term opportunities as a result. So far that seems to be bearing out as entirely correct.
Given that the short-term factors seem to be very mild so far and the collapse in the pound has led to a boost for our trade balance, its not impossible that Brexit could even lead to a short term boost to the economy.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
Yes, but these people appear to be in tricky middle ground where they don't qualify for rebates / credits but don't earn enough to afford strategies to minimise their obligations.
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
If you want a real WTF moment there is a classic on MSE today..
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
Does that conceptions number include people who go on to have an abortion?
Yes, it is the sum of maternities and abortions. Miscarriages and illegal abortions are not included.
Conceptions = births + abortions. They have to say that to cover up the fact that MI5 has cameras in every bedroom to count conceptions directly.
We don’t know, and can’t know, how many “conceptions” are prevented by emergency hormonal contraception.
Why does it matter? That's like saying we don't know, and can't know, how many "conceptions" are prevented by birth control.
Doesn’t of course. However, the availabality of EHC has contributed to the number of girls NOT turning up at abortion clinics or going on the have babies.
Bit different to the days of clingfilm as a “baby-sitter special”.
Just catching up on this Labour conference security thing. TBH a cancellation is probably better all around for Labour as they can use health and safety as a get out for both the conference and all the inevitable blood letting that would occur during the week in full public view.
What happens to their leadership election given the result is supposed to be announced at Conference. Does it get extended 12 months to next year's Conference
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
But aren't you also irritated by Brexit "experts" who say that there will be no negative consequences?
Indeed, there are just far fewer of them. I think most people who voted to leave accept there will be some negative economic results from leaving, but the extent is unknown. Only idiots like Liam Fox think it will make absolutely no difference. Even Boris talked about the hockey stick and that was before the vote took place.
Blimey this time last year the plan was worth less than what was put into it !
Thankfully it has grown since then.
And people wonder why the property market and buy-to-let are booming.
Sort out other investments and pensions and people will invest in those, I really don't understand the interest rate cut other than the MPC wanted to be seen to do something.
They're booming because some people are more willing to deprive others of a home of their own than start/invest in a business.
Generation Boom seem to think that they're entitled to a return on their money. They're not.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
A couple of weeks ago he was fourth with black voters, on 2%:
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
More good economic news, although Q2 data was mostly before the referendum. Hopefully Q3 will hold up, although this revision raises the baseline for the Q3 QoQ numbers.
Well it's the ONS estimate of June data which gave them the -0.8% figure, the real data has actually come in now and they've revise June up enough to change the QoQ figure to +0.5%. June was the height of uncertainty before the vote and it's now clear that businesses kept on as normal, I don't see why that will have changed, other than possible a two or three week blip in the final week of June and the first part of July. Clearly UK business is made of much sterner stuff that our "experts" thought they were.
The supposed pre-Brexit investment hiatus was also heavily emphasised by the Bank of England governor.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
“Conception” by no means always results in live birth, of course. A significant number of teen pregnancies end with abortions.
If that figure is actully conceptions and not births then the parts of the country I used to estimate my figures are very unlucky compared to the rest of the country. Hence I suspect the use of conception is wrong there and its live births...
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
But aren't you also irritated by Brexit "experts" who say that there will be no negative consequences?
Didn't most say they expected some short term difficulties in exchange for better things in the longer term?
What grates is those who forecast Armageddon if the vote was to leave, now determined to see the economy do badly purely to vindicate their comments.
I think it will be Clinton but by the narrowest of margins. Certainly a strong debate performance would boost Trump. Also as Farage pointed out on Wednesday night, Leave won by mobilising white working class voters who had not voted before on an anti establishment, anti immigration ticket to produce a turnout of 72%, the highest for any presidential election since 1992. Turnout in the last U.S. presidential election was 54% and Trump will be running on a similar platform and aiming to get record white working class turnout in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina
One of a number of people on here who are making themselves look foolish through a simplistic Leave=Trump, Remain=Clinton filter.
A presidential election with an electoral college, 3rd party candidates and a much high non-white population is a completely different kettle of fish from a national referendum.
