I don't know why anyone would want to cap donations to the Political Parties, it is treating the wrong end of the problem.
It would be far better for us as the electorate if we capped the spending of Political Parties. That way you can prevent the most effective money collecting machine from buying electoral success. Also if the cap is low enough it could save us from all the rubbish they produce and try to indoctrinate us with in non election years. It would also be much better for new and smaller parties to get on to a more level playing field.
I dont know why you are getting worked up about the tiddly little match starting tomorrow. The main cricket action this week is in the Netherlands with Ireland on the brink of qualifying for the World Cup
@tim - I'm not oscillating, and it does look as though he's not going to pull it off. In fact, it's not even clear what he's proposing - he doesn't seem to know himself. In essence all he has said is that he's commissioning a report from Ray Collins. It might be the Unison model, but it might be something different. Who knows? He doesn't have a timetable. He's just confirmed he doesn't know what the implications for voting at party conference will be.
There is no plan - hardly surprising, of course, since he's had less than a week. It's another blank sheet of paper which he's hoping Ray Collins will fill in for him.
I know it's smaller pickings, but surely much more certain? I'm not convinced Australia are going to be quite the pushover some imagine. I have even backed a 2-2 series score, to modest amounts, as recommended by the other Tower, PfP.
Intereting. Are you not concerned about a hot late-July and an overcast August...?
Spinners to the fore; swinging later? Do the Ozzies have as much movement as the bookies...?
Picking the right score is obviously a bit of a lottery, not least because of the guesswork involving the weather. I've a foot in both camps too, with a small bet on 4-0 England after my son reported back to me a conversation with (a slightlyly inebriated) Pat Murphy who reckoned this was the worst Aussie touring side since 1985.
On blaance, I suspect that the right view is that the Aussies have been somewhat underestimated and will fight hard, but that England should have too much firepower for them, particular in the spin department. Hard one to call though, and I think either 2-2 or 4-0 England could be correct.
I would rule out an Aussie win though if only because the pitches will be doctored to favour spin should the Visitors get anywhere near to winning the series.
Why can someone be a good MP and a minister, but not a good MP and, say, a GP or suchlike?
I suspect Mr. Smithson's call on that is right: it's a bad idea but will play well.
Is it legal under EU law to constrain a person's right to earn whatever they like in a private capacity?
Why can MP X earn £50k a year with 200 hours of his/her time, but MP Y can't earn £100k for the same 200 hours - or for just 100 hours? Do dividends count as earnings? Would an owner of business, even if they have no say in the day-to-day running of it, have to sell up?
It might play well, but it has 'backfire' and 'U-turn' written all over it.
Articles on 4 and 30 April, based on information provided by Conservative Central Office, stated that 878,000 individuals claiming benefits intended for the genuinely sick 'stopped claiming rather than face a fresh medical'. We are happy to make clear that other important reasons people had for not pursuing ESA claims were that they recovered, returned to work or claimed a more appropriate benefit.
Unfortunately I have to report that the MODERATOR having read the thread collapsed in hysterical laughter and now en-route to a splendidly well funded NHS Trust hospital has failed to enable comments !!
Barclays have revised the UK's growth forecasts upward.
The bank now sees Britain’s gross domestic product expanding at a 1.1% rate in 2013 (previously 0.9%) and 2.1% in 2014 (previously 1.8%).
Worth highlighting, while investment growth is still likely to decline by -9%, in 2013, the lender’s estimate of the quarterly path for business investment in 2013 is stronger than before.
Among the first of many upward revisions to come, we await the IMF's global forecasts.
Listening to Big Bad Len on the BBC, he seems confident he can blow away Ed's house of straw. He even praised the aspirational nature of the speech. So I assume it will be all mouth and trousers as usual.
Still, kicking it into the long grass while gaining a little political capital makes sense.
Still some value in England at 1.92 for the test tomorrow - Trent Bridge is a happy hunting ground for England - won 4 in a row there.
Not laying the draw, TGOHF?
I know it's smaller pickings, but surely much more certain? I'm not convinced Australia are going to be quite the pushover some imagine. I have even backed a 2-2 series score, to modest amounts, as recommended by the other Tower, PfP.
But laying the draw at Trent Bridge is surely tantamount to buying money. Few Test Matches last five days unless the weather intervenes and the outlook for Notingham is sunny. What's more, both sides are stronger in the bowling than the batting and Swann should be in his element on a pitch which is bound to be a little drier and dustier than usual.
The draw has drifted to 4.3 now but I still think it's a bargain lay.
What say you?
I say you haven't factored in the feelgood sports summer and the weather.
a) The pitch will dry out and turn - our spinner is better than their spinner. b) The hot sun will mean the crowd will have extra lubrication to which to cheer on their chaps.
Articles on 4 and 30 April, based on information provided by Conservative Central Office, stated that 878,000 individuals claiming benefits intended for the genuinely sick 'stopped claiming rather than face a fresh medical'. We are happy to make clear that other important reasons people had for not pursuing ESA claims were that they recovered, returned to work or claimed a more appropriate benefit.
Don't be absurd tim, of course those who stopped claiming rather than face a fresh medical wouldn't admit as much as the reason to stop claiming.
"They recovered" - Some genuinely would have but no doubt many were miraculous recoveries rather than facing a tougher medical. "Returned to work" - What incentivised this return to work? Maybe the prospect of the medical? "Claimed a more appropriate benefit" - Again why? If they were inappropriately claiming medical-related benefits then of course move off it.
You've demonstrated no lies then. The truth is its impossible to know how many changed due to the medical and how many would have otherwise but many who did would officially state a different reason.
