In Witney the raw Labour vote was 60% of their GE vote, in-line with turnout, so they were not squeezed at all. In Richmond it was only 20%. I would expect Sleaford to be more representative of the former than the latter. For that reason the Labour vote seems low to me.
One factor that makes this hard to call is just how low turnout will be on a cold winter's day, in an extremely safe Conservative seat.
There have been no shortage of turnouts below 30%; could we see 25%? (Manchester Central was just 18.2% in 2012, but I cannot imagine we'll be anywhere near that low.)
If you look at recent by-elections a pattern emerges; safe labour seats see appalling turnouts e.g. Manchester Central. Safe Tory seats however maintain decent turnouts (they also tend to have relatively high turnout at GEs). Safe Tory seats have tended to get roughly about 50%.
Kensington was 30%, but your overall point is, I'm sure, correct.
Kensington's not a safe seat. From memory Vicky's majority is less than 6,000
It's reasonably safe (52% vs 32%), but you are correct.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
The whole system needs to be built around the right incentives: to work, to study, etc.
Get the incentives right, and human nature will do the rest.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
I'm not sure about the numbers but the general principle is correct.
Taxation drives down disposable incomes and increases the need for welfare for many lower/middle income earners.
There is a vast amount of Peter giving to Paul involved in tax and spend. The cynic might suggest that it gives the middle man control. The state is involved in too many household incomes.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit. We have to cut our suit according to our cloth. LDs have long been keen on sustainable budgets, and act that way in power, whether in the Coalition or in local government.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
The whole system needs to be built around the right incentives: to work, to study, etc.
Get the incentives right, and human nature will do the rest.
It needs a lot of joined up thinking as well, extending education hours so that working parents can take advantage of higher pay rates is essential if we do raise the minimum wage.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
I think primary usually ends quite early - rarely after 3:30, simply because getting 6 year olds to concentrate for more than a couple of hours a day is really difficult. It makes sense to keep growing the school day as they get older. (When I was at secondary school in Bedford, we had 7:50 - 14:45.)
All that being said, I'm not sure how much correlation there is between school day length and academic achievement. Because there are so many factors it's hard to work out what's important and what isn't.
What he should not have done was to make big set-piece speeches saying he was prepared to campaign for leave.
And good evening, everyone.
If Cameron had campaigned for Leave - and he was
You are kidding, right? He'd have won it by a landslide.
Stark Dawning has been driven Stark Raving Mad by Brexit.
If Cameron had come out for Brexit, Leave would have won by 60/40 or more.
Thbably would have won greater concessions on benefits, and would therefore have won his referendum.
The deal was fine; it addressed much that needed to be addressed, but was admittedly weak on immigration.
Perhaps also, it was all he was going to get? We seem to have had the EU27 pretty much speaking with one voice telling us what to expect. Now, of course this I'm sure is so much bluster and tactics, but what if...we weren't going to get a better deal then, and we might not get a great deal now?
The deal was shit. And he knew it was shit. And his Cabinet knew it was shit because they received it (according to the Times) in total stony silence.
The deal was when the referendum was lost.
The deal was shit because Cameron had already told his European colleagues that he would win the vote whatever, and because he had told the world he would always campaign for REMAIN, whatever the circumstances. Understandably, in that situation, dealing with a political moron like Cameron, the Europeans decided to give him fuck all as he had loudly promised to campaign for them even if he got fuck all.
On top of that, Cameron promised beforehand in the Bloomberg speech that he'd get a whole lot more than fuck all, and when he actually came back with the predictable fuck all, he tried to tell us he'd got the Deal of the Century, and when we all laughed in despair and said he had fuck all, he shut the fuck up and never mentioned his Deal again, throughout the campaign.
Draw your own conclusions.
It wasn shit.
Nah, it was shit.
It was not shit.
Yes it was shit. There wasn't even any guaranteed means of implementing its (albeit shit) provisions. Stop trying to polish a turd; you're embarrassing yourself.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Indeed with the next five years dominated by Brexit, the real issues will be in the long grass.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Now we are leaving the EU, this means that by the mid 2020s, we will actually get around to discussing the root causes of our problems. Well, maybe 2030.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Unlikely, but we have to be realistic. I don't think any government will have the balls to cut in-working benefits, and on that basis something else has to give to cut migration and drive up productivity.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Now we are leaving the EU, this means that by the mid 2020s, we will actually get around to discussing the root causes of our problems. Well, maybe 2030.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit. We have to cut our suit according to our cloth. LDs have long been keen on sustainable budgets, and act that way in power, whether in the Coalition or in local government.