Not entirely, 70% of the U.S. population is still white and it was the white working class who were the base for Leave as they are for Trump, white graduates narrowly voted Remain as did ethnic minorities. If Trump can get a big white working class turnout and narrow the gap with white graduates as he did after the GOP convention anything can happen
Leave did, however, get the support of 33% of minority voters, which Trump won't.
He could certainly do better than Romney with blacks and if he does the same with Asians and Hispanics that is a net gain with minorities
He won't get close to 33%, though (he'd walk the election if he did).
Indeed, the idea of Trump doing better than Romney with blacks is laughable. He's currently polling less than 1% with them.
Blimey this time last year the plan was worth less than what was put into it !
Thankfully it has grown since then.
And people wonder why the property market and buy-to-let are booming.
Sort out other investments and pensions and people will invest in those, I really don't understand the interest rate cut other than the MPC wanted to be seen to do something.
They're booming because some people are more willing to deprive others of a home of their own than start/invest in a business.
Generation Boom seem to think that they're entitled to a return on their money. They're not.
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
Yes, but these people appear to be in tricky middle ground where they don't qualify for rebates / credits but don't earn enough to afford strategies to minimise their obligations.
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
If you want a real WTF moment there is a classic on MSE today..
Blimey this time last year the plan was worth less than what was put into it !
Thankfully it has grown since then.
And people wonder why the property market and buy-to-let are booming.
Sort out other investments and pensions and people will invest in those, I really don't understand the interest rate cut other than the MPC wanted to be seen to do something.
They're booming because some people are more willing to deprive others of a home of their own than start/invest in a business.
Generation Boom seem to think that they're entitled to a return on their money. They're not.
Most people are into BTL as there is nowhere else to save / invest when you like your full time job...
Then you have people like the one I mention below who just want a pension of some form or other..
The slowdown in business investment for Q2 has been revised away, previously -0.8% QoQ now +0.5%, Sam Tombs must be crying into his coffee right now. He used the pre-referendum fall in business investment as the foundation of his argument that the leave vote would lead to calamity. Not sure how he is going to avoid this latest blow.
From what I've seen, they're hiding behind 'Carney's measures have staved off the predicted disaster'. Obviously, it's more difficult to deploy that argument for Q2 .
I don't see how that holds water for July data either! As always, I'm not saying that Brexit will be easy or without any economic costs, far from it, I'm just irritated by the "experts" desperately trying to justify their completely overblown predictions of doom before the vote.
But aren't you also irritated by Brexit "experts" who say that there will be no negative consequences?
Most Brexit "experts" said there could be some short-term risk but it would be mild and there were long term opportunities as a result. So far that seems to be bearing out as entirely correct.
Given that the short-term factors seem to be very mild so far and the collapse in the pound has led to a boost for our trade balance, its not impossible that Brexit could even lead to a short term boost to the economy.
It's led to a boost in exports; we don't know about the trade balance yet, and we have to account for the fact that oil, gas, etc. are now approximately 10% more to import. I suspect we'll see a marginal narrowing of the deficit in 3Q.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
They obviously all got scared of Brown's gulags for slags and started using contraception!
Mr. Max, broadcast media being generally pro-Remain has also affected expectations management. If they'd been even-handed after the vote, the current situation might look worse. Because the approach was generally negative (what have we done? etc), even treading water now looks good compared to what was expected.
Mr. Moses, jein. The Official Opposition not being able to hold its own conference doesn't exactly dispel the suggestion they're not exactly a government-in-waiting.
@Sandpit My employer matches my contributions so even breaking even on my money is worthwhile with the pension, nevertheless it was a bit worrying to see !
But even if your incomes £50k , if you couldnt meet an unexpected £500 bill then you aint middle class no sireee.
Reading their detail. It is the childcare that is the killer. Nearly a grand a month.
If those numbers are true, they could do other things too.
Ditch Sky (you don't need it - get freeview or Prime for £80 a year instead) ditch the gym membership (go for a run or buy a few weights instead) and shop smarter. A family of four don't need to spend £500 a month on food.
Also..ditch the car finance. It amazes me how much people spend on hire purchase. Get a second hand car.
Their problem is also a lifestyle choice one. Plus £6k on a holiday in Florida? Why?
Looking at the salaries, this is very much the lower middle class trying to live the lifestyles of those on higher professional incomes.