Why can someone be a good MP and a minister, but not a good MP and, say, a GP or suchlike?
I suspect Mr. Smithson's call on that is right: it's a bad idea but will play well.
Is it legal under EU law to constrain a person's right to earn whatever they like in a private capacity?
Why can MP X earn £50k a year with 200 hours of his/her time, but MP Y can't earn £100k for the same 200 hours - or for just 100 hours? Do dividends count as earnings? Would an owner of business, even if they have no say in the day-to-day running of it, have to sell up?
It might play well, but it has 'backfire' and 'U-turn' written all over it.
IA (obviously) NAL
It's permissible for an employer to place pretty tight limits on an employee's rights to undertake another employment simultaneously. Whilst MPs aren't employees (I think they're officeholders, like clergy) I'm pretty sure that the same kinds of restrictions may lawfully be applied - they certainly are to clergy. In generally not being an employee weakens one's protections rather than strengthening them.
There are very few instances where dividends could be seen as earnings so that's unlikely to be in scope. The tightest restriction likely there would be the requirement to place shares in a "blind" trust for the duration of holding office, meaning that it's difficult for the holder to ensure they benefit from short-term price movements. Really that becomes a question of outside interests (more of an all-purpose sleaze issue) so I'd expect it to be looked at separately from the question of employment.
Most likely approach if one wanted it to be effective would be a double cap: limit on time spent on outside employment and business interests, and an overriding cap on income from those activities, regardless of how little time is spent. The main area that could get complex would be for MPs who remain full-equity members of professional partnership.
Comments
It would be far better for us as the electorate if we capped the spending of Political Parties. That way you can prevent the most effective money collecting machine from buying electoral success. Also if the cap is low enough it could save us from all the rubbish they produce and try to indoctrinate us with in non election years. It would also be much better for new and smaller parties to get on to a more level playing field.
I dont know why you are getting worked up about the tiddly little match starting tomorrow. The main cricket action this week is in the Netherlands with Ireland on the brink of qualifying for the World Cup
I thought wholesaling votes was copyright Len McCluskey
OGH casts his block vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419
Ed Miliband as Gladys .... Er ....No sorry a Gladiator ....
Titter ....
*innocent-face*
There is no plan - hardly surprising, of course, since he's had less than a week. It's another blank sheet of paper which he's hoping Ray Collins will fill in for him.
We're all laughing like drains to bother ....
Picking the right score is obviously a bit of a lottery, not least because of the guesswork involving the weather. I've a foot in both camps too, with a small bet on 4-0 England after my son reported back to me a conversation with (a slightlyly inebriated) Pat Murphy who reckoned this was the worst Aussie touring side since 1985.
On blaance, I suspect that the right view is that the Aussies have been somewhat underestimated and will fight hard, but that England should have too much firepower for them, particular in the spin department. Hard one to call though, and I think either 2-2 or 4-0 England could be correct.
I would rule out an Aussie win though if only because the pitches will be doctored to favour spin should the Visitors get anywhere near to winning the series.
Hence the blank page.
It used to be:
No FT - No comment.
Now its:
PB - No Comment
Why can someone be a good MP and a minister, but not a good MP and, say, a GP or suchlike?
I suspect Mr. Smithson's call on that is right: it's a bad idea but will play well.
Might we have a similar thread for balance on Eric Pickles as Julian Clary ??
Are you aware the new thread is set to 'Comments Off'?
Why can MP X earn £50k a year with 200 hours of his/her time, but MP Y can't earn £100k for the same 200 hours - or for just 100 hours? Do dividends count as earnings? Would an owner of business, even if they have no say in the day-to-day running of it, have to sell up?
It might play well, but it has 'backfire' and 'U-turn' written all over it.
IA (obviously) NAL
Barclays have revised the UK's growth forecasts upward.
The bank now sees Britain’s gross domestic product expanding at a 1.1% rate in 2013 (previously 0.9%) and 2.1% in 2014 (previously 1.8%).
Worth highlighting, while investment growth is still likely to decline by -9%, in 2013, the lender’s estimate of the quarterly path for business investment in 2013 is stronger than before.
Among the first of many upward revisions to come, we await the IMF's global forecasts.
What a sorry mess.
Plenty of limbs and blood in the chamber ....
Still, kicking it into the long grass while gaining a little political capital makes sense.
a) The pitch will dry out and turn - our spinner is better than their spinner.
b) The hot sun will mean the crowd will have extra lubrication to which to cheer on their chaps.
So 75% head, 25 % heart = back England.
"They recovered" - Some genuinely would have but no doubt many were miraculous recoveries rather than facing a tougher medical.
"Returned to work" - What incentivised this return to work? Maybe the prospect of the medical?
"Claimed a more appropriate benefit" - Again why? If they were inappropriately claiming medical-related benefits then of course move off it.
You've demonstrated no lies then. The truth is its impossible to know how many changed due to the medical and how many would have otherwise but many who did would officially state a different reason.
There are very few instances where dividends could be seen as earnings so that's unlikely to be in scope. The tightest restriction likely there would be the requirement to place shares in a "blind" trust for the duration of holding office, meaning that it's difficult for the holder to ensure they benefit from short-term price movements. Really that becomes a question of outside interests (more of an all-purpose sleaze issue) so I'd expect it to be looked at separately from the question of employment.
Most likely approach if one wanted it to be effective would be a double cap: limit on time spent on outside employment and business interests, and an overriding cap on income from those activities, regardless of how little time is spent. The main area that could get complex would be for MPs who remain full-equity members of professional partnership.