I think if we took this road the deficit would eventually sort itself out via inflation driving up nominal taxation, productivity rising as employers try and get the most out of their staff and the overall benefits bill rising much more slowly.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Unlikely, but we have to be realistic. I don't think any government will have the balls to cut in-working benefits, and on that basis something else has to give to cut migration and drive up productivity.
It's like smacking the telly when it doesn't work*. Not exactly root cause and as likely as not ineffective.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Plus the holidays! Schools are not baybysitters.
No, but just 15 years ago when I was in school it was 8:30-4, now it's 9-3, what happened to that extra hour and a half? Plus I think a longer school day could be used to add a daily hour of physical activity for every child in the country. Not babysitting so much as getting our kids active.
We could have changed to a contributory welfare system at any time if we wanted to, and probably should do...
I think we should as well, but I don't think EU migrants should be eligible for a minimum period of 3-5 years for any kind of benefits or benefits in kind, whatever they are. However, the government tried to make pretty minor changes to tax credits last year and there was an almighty uproar, what would the reaction be if the government cut £30bn in tax credits and £25bn in housing benefits? It would, IMO, be people like you screaming bloody murder when some person who is going to lose out goes viral.
Nah. I have long been in favour of scrapping tax credits, and pro welfare reform
Fair enough, but it will need a very tough approach, not something I expect your party would be in favour of.
I want the welfare state to survive, but to do so it needs to be affordable. People on average incomes should not be dependent on taxpayers, it is not sustainable for only 30% of Britons to be net payers.
Agreed. Higher wages, lower tax and higher productivity. That needs to be the mantra of the government.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit. We have to cut our suit according to our cloth. LDs have long been keen on sustainable budgets, and act that way in power, whether in the Coalition or in local government.
I think if we took this road the deficit would eventually sort itself out via inflation driving up nominal taxation, productivity rising as employers try and get the most out of their staff and the overall benefits bill rising much more slowly.
As immigrants are some of our most productive workers, it is far from clear that cutting immigration would increase productivity. Indeed it may well make it worse.
What he should not have done was to make big set-piece speeches saying he was prepared to campaign for leave.
And good evening, everyone.
If Cameron had campaigned for Leave - and he was as hated and mistrusted as much as everyone was saying on the previous thread - then surely Remain would have won.
You are kidding, right? He'd have won it by a landslide.
Stark Dawning has been driven Stark Raving Mad by Brexit.
If Cameron had come out for Brexit, Leave would have won by 60/40 or more.
Thbably would have won greater concessions on benefits, and would therefore have won his referendum.
The deal was fine; it addressed much that needed to be addressed, but was admittedly weak on immigration.
Perhaps also, it was all he was going to get? We seem to have had the EU27 pretty much speaking with one voice telling us what to expect. Now, of course this I'm sure is so much bluster and tactics, but what if...we weren't going to get a better deal then, and we might not get a great deal now?
The deal was shit. And he knew it was shit. And his Cabinet knew it was shit because they received it (according to the Times) in total stony silence.
The deal was when the referendk all as he had loudly promised to campaign for them even if he got fuck all.
On top of that, Cameron promised beforehand in the Bloomberg speech that he'd get a whole lot more than fuck all, and when he actually came back with the predictable fuck all, he tried to tell us he'd got the Deal of the Century, and when we all laughed in despair and said he had fuck all, he shut the fuck up and never mentioned his Deal again, throughout the campaign.
Draw your own conclusions.
It wasn shit.
Nah, it was shit.
It was not shit.
Yes it was shit. There wasn't even any guaranteed means of implementing its (albeit shit) provisions. Stop trying to polish a turd; you're embarrassing yourself.
You are also having a logic fail.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Aside from his nefarious reasons Brown introduced mass market Tax Credits for another reason. He knew in a globalised world many Britons' labour isn't worth enough to support what's widely felt to be a " British " lifestyle. So he decided to narrow the gap by using the revenue from the Boom to narrow the gap. Then came The Crash.
All Brexit does is launch an experiment in trying to close that market rate/expectation gap in wages by restricting EU immigration rather than cash transfers. I could sarcastically say " Good Luck with that " but the sarcasm ship has sailed. Brexit has begun. This is a live experiment.
Would it be reasonable to assume that the bookies find it much more difficult to track a low-key by election like this when compared with the likes of Richmond or Eastleigh? I cannot imagine that much money has been invested in this contest. I say this as someone who has never bet on politics.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Plus the holidays! Schools are not baybysitters.
No, but just 15 years ago when I was in school it was 8:30-4, now it's 9-3, what happened to that extra hour and a half? Plus I think a longer school day could be used to add a daily hour of physical activity for every child in the country. Not babysitting so much as getting our kids active.
Anecdotally homework seems to have increased, and actual school hours decreased.
Since teachers have to mark said homework it must be a wash with their hours whilst making it more difficult for parents ?
By the way, this Ridgeview "Bloomsbury" English sparkling wine is actually rather good.
Their Fitzrovia wine is nice and worth trying if you haven't already. I picked up a bottle the other day. I was after a bottle of Gusbourne Rose which was out of stock and didn't want to leave empty handed.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Unlikely, but we have to be realistic. I don't think any government will have the balls to cut in-working benefits, and on that basis something else has to give to cut migration and drive up productivity.
It's like smacking the telly when it doesn't work*. Not exactly root cause and as likely as not ineffective.
*you are too young to remember..
I remember hitting the back of the TV! And being told by the salesperson at John Lewis not to hit the back of the LCD we got when they had just come out.
Still, it all comes down to people wanting a change and taking a punt. There are enough people in this country who have been left behind by globalisation, they voted to try and reverse that.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Unlikely, but we have to be realistic. I don't think any government will have the balls to cut in-working benefits, and on that basis something else has to give to cut migration and drive up productivity.
It's like smacking the telly when it doesn't work*. Not exactly root cause and as likely as not ineffective.
*you are too young to remember..
I remember hitting the back of the TV! And being told by the salesperson at John Lewis not to hit the back of the LCD we got when they had just come out.
Still, it all comes down to people wanting a change and taking a punt. There are enough people in this country who have been left behind by globalisation, they voted to try and reverse that.
Globalisation is more about opening up our markets to the LDCs, for example, than a set of complicated EU widget regulations.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Plus the holidays! Schools are not baybysitters.
No, but just 15 years ago when I was in school it was 8:30-4, now it's 9-3, what happened to that extra hour and a half? Plus I think a longer school day could be used to add a daily hour of physical activity for every child in the country. Not babysitting so much as getting our kids active.
Anecdotally homework seems to have increased, and actual school hours decreased.
Since teachers have to mark said homework it must be a wash with their hours whilst making it more difficult for parents ?
Ah, the coursework generation. I find them to be universally useless in the real world.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Now we are leaving the EU, this means that by the mid 2020s, we will actually get around to discussing the root causes of our problems. Well, maybe 2030.
Why on earth will leaving the EU stopped us irrationally blaming the EU for complex long term problems just because we've left ? Are Michigan and Ohio in the EU ?
Would it be reasonable to assume that the bookies find it much more difficult to track a low-key by election like this when compared with the likes of Richmond or Eastleigh? I cannot imagine that much money has been invested in this contest. I say this as someone who has never bet on politics.
Well the Tories will win. Put as much as you like on the 1-7 on that if its still available.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Unlikely, but we have to be realistic. I don't think any government will have the balls to cut in-working benefits, and on that basis something else has to give to cut migration and drive up productivity.
It's like smacking the telly when it doesn't work*. Not exactly root cause and as likely as not ineffective.
*you are too young to remember..
I remember hitting the back of the TV! And being told by the salesperson at John Lewis not to hit the back of the LCD we got when they had just come out.
Still, it all comes down to people wanting a change and taking a punt. There are enough people in this country who have been left behind by globalisation, they voted to try and reverse that.
Globalisation is more about opening up our markets to the LDCs, for example, than a set of complicated EU widget regulations.
Yes, and to many people in this country that meant adding Eastern Europe to the EU. A mistake that was repeated with Romania and Bulgaria.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit.
The deficit is less than the total of overseas aid, EU fees and debt interest. Everything else is funded.
13bn - post rebate EU contribution* 12bn - overseas aid 43bn - interest
does indeed almost exactly equal the 69bn deficit.
*But* I think the interest on our debt needs to be paid, whether we like it or not.
* I'm not including spending in the UK that we'd have to do anyway
Debt interest seems to be heading to £50bn a year based on the most recent public sector finances report. It's the spiralling expenditure. Over £4bn a month YTD.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Yes of course. It was shocking. And there's nothing wrong with looking at ways of reversing it. But the root cause is not the EU, it was of course successive U.K. Governments.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
Now we are leaving the EU, this means that by the mid 2020s, we will actually get around to discussing the root causes of our problems. Well, maybe 2030.
I have said time and again that leaving the EU isn't a cure for this country's problems. Staying in however, must by any measure be considered to be an impediment to finding solutions for them.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit.
The deficit is less than the total of overseas aid, EU fees and debt interest. Everything else is funded.
13bn - post rebate EU contribution* 12bn - overseas aid 43bn - interest
does indeed almost exactly equal the 69bn deficit.
*But* I think the interest on our debt needs to be paid, whether we like it or not.
* I'm not including spending in the UK that we'd have to do anyway
Debt interest seems to be heading to £50bn a year based on the most recent public sector finances report. It's the spiralling expenditure. Over £4bn a month YTD.
A fair chunk of that comes back to the government via the APF.
Would it be reasonable to assume that the bookies find it much more difficult to track a low-key by election like this when compared with the likes of Richmond or Eastleigh? I cannot imagine that much money has been invested in this contest. I say this as someone who has never bet on politics.
Well the Tories will win. Put as much as you like on the 1-7 on that if its still available.
Second place is much much trickier.
Thanks for that. I have no wish to bet at all but am a bit intrigued as to how the bookies can gauge likely party support levels when there has been little coverage and no polling at all.
So Linda McMahon getting a place in the Trump Administration. The McMahon's (Linda along with Vince) are by far tge single largest non-Trump donator to the Trump Foundation.
I give you a broken umbrella in a rainstorm, it then blows away, depriving you of what little protection it afforded. They are different degrees of shitness.
So Linda McMahon getting a place in the Trump Administration. The McMahon's (Linda along with Vince) are by far tge single largest non-Trump donator to the Trump Foundation.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Cameron's deal was always going to be a limited one. The EU is a multilateral organisation running by consensus. They would never agree anything particularly out of line for one member. It wasn't a case of the EU being unreformable. It was a case of Britain never really understanding what kind of outfit the EU is, and needs to be to do its job.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
No, we cannot afford to cut taxes until we have dealt with the deficit.
The deficit is less than the total of overseas aid, EU fees and debt interest. Everything else is funded.
13bn - post rebate EU contribution* 12bn - overseas aid 43bn - interest
does indeed almost exactly equal the 69bn deficit.
*But* I think the interest on our debt needs to be paid, whether we like it or not.
* I'm not including spending in the UK that we'd have to do anyway
Debt interest seems to be heading to £50bn a year based on the most recent public sector finances report. It's the spiralling expenditure. Over £4bn a month YTD.
A fair chunk of that comes back to the government via the APF.
And a primary surplus (ie pre interest) would be an important milestone in its own right
well no referendum, no election victory so it was devil and the deep blue sea. I understand that people criticise his decision to offer one just to assuage kippers and his bastards, but, unlike the Labour Party, at least he got that being in power is the critical issue.
As to your other point, yes. Most people thought that the EU was just a jumped up trade organisation opining on the shape of bananas. Few had clocked the move towards federalisation and ever closer union. But that it had was one of the reasons I believe Dave's deal was a good one, under the circumstances.
By the way, this Ridgeview "Bloomsbury" English sparkling wine is actually rather good.
Their Fitzrovia wine is nice and worth trying if you haven't already. I picked up a bottle the other day. I was after a bottle of Gusbourne Rose which was out of stock and didn't want to leave empty handed.
We have the Fitzrovia as well, we just haven't opened a bottle yet We got a Christmas mixed case of English sparkly, and my wife and I have been celebrating her selling three paintings in the last month.
(Fitzrovia has a special place in my wife and my life: it was where we met and where we lived together for the first four years of our relationship.)
Would it be reasonable to assume that the bookies find it much more difficult to track a low-key by election like this when compared with the likes of Richmond or Eastleigh? I cannot imagine that much money has been invested in this contest. I say this as someone who has never bet on politics.
Well the Tories will win. Put as much as you like on the 1-7 on that if its still available.
Second place is much much trickier.
Thanks for that. I have no wish to bet at all but am a bit intrigued as to how the bookies can gauge likely party support levels when there has been little coverage and no polling at all.
They don't need to forecast the outcome, that is for the punters. The bookies just need to balance their book by taking bets on all outcomes, and keep a percent.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Cameron's deal was always going to be a limited one. The EU is a multilateral organisation running by consensus. They would never agree anything particularly out of line for one member. It wasn't a case of the EU being unreformable. It was a case of Britain never really understanding what kind of outfit the EU is, and needs to be to do its job.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
He was set up to fail by himself. He went asking for nothing and got exactly what he asked for. He then thought that his own personal word would be enough to convince the public that the pig was not in the poke. That he failed to do that is a glorious thing as it meant he was brought down by his own idiotic arrogance.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Cameron's deal was always going to be a limited one. The EU is a multilateral organisation running by consensus. They would never agree anything particularly out of line for one member. It wasn't a case of the EU being unreformable. It was a case of Britain never really understanding what kind of outfit the EU is, and needs to be to do its job.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
He was set up to fail by himself. He went asking for nothing and got exactly what he asked for. He then thought that his own personal word would be enough to convince the public that the pig was not in the poke. That he failed to do that is a glorious thing as it meant he was brought down by his own idiotic arrogance.
Hubris then nemesis.
(Am I right in thinking you're going Blue tomorrow?)
We've not noticed because of their implosion but the new UKIP leader Nutall has already changed policy. He's now saying we shouldn't go down the A50 route but unilaterally repeal the ECA and negotiate a single FTA vum Divorce deal instead from the outside.
The fact this is nuts is irrelevant. Populists will never be satisfied. Brexit will have been too slow, to soft, will have happened in name only. If we get a bad deal things will still be the EU's fault because they wouldn't be reasonable. That's before we get to any transitional deal adding years to it.
Nuttal shows the way forward. As soon as UKIP gets what it wants, Brexit, he moves the goal posts and says no A50. Brexit will take too long. I suspect the " all EU migrants can stay " will be next to go. Expect minor exemptions to start creeping in. Even minor criminal offences, the unemployed for over 6 months. Nothing will satisfy them.
Cameron and "The Deal" may go down in history like "let them eat cake" and the shot that started WW1.
That moment when history pivoted. Brexit began. Trump was elected. And the EU began to unravel..?
In 100 years time, Cameron may be the only PM from our time that people remember...
I don't think many people remember who the PM was that took Britain into WW1, thus making it WW1.
Pitt? Or Newcastle? But although it may have been the first world war they didn't get the branding right
Whatever they might call it, it wasn't even really the first World War. I would suggest that dubious honour should be awarded to the Seven Years War. It was fought in Europe, North, Central and South America, The Caribbean, India, the Philippines and Africa.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Cameron's deal was always going to be a limited one. The EU is a multilateral organisation running by consensus. They would never agree anything particularly out of line for one member. It wasn't a case of the EU being unreformable. It was a case of Britain never really understanding what kind of outfit the EU is, and needs to be to do its job.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
He was set up to fail by himself. He went asking for nothing and got exactly what he asked for. He then thought that his own personal word would be enough to convince the public that the pig was not in the poke. That he failed to do that is a glorious thing as it meant he was brought down by his own idiotic arrogance.
Hubris then nemesis.
(Am I right in thinking you're going Blue tomorrow?)
Oh yes. As I have said on here recently, UKIP have served their purpose and should now die. I don't like political parties at the best of times and see no reason to support another one now the only real reason for their existence is gone.
Edit: and of course on principle I couldn't vote for Ayling no matter which party she supported.
We've not noticed because of their implosion but the new UKIP leader Nutall has already changed policy. He's now saying we shouldn't go down the A50 route but unilaterally repeal the ECA and negotiate a single FTA vum Divorce deal instead from the outside.
The fact this is nuts is irrelevant. Populists will never be satisfied. Brexit will have been too slow, to soft, will have happened in name only. If we get a bad deal things will still be the EU's fault because they wouldn't be reasonable. That's before we get to any transitional deal adding years to it.
Nuttal shows the way forward. As soon as UKIP gets what it wants, Brexit, he moves the goal posts and says no A50. Brexit will take too long. I suspect the " all EU migrants can stay " will be next to go. Expect minor exemptions to start creeping in. Even minor criminal offences, the unemployed for over 6 months. Nothing will satisfy them.
Repealing the European Communities Act on its own would make a host of existing laws contradictory, enriching lawyers through the land. It would also remove us from some double taxation arrangements with our continental brethren, which could have some very serious consequences.
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
Cameron's deal was always going to be a limited one. The EU is a multilateral organisation running by consensus. They would never agree anything particularly out of line for one member. It wasn't a case of the EU being unreformable. It was a case of Britain never really understanding what kind of outfit the EU is, and needs to be to do its job.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
He was set up to fail by himself. He went asking for nothing and got exactly what he asked for. He then thought that his own personal word would be enough to convince the public that the pig was not in the poke. That he failed to do that is a glorious thing as it meant he was brought down by his own idiotic arrogance.
Hubris then nemesis.
(Am I right in thinking you're going Blue tomorrow?)
Oh yes. As I have said on here recently, UKIP have served their purpose and should now die. I don't like political parties at the best of times and see no reason to support another one now the only real reason for their existence is gone.
Edit: and of course on principle I couldn't vote for Ayling no matter which party she supported.
She does sound a particularly unpleasant piece of work.
Blimey, reading the comments about Cameron: never has so much history been rewritten so quickly and so absurdly by so many
Come on Richard, you must know that Cammo made one hell of mess with the EU that he had to commit political sepuku. And he did, just as a gentleman would.
Nor for Sarah Palin, which would have made things even more interesting than it already is.
Palin has already gone off message criticising the Carrier Deal as Crony Capitalism. She's a bit like a globalising Brexiter who thought they could keep control of the mob.
We've not noticed because of their implosion but the new UKIP leader Nutall has already changed policy. He's now saying we shouldn't go down the A50 route but unilaterally repeal the ECA and negotiate a single FTA vum Divorce deal instead from the outside.
The fact this is nuts is irrelevant. Populists will never be satisfied. Brexit will have been too slow, to soft, will have happened in name only. If we get a bad deal things will still be the EU's fault because they wouldn't be reasonable. That's before we get to any transitional deal adding years to it.
Nuttal shows the way forward. As soon as UKIP gets what it wants, Brexit, he moves the goal posts and says no A50. Brexit will take too long. I suspect the " all EU migrants can stay " will be next to go. Expect minor exemptions to start creeping in. Even minor criminal offences, the unemployed for over 6 months. Nothing will satisfy them.
True, but they will continue to splinter into irrelevant warring factions.
Repealing the European Communities Act on its own would make a host of existing laws contradictory, enriching lawyers through the land. It would also remove us from some double taxation arrangements with our continental brethren, which could have some very serious consequences.
And we would still be members of the EU, bound by the treaties. It's bat-shit crazy bonkers.
Nor for Sarah Palin, which would have made things even more interesting than it already is.
Palin has already gone off message criticising the Carrier Deal as Crony Capitalism. She's a bit like a globalising Brexiter who thought they could keep control of the mob.
Yes, Palin's Tea Party actually has little in common with Trump's Deplorables. Will be interesting to see if a big fault line develops between these two anti-establishment GOP movements over the coming years.
Come on Richard, you must know that Cammo made one hell of mess with the EU that he had to commit political sepuku. And he did, just as a gentleman would.
He did very well, it was an excellent deal - in fact, pretty much exactly the kind of gentle disengagement from ever-closer union, whilst retaining all the advantages of EU membership, which we've been seeking for decades. However, the public were not convinced. There were lots of reasons for that, most notably Angela Merkel, and the collapse of the Labour Party.
Repealing the European Communities Act on its own would make a host of existing laws contradictory, enriching lawyers through the land. It would also remove us from some double taxation arrangements with our continental brethren, which could have some very serious consequences.
And we would still be members of the EU, bound by the treaties. It's bat-shit crazy bonkers.
There's an increasingly prevalent meme among the frothers that says Article 50 isn't needed and we can just get out now at the stroke of a pen and save the 2 years of contributions that we would have to pay during the negotiation period.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Plus the holidays! Schools are not baybysitters.
No, but just 15 years ago when I was in school it was 8:30-4, now it's 9-3, what happened to that extra hour and a half? Plus I think a longer school day could be used to add a daily hour of physical activity for every child in the country. Not babysitting so much as getting our kids active.
Anecdotally homework seems to have increased, and actual school hours decreased.
Since teachers have to mark said homework it must be a wash with their hours whilst making it more difficult for parents ?
Ah, the coursework generation. I find them to be universally useless in the real world.
In actual fact teaching hours have increased, the standard when I was at school was a 4 hour and 40 minutes day (4 1 hour 10 minute lessons) now it is almost always 5 hours (either 5 1 hour lessons or 6 50 minute lessons) what has changed is the length of breaks much reduced, in some cases to help manage behaviour. As pointed out by other posters a longer school day is unlikely to increase achievement as pupils will lose concentration.
There's an increasingly prevalent meme among the frothers that says Article 50 isn't needed and we can just get out now at the stroke of a pen and save the 2 years of contributions that we would have to pay during the negotiation period.
We can unilaterally abrogate any treaty, if we don't mind the international consequences.
Repealing the European Communities Act on its own would make a host of existing laws contradictory, enriching lawyers through the land. It would also remove us from some double taxation arrangements with our continental brethren, which could have some very serious consequences.
And we would still be members of the EU, bound by the treaties. It's bat-shit crazy bonkers.
There's an increasingly prevalent meme among the frothers that says Article 50 isn't needed and we can just get out now at the stroke of a pen and save the 2 years of contributions that we would have to pay during the negotiation period.
Is it really Doc Nuttalls policy? doesnt it have to be agreed by the NEC or does the Fuhrer principle apply?
Incidentally, is that really who Snowflake was? Bloody hell. I'm not sure I quite believe it (not that I thought Snowflake was stupid, but it would result in me downgrading my previous assessment of a certain Labour MP) ... another reason I'm not sure (or perhaps I am getting mixed up with another female poster of that vintage) is that I vaguely recall she had a blog somewhere, which didn't seem very MP-ey.
There's an increasingly prevalent meme among the frothers that says Article 50 isn't needed and we can just get out now at the stroke of a pen and save the 2 years of contributions that we would have to pay during the negotiation period.
We can unilaterally abrogate any treaty, if we don't mind the international consequences.
Needless to say, these people believe this to be a viable option because an expert has said so.
Nor for Sarah Palin, which would have made things even more interesting than it already is.
Palin has already gone off message criticising the Carrier Deal as Crony Capitalism. She's a bit like a globalising Brexiter who thought they could keep control of the mob.
Yes, Palin's Tea Party actually has little in common with Trump's Deplorables. Will be interesting to see if a big fault line develops between these two anti-establishment GOP movements over the coming years.
Nor for Sarah Palin, which would have made things even more interesting than it already is.
Palin has already gone off message criticising the Carrier Deal as Crony Capitalism. She's a bit like a globalising Brexiter who thought they could keep control of the mob.
Yes, Palin's Tea Party actually has little in common with Trump's Deplorables. Will be interesting to see if a big fault line develops between these two anti-establishment GOP movements over the coming years.
Cruz was the Tea Party candidate. What Trump may have shown is that any appeal the Tea Party has had is really due to its outsider status and not its policies.
Isn't that the problem with in-working benefits though? Brown used them as a cynical way of addicting the not actually poor to state largesse knowing it would be political suicide to reverse it.
My favoured solution is to raise the minimum wage to £12/h, eliminate in-working benefits and eliminate employer's NI and introduce free childcare for 1-4 year olds. Extending the school day to 9-5 would also be favourable as well, not just for the kids but for working parents as well.
Whats the current "normal" school day ?
I always did 9 - 4.
9-3 according to my mum, who is a teaching assistant. It makes it impossible for a single parent to have a full time job without paying for additional childcare. Also judging by how shit our education system is, 9-5 might make our kids learn a bit more.
It would still be tricky, as most parents would need to get them to and from.
Plus the holidays! Schools are not baybysitters.
No, but just 15 years ago when I was in school it was 8:30-4, now it's 9-3, what happened to that extra hour and a half? Plus I think a longer school day could be used to add a daily hour of physical activity for every child in the country. Not babysitting so much as getting our kids active.
Anecdotally homework seems to have increased, and actual school hours decreased.
Since teachers have to mark said homework it must be a wash with their hours whilst making it more difficult for parents ?
Ah, the coursework generation. I find them to be universally useless in the real world.
In actual fact teaching hours have increased, the standard when I was at school was a 4 hour and 40 minutes day (4 1 hour 10 minute lessons) now it is almost always 5 hours (either 5 1 hour lessons or 6 50 minute lessons) what has changed is the length of breaks much reduced, in some cases to help manage behaviour. As pointed out by other posters a longer school day is unlikely to increase achievement as pupils will lose concentration.
When I was at school in the late 70s early 80s it was 5x 1 hour lessons and school ran from 8.40 to 3.45. So there has been no change in the daily amount of time given to teaching (5 hours) as far as I can see.
Oh god. Louise Mensch (aka 'test') is on QT tonight.
Snowflake?
Snowflake5 is (or was) a Labour MP.
Louise Mensch went by the screen name 'test'.
Was? Yvette is still an MP!
I am trying to maintain a small element of mystery...
I thought we didn't do the whole "outing" thing on here...
Mr Farage, another word and I'll out you too
Don't tell him, Pike!
One of the more frightening things about the internet is how much we give away, in accumulation of little scraps, and how permanent it is online if folk look in the right places...
I'm not at all a public figure, but even back in the pre-Vanilla, pre-Disqus era I would have been fairly readily identifiable by anybody who had (for whatever unhealthy reason) cared enough to gather the evidence and go google-hunting. With everything I've added since, the identification part might be more conclusive though not necessarily easier, as there'd be rather more to wade through!
I've sometimes seen this kind of fishing / internet comment fossil-hunting expedition when one blogger has fallen out with another and it your most controversial comments get dredged up, preferably out of context, it can make for a pretty nasty attack piece.
There's an increasingly prevalent meme among the frothers that says Article 50 isn't needed and we can just get out now at the stroke of a pen and save the 2 years of contributions that we would have to pay during the negotiation period.
We can unilaterally abrogate any treaty, if we don't mind the international consequences.
Needless to say, these people believe this to be a viable option because an expert has said so.
Which expert? Seriously, I have never heard anyone with a passing knowledge of the EU claim that we can simply repeal the 1972 act and walk away. Of course I have heard lots of ill informed wannabe experts claim it but I assume you are talking about a real expert?
As a matter of interest will the Government officially notify the Supreme Court of todays vote, especially in view of Lord Neuberger, the Courts most senior judge, comments yesterday admitting the public would find it odd that a Parliamentary vote in favour of Brexit was not enough to begin the process of quitting the EU.
He also said it could be argued that the authority to leave the EU had been ceded to the people by the referendum
Comments
I was thinking of this by-election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_and_Chelsea_by-election,_1999
I always did 9 - 4.
Get the incentives right, and human nature will do the rest.
Taxation drives down disposable incomes and increases the need for welfare for many lower/middle income earners.
There is a vast amount of Peter giving to Paul involved in tax and spend. The cynic might suggest that it gives the middle man control. The state is involved in too many household incomes.
I seem to spend a lot of time on here pointing out that the problems and challenges we have today with society (education, skills, in-work benefits, etc) are not the fault of our EU membership and our Brexit is not going to imagically solve them.
Do you really think that leaving the EU presages reform of in-work benefits?
All that being said, I'm not sure how much correlation there is between school day length and academic achievement. Because there are so many factors it's hard to work out what's important and what isn't.
*you are too young to remember..
12bn - overseas aid
43bn - interest
does indeed almost exactly equal the 69bn deficit.
*But* I think the interest on our debt needs to be paid, whether we like it or not.
* I'm not including spending in the UK that we'd have to do anyway
Is your problem that it was a bad deal or that it was unenforceable? If the former, then surely the EU would have wanted to enforce it; if the latter, then surely it mattered not what the content was.
All Brexit does is launch an experiment in trying to close that market rate/expectation gap in wages by restricting EU immigration rather than cash transfers. I could sarcastically say " Good Luck with that " but the sarcasm ship has sailed. Brexit has begun. This is a live experiment.
Since teachers have to mark said homework it must be a wash with their hours whilst making it more difficult for parents ?
Still, it all comes down to people wanting a change and taking a punt. There are enough people in this country who have been left behind by globalisation, they voted to try and reverse that.
Second place is much much trickier.
Talk about pay to play.
I give you a broken umbrella in a rainstorm, it then blows away, depriving you of what little protection it afforded. They are different degrees of shitness.
Or something.
I have some sympathy for Cameron. He was set up to fail by elements within his party. However as seasoned politician he should have had the nous to stay away from mantraps.
well no referendum, no election victory so it was devil and the deep blue sea. I understand that people criticise his decision to offer one just to assuage kippers and his bastards, but, unlike the Labour Party, at least he got that being in power is the critical issue.
As to your other point, yes. Most people thought that the EU was just a jumped up trade organisation opining on the shape of bananas. Few had clocked the move towards federalisation and ever closer union. But that it had was one of the reasons I believe Dave's deal was a good one, under the circumstances.
(Fitzrovia has a special place in my wife and my life: it was where we met and where we lived together for the first four years of our relationship.)
(Am I right in thinking you're going Blue tomorrow?)
The fact this is nuts is irrelevant. Populists will never be satisfied. Brexit will have been too slow, to soft, will have happened in name only. If we get a bad deal things will still be the EU's fault because they wouldn't be reasonable. That's before we get to any transitional deal adding years to it.
Nuttal shows the way forward. As soon as UKIP gets what it wants, Brexit, he moves the goal posts and says no A50. Brexit will take too long. I suspect the " all EU migrants can stay " will be next to go. Expect minor exemptions to start creeping in. Even minor criminal offences, the unemployed for over 6 months. Nothing will satisfy them.
Edit: and of course on principle I couldn't vote for Ayling no matter which party she supported.
Louise Mensch went by the screen name 'test'.
* It was an excellent article.
"Expert explains why kangaroo punched by zookeeper had dog in headlock"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/12/06/trump-traumatizes-democrats/?utm_term=.d367d6763ac6
Hecht was Michael Howard's family's original name.
I'm not at all a public figure, but even back in the pre-Vanilla, pre-Disqus era I would have been fairly readily identifiable by anybody who had (for whatever unhealthy reason) cared enough to gather the evidence and go google-hunting. With everything I've added since, the identification part might be more conclusive though not necessarily easier, as there'd be rather more to wade through!
I've sometimes seen this kind of fishing / internet comment fossil-hunting expedition when one blogger has fallen out with another and it your most controversial comments get dredged up, preferably out of context, it can make for a pretty nasty attack piece.
I mean I knew some people on here had some strange habits but really......
He also said it could be argued that the authority to leave the EU had been ceded to the people by the referendum