The average salary is £27k so that makes a household income of £55k so these couples are on average incomes, especially as most live in the South East. They should not expect to have much left at the end of the month, though they could cut out Sky etc. You really need a household income of £100k to be well of now
I'd like to see a budget item covering the amount of tax they pay in various forms.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
Well we almost all pay tax and of course that tax provides free healthcare and education which everyone can use without paying for it
Yes, but these people appear to be in tricky middle ground where they don't qualify for rebates / credits but don't earn enough to afford strategies to minimise their obligations.
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
Talking of a screaming sense of entitlement, the yells for more lifeguards at Camber Sands baffle me - I grew up by the sea and in summers gone past have spent entire months at un-lifeguarded beaches.
Learn how to swim, don't get into difficulty, and you'll be fine. The sea is a great friend provided it is treated with respect.
Having more lifeguards at one of the most popular beaches in England doesn't seem an unreasonable request.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
“Conception” by no means always results in live birth, of course. A significant number of teen pregnancies end with abortions.
If that figure is actully conceptions and not births then the parts of the country I used to estimate my figures are very unlucky compared to the rest of the country. Hence I suspect the use of conception is wrong there and its live births...
IIRC from my days working with Family Planning services, conceptions vs live births does wary significantly acorss the country. Depends on local culture, religion etc.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
They obviously all got scared of Brown's gulags for slags and started using contraception!
That period of Gordon's reign was very peculiar. He came over all BNP with British Jobs 4 British Workers too.
"And here, with greater succinctness but indistinguishable sentiment, is what Gordon Brown said, to warm applause, in his Brighton speech today:
And I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.
From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.
We won't ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions."
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
“Conception” by no means always results in live birth, of course. A significant number of teen pregnancies end with abortions.
If that figure is actully conceptions and not births then the parts of the country I used to estimate my figures are very unlucky compared to the rest of the country. Hence I suspect the use of conception is wrong there and its live births...
Surely if you worked in that area then by default your experience is not representative of the rest of the country? Anyone who works in an industry naturally experiences their customers/clients and not those who are nearby but unrelated.
Apparently in the first controlled study, teenage girls 13-15yrs were twice as likely to get pregnant [8%] after experiencing 'robot virtual baby', compared with 4% control group.
Do we still give teenage mothers a free council house? That might have more to do with it.
Teenage pregnancy rates are at record lows in the UK, so it's barely a problem any more.
Record lows do not necessarily mean not a problem - we still have several hundred thousand teenagers getting pregnant every year.
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
For the past two years I have been subjected to the character assassination that is the local youth awards. In both cases there have been 3-4 children who have had their own children prior to 16 and continued in education - that bits unavoidable.
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
“Conception” by no means always results in live birth, of course. A significant number of teen pregnancies end with abortions.
If that figure is actully conceptions and not births then the parts of the country I used to estimate my figures are very unlucky compared to the rest of the country. Hence I suspect the use of conception is wrong there and its live births...
Surely if you worked in that area then by default your experience is not representative of the rest of the country? Anyone who works in an industry naturally experiences their customers/clients and not those who are nearby but unrelated.
Not when your dataset is part of the north east, manchester city council and part of the poshest part of the home counties.. its why I'm fairly happy that my dataset is varied enough....
Comments
Do we have any historical turnout numbers for the 'swing' states, in other words does all that advertising actually get people out to vote?
Seriously, schools finish too early. Should be 8-5 to prepare children for life.
So: Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (all of which are at least slightly difficult for Trump now) are the places where I'd expect Johnson could weigh on the Republican vote.
On the East coast - Conneticut, New Hampshire, etc - I'd expect him to take from both, but perhaps more from Clinton.
/FourSpartans
Rhode Island
Utah
Montana
Pennsylvania
In effect we have 52 referenda.
Also: oldies. Does anyone have breakdown of support for Clinton and Trump by age?
Hmm.
Probably not enough to retire on just yet
Pork producers are getting creamed at the moment as prices are at all time lows.
It was 40,000 in 2009, and the rate has fallen since. And that also includes adults (18 and 19 year olds), which is a bit different to 15/16 year olds.
(Edit to add: 43,000 and that excludes Scotland - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_Kingdom; So the whole country might be nearer 50,000.)
"• The estimated number of conceptions to girls under 18 fell to 22,653 in 2014 compared with 24,306 in 2013, a decrease of 6.8%"
However, I’ll look into it.
On a related subject I got fed up with people offering to insure my Sky box. Costs seem astronomical compared with replacement cost for a box if it does go wrong.
However, as they don’t have a recognisable number I just don’t answer the calls now.
I suspect it's the high tax burden that's killing these people, all up it's probably getting near to 50% of headline income
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11431478/Teenage-pregnancy-rates-lowest-since-records-began-official-statistics-show.html
Based on that and a couple of other sources I reckon a decent estimate of those aged 14-16 having children is probably 7000 or so.
https://twitter.com/mcdonnelljp/status/769086851709865985
Edit to add: I think that chart is for total births (which they've labeled conceptions) in the UK, and they've simply not labelled it properly.
1) Circuits. Those in charge seem happy to lose classic circuits [excepting tedious Monaco, over which airhead moneymen go all gooey] in favour of rubbish but well-paying tracks. There's a risk of reaching a tipping point where more races are, frankly, at boring places than not.
2) TV. We now have pay TV in the UK, and coverage will become exclusively pay TV in a couple of years. This won't help viewing figures, and that will have a corresponding impact on sponsorship deals.
3) Shitty regulations. Aerodynamics do make things tricky, but some things (DRS) could be tossed overboard right now. Trying to replicate the 20-something Canadian Grand Prix (maybe 2009?) when the tyres crumbled was always intensely stupid. That race was exciting because no-one knew the tyres would have the longevity of Corbyn's political honeymoon. When every tyre in every race was known to be crumbly, drivers simply drove within the tyre performance, leading to far less excitement.
4) Money. Ferrari gets money just for turning up. Spa and Monza may be at risk over fees, but Monaco pays nothing. Smaller teams get paid less (as well as having less or no say in governance). It's completely unfair and could see teams go to the wall.
"Jeremy Corbyn...attracts the earnest schoolkid inside some."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2016-08-25/comment/dont-be-fooled-these-corbynistas-are-not-trotskyites-mzb278kzn
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-in-fourth-place-among-black-voters/
Rather depends, I suppose, on how Clinton uses that non-availability. If he’s got nothing to hide .......
The real problem here of course is a screaming sense of entitlement and the mistaken belief that they should be able to live like their baby boomer parents did on similar incomes, ignoring the vast increase in living and housing costs.
What did Delaware?
She wore a brand New Jersey
And when Calla phone us?
Just to say how ai ya?
And did Missy sippy
Some of your mini-soda?
Etc etc
Some chaps are testing the halo.
Learn how to swim, don't get into difficulty, and you'll be fine. The sea is a great friend provided it is treated with respect.
Thankfully it has grown since then.
FOP it is. When Pennsylvania is called for Clinton then Trump is dead in the water.
Sort out other investments and pensions and people will invest in those, I really don't understand the interest rate cut other than the MPC wanted to be seen to do something.
Given that the short-term factors seem to be very mild so far and the collapse in the pound has led to a boost for our trade balance, its not impossible that Brexit could even lead to a short term boost to the economy.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5516143 £400 a month in tax credits but 2 btl properties. When the BTL tax changes come in her income increases to £38k reducing the tax credits to £50 a month.
Why are people with BTL properties getting tax credits full stop....
Bit different to the days of clingfilm as a “baby-sitter special”.
Generation Boom seem to think that they're entitled to a return on their money. They're not.
What grates is those who forecast Armageddon if the vote was to leave, now determined to see the economy do badly purely to vindicate their comments.
One can only hope!
Then you have people like the one I mention below who just want a pension of some form or other..
Mr. Moses, jein. The Official Opposition not being able to hold its own conference doesn't exactly dispel the suggestion they're not exactly a government-in-waiting.
http://order-order.com/2009/09/29/exclusive-browns-gulags-for-slags-policy-taken-from-bnp/
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/09/gordon-brown-stealing-bnp-clothes-again.html
"And here, with greater succinctness but indistinguishable sentiment, is what Gordon Brown said, to warm applause, in his Brighton speech today:
And I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.
From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.
We won't ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions."