I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
Very true. Middle class children tend to be living with both their biological parents when they reach adulthood; working class children tend not to be, a huge advantage for the former over the latter.
The Maori did better because they were good at war, and rapidly learned how to use firearms efficiently.
Horrible as the treatment of the Native Americans was, they were quite capable of meting out horrible treatment as well. Had they been sufficiently numerous and well-armed, there would not be any White people left in North America.
The Maori story is fascinating - the Waitangi Treaty (timely with Waitangi Day just two days ago) was more an attempt to forestall a French move to take control of the islands. It's often forgotten most of the South Island was uninhabited - the Maori were on the North Island and only on the north shore of the South Island. There was a Catholic mission in Russell and the British feared the Maori would do a deal with the French.
As for North America, yes, the various Native tribes were known to be brutal but I'm left wondering if the defeat of the Iroquois League was more to do with smallpox and gold then numbers or muskets. Had the Native Americans been resistant to European illnesses (and the same is true of the Aztecs), I wonder how the history of the Americas would have turned out.
The impact of disease was certainly very significant in Mexico. I think that in North America, the natives would still have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of European immigrants.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the diseases largely favoured the natives, and meant that European settlement wasn't significant outside South Africa.
The slaughter of millions of bison was eye-boggling
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
That's actually a good idea, people operate better with two days a week of time off to relax and chew things over.
Leaders don't have that luxury. Stuff happens and the buck stops with them.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
I didn't say he shouldn't respond if shit blows up.
Shit blows up all the time. Sure, he can - and should - schedule time off but the idea that he can take Monday afternoon off because he worked Sunday morning seems naive at best.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
As someone who wants a second referendum on Scottish Independence and would be very pleased if they attained it, I think such a plan would be suicidal. In exactly the same way that it would have been idiotic for a UK Government to just declare they were leaving the EU with no formal process, the same would apply to Scotland leaving the UK. None of the major issues which would need to be resolved to ensure independence was a success would be sorted out and there would be a significant minority verging on a majority of Scots who would be opposed to the plan.
For all that the ill informed hot heads in both the Brexit and the Scots Independence movements might like the idea, unilateral declarations are no way to ensure the success of independence unless under the threat of violence and oppression from the existing state. Something that does not apply in the case of either Brexit or Scottish Independence.
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
I just read this comment on the web site of a Canadian newspaper:
"Every country has a province or state that takes lots of money/grants, are opposed to almost everything, almost bankrupt, the bed of socialism, morally correct on all issues (in their own minds), special treatment, the universe of special interest groups, and so and so on. We have our Quebec and the U.S. has their California."
He'll probably stay on as the 'identity left' (Lead by Abbott) will fall out with the very hard left (Skinner, McDonnell) - who in turn will have the toys out the pram with the moderate left, and of course the continuity Blairites.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances
Very true. Middle class children tend to be living with both their biological parents when they reach adulthood; working class children tend not to be, a huge advantage for the former over the latter.
It is also why working class immigrants from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe tend to overtake their white British and Caribbean neighbours. A stable family home and being religious are good predictors of school performance.
Replace 'Corbyn' and 'McDonnell' with 'Blair' and 'Brown' and it works equally well. "Politicians discuss leader's departure" is not so much 'dog bites man' as 'dog eats dinner'.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
snip
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
What is this '67p' tax break ?
Is it 67p in the pound or just 67p ?!
It is approximately, as far as I remember, the value of a tax break invented by David Cameron for the newly wed.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
snip
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
What is this '67p' tax break ?
Is it 67p in the pound or just 67p ?!
It is approximately, as far as I remember, the value of a tax break invented by David Cameron for the newly wed.
If one is well off, the tax breaks for getting married are huge.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
snip
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
snip?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
What is this '67p' tax break ?
Is it 67p in the pound or just 67p ?!
It is approximately, as far as I remember, the value of a tax break invented by David Cameron for the newly wed.
If one is well off, the tax breaks for getting married are huge.
OK, but what we are after is an incentive for the underclass to marry.
That is a rolling daily poll and is yesterday's result, today Macron has slipped back a notch. Fillon seems to be hanging on in there and seems to have stemmed the loss of support. Steady at 20 for the past three days in this poll.
On topic: Excellent, as ever, Cyclefree and I broadly agree. You've never once written a piece that one could airily dismiss - even when I've disagreed, I would have had to pick apart points of disagreement line by line - and even with my tendency to verbosity that presents a challenge!
Point 5 about holding Westernised democracies, including the US and - dare I say - Israel, to different, often higher, standards is a good one (although we perhaps sometimes excuse each other on military interventionism), and is the only prism through which one could argue, at this stage, for the exclusion of Trump.
I like in point 6 how, having previously made strong points on the value of women, you feel able to use the 'playground full of teenage girls' analogy. I approve heartily - true political correctness should focussed on real human dignity, not the denial of difference or the eschewal of any piece of truth that might be gleaned from stereotype.
Personally, I'm relaxed on Trump's visit and his addressing of parliament - it's a distraction from the bigger concern about the sort of faustian deals we might do with him over the coming years. And a state visit, to sit him down and have a nonagenarian lady who lived through the blitz explain to him chapter and verse the ills of that age, sits well with my liberal liking for restorative justice
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
As someone who wants a second referendum on Scottish Independence and would be very pleased if they attained it, I think such a plan would be suicidal. In exactly the same way that it would have been idiotic for a UK Government to just declare they were leaving the EU with no formal process, the same would apply to Scotland leaving the UK. None of the major issues which would need to be resolved to ensure independence was a success would be sorted out and there would be a significant minority verging on a majority of Scots who would be opposed to the plan.
For all that the ill informed hot heads in both the Brexit and the Scots Independence movements might like the idea, unilateral declarations are no way to ensure the success of independence unless under the threat of violence and oppression from the existing state. Something that does not apply in the case of either Brexit or Scottish Independence.
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
I wouldn't get bogged down in the details. In 10-20 years, whatever the chaos of UDI, the Scots will have settled down to their post-UK reality.
The analogy being the likely disruption that any kind of Brexit will cause over the next 2-10 years. Thereafter we will be free and the ruining of this generation's economic well-being, should that transpire, will be seen as a necessary stage on our road to freedom.
I just read this comment on the web site of a Canadian newspaper:
"Every country has a province or state that takes lots of money/grants, are opposed to almost everything, almost bankrupt, the bed of socialism, morally correct on all issues (in their own minds), special treatment, the universe of special interest groups, and so and so on. We have our Quebec and the U.S. has their California."
I guess in the UK we have London.
Islington - to be precise - or, metaphorically you can find them twitterstorming.
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
That's actually a good idea, people operate better with two days a week of time off to relax and chew things over.
Leaders don't have that luxury. Stuff happens and the buck stops with them.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
I didn't say he shouldn't respond if shit blows up.
Shit blows up all the time. Sure, he can - and should - schedule time off but the idea that he can take Monday afternoon off because he worked Sunday morning seems naive at best.
I'll admit I've never led a her majesty's opposition. But if you're in a job where you have a team, you get to decide when they work and what they do, and you can't get through a typical 24 hour period without multiple things blowing up that nobody else is authorized to handle, you're doing it wrong.
There are some exceptions to this, but they mostly involve jobs that were done by a dog or a rabbit in a Richard Scarry book.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
As someone who wants a second referendum on Scottish Independence and would be very
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
I wouldn't get bogged down in the details. In 10-20 years, whatever the chaos of UDI, the Scots will have settled down to their post-UK reality.
The analogy being the likely disruption that any kind of Brexit will cause over the next 2-10 years. Thereafter we will be free and the ruining of this generation's economic well-being, should that transpire, will be seen as a necessary stage on our road to freedom.
The question is whether Scots would feel under any obligation to obey a government that simply declared UDI. What if, say, the Court of Session (or the Supreme Court) ruled that UDI was illegal?
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
The decision doesn't undermine the institution of marriage at all. The pension scheme provided for survivors' pensions for unmarried partners, but only if a nomination form had been completed by the deceased. All the case decided was that last requirement was unlawful.
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
When you are lying in a hospital bed, and your next of kin get to decide whether to switch off life support, would you rather it was your partner or your uncle who you last saw 15 years ago making the decision?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances
Very true. Middle class children tend to be living with both their biological parents when they reach adulthood; working class children tend not to be, a huge advantage for the former over the latter.
It is also why working class immigrants from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe tend to overtake their white British and Caribbean neighbours. A stable family home and being religious are good predictors of school performance.
Yes but amongst Asian groups, we can still see class effects, so religion and race are probably not causal factors.
Extraordinary story in @PrivateEyeNews that Corbyn takes time off in lieu whenever he has to work on a Sunday, such appearing on Marr
That's actually a good idea, people operate better with two days a week of time off to relax and chew things over.
Leaders don't have that luxury. Stuff happens and the buck stops with them.
(It would be possible for a leader to work with a much reduced workload if s/he had a very capable and united team under them, and clear and effective guidelines to work to. Labour has yet to convince on this point).
I didn't say he shouldn't respond if shit blows up.
Shit blows up all the time. Sure, he can - and should - schedule time off but the idea that he can take Monday afternoon off because he worked Sunday morning seems naive at best.
I'll admit I've never led a her majesty's opposition. But if you're in a job where you have a team, and you can't get through a typical 24 hour period without multiple things blowing up that nobody else is authorized to handle, you're doing it wrong.
There are some exceptions to this, but they mostly involve jobs that were done by a dog or a rabbit in a Richard Scarry book.
In the light of the makeup of the current shadow cabinet perhaps we should avoid rhetoric which employs the idea of things blowing up.
If one is well off, the tax breaks for getting married are huge.
The only tax break I could see is if you have a non earning partner the personal allowance can be shipped over.
There are huge savings on Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
When Randolph Churchill stood for parliament in Devonport in 1950, some of his London friends helpfully canvassed for him by knocking on doors (in one of the very poorest parts of the country) and asking "do you want to carry on paying super tax at nineteen shillings and six in the £ for the rest of your life?" Same problem here, if we are talking about incentives to the underclass.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
As someone who wants a second referendum on Scottish Independence and would be very
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
I wouldn't get bogged down in the details. In 10-20 years, whatever the chaos of UDI, the Scots will have settled down to their post-UK reality.
The analogy being the likely disruption that any kind of Brexit will cause over the next 2-10 years. Thereafter we will be free and the ruining of this generation's economic well-being, should that transpire, will be seen as a necessary stage on our road to freedom.
The question is whether Scots would feel under any obligation to obey a government that simply declared UDI. What if, say, the Court of Session (or the Supreme Court) ruled that UDI was illegal?
Yes well of course no one is saying it isn't fraught with risk.
I just read this comment on the web site of a Canadian newspaper:
"Every country has a province or state that takes lots of money/grants, are opposed to almost everything, almost bankrupt, the bed of socialism, morally correct on all issues (in their own minds), special treatment, the universe of special interest groups, and so and so on. We have our Quebec and the U.S. has their California."
I guess in the UK we have London.
Surely California (and London) are subsidising most of the rest of the country.
I just read this comment on the web site of a Canadian newspaper:
"Every country has a province or state that takes lots of money/grants, are opposed to almost everything, almost bankrupt, the bed of socialism, morally correct on all issues (in their own minds), special treatment, the universe of special interest groups, and so and so on. We have our Quebec and the U.S. has their California."
I guess in the UK we have London.
California pays more in federal taxes than it gets back in spending.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
The spin line from the Zoomers this morning is that this polling comes after "no campaigning for Indy since 2014"
getting worried Scott, your thinking re Nicola not wanting another referendum being reconsidered perhaps.
If one is well off, the tax breaks for getting married are huge.
The only tax break I could see is if you have a non earning partner the personal allowance can be shipped over.
There are huge savings on Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
When Randolph Churchill stood for parliament in Devonport in 1950, some of his London friends helpfully canvassed for him by knocking on doors (in one of the very poorest parts of the country) and asking "do you want to carry on paying super tax at nineteen shillings and six in the £ for the rest of your life?" Same problem here, if we are talking about incentives to the underclass.
At the bottom end of the income scale, the incentives of housing benefit and tax credits work against couples living together - often massively so, to the tune of hundreds of pounds a week. Fixing that isn't going to be an easy job though.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Lol you are an optimistic unionist for sure, wind in your face , less than MOE , trend against you and yetyou tyink you will win, crazy. Do you actually watch what si happening , Tories are slapping Scotland in the face daily , they obviously want a referendum or are stupid.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
He wouldn't move to the centre until he got the job, silly.
I seem to remember reading in some of my company pension blurb at one time that the trustees have the discretion to give a dependent's pension to a non-relative, such as a partner - if you had named them as the person you would like to receive a pension, then this would make such a decision more likely.
It is this sort of uncertainty that makes couples get married or enter civil partnerships when they otherwise would be content without the formality.
If you're not prepared to enter into a commitment to your partner, why should your pension scheme?
Well quite. Surely the whole point of a wedding is that two people stand up in public and make a commitment to each other. That formal commitment comes with it obligations, responsibilities and benefits. In my mind decisions like this undermine the institution of marriage.
snip
So why bother getting married, if such complex things as inheritance law related to pensions can work out without marriage?
snip?
There was a bizarre article in the Telegraph the other day about how Brexit would save marriage. Clearly a bonkers argument, but there were some interesting stats.
In 1970 around 90% of children were born in wedlock, now it is about 40% for working class, while still around 90% for professionals. Presumably this reflects the decline of marriage in other situations too. It is right that the law starts to develop case law as to obligations in such circumstances.
Incidentally, being born out of wedlock is a major factor in reduced social mobility, probably an indicator of other suboptimal domestic measures and irreligiosity. Sorting this out would do far more than grammar schools in improving social mobility.
No, it is significantly correlated with reduced social mobility. And what would sorting it out entail - a tax break worth 67p in the year of marriage - bearing in mind that being a net tax payer may currently be correlated with getting married?
What is this '67p' tax break ?
Is it 67p in the pound or just 67p ?!
It is approximately, as far as I remember, the value of a tax break invented by David Cameron for the newly wed.
If one is well off, the tax breaks for getting married are huge.
OK, but what we are after is an incentive for the underclass to marry.
With regard to a couple of posts (sorry can't remember who, Plato?) - There is a difference between criticising a judge and his judgement. In fact it would be odd not to be critical of the judgement. One might argue why did you bring the case if you are not unhappy about losing.
Also someone posted a link to someone claiming Bercow was a hypocrite because he voted for the Iraq war. Now I think Bercow is wrong by what he has done recently and he certainly seems a hypocrite re his reaction to others invited to speak to Parliament, but the Iraq war claim is daft. He probably voted honestly with the information available at the time as did most MPs at the time. Again I think they were wrong, but this is a spurious thing to throw at him regarding the latest events.
I'm only an interested observer in politics, but it was obvious at the time that Blair had decided to go to war in Iraq and that the 45 minutes 'dodgy dossier' was a fig leaf. I can't imagine that any MP 'voted honestly with the information available at the time'. I'm sure that they voted politically.
Yes I'm sure you are right. I worded that badly (wrong in fact), but I don't think this (unlike other events) makes Bercow a hypocrite and no more than most other MPs who also voted the same. The dodgy dossier may have been dishonest, but the MPs I assume voted honestly believing this to be the correct course of action.
I can't believe I'm actually defending Bercow and the Iraq war decision here as I beleive both are/were wrong, but one has to show they are wrong with proper evidence. The link between Bercow's Iraq debate voting and his comments on Trump is non existant.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
We are well passed peak-Corbyn, hence all the rumours. It's worth remembering that the 40% or so who voted against him last September were mainly long-term members, the ones least likely to leave. When he stands down, Corbyn will take a lot of keyboard members with him.
My best guess right now is that the next leadership battle will be a relatively polite one between Lisa Nandy and Clive Lewis.
May has no need to allow another indyref during her tenure. The wait should be at least 10 years post 2014 and probably longer. The SNP presence in parliament is perfect for the Tories in that it creates a party for the British public to dislike (usually the Tories), and the SNP winning keeps the Tories in power with a majority and makes Labour's task impossible.
The only time I could forsee an Indyref before 2020 is if the polls consistently became 60-40 in favour of yes, but that would probably require some sort of impossible demographic shift. The SNP's best hope is a Labour minority or coalition government gaining power but ironically their own electoral success makes this highly unlikely for the near future.
I've been speaking to someone who used to work for the UN, Mrs Sturgeon doesn't need a referendum to lawfully secede from the UK.
She can put it in her manifesto for the next UK general election/or the next Scottish Parliament that if the SNP wins a majority of MPs/MSPs then Scotland will secede, and it will meet the UN tests for lawful secession.
I plan to do a thread on it, once I've got some more details on it.
As someone who wants a second referendum on Scottish Independence and would be very
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
I wouldn't get bogged down in the details. In 10-20 years, whatever the chaos of UDI, the Scots will have settled down to their post-UK reality.
The analogy being the likely disruption that any kind of Brexit will cause over the next 2-10 years. Thereafter we will be free and the ruining of this generation's economic well-being, should that transpire, will be seen as a necessary stage on our road to freedom.
The question is whether Scots would feel under any obligation to obey a government that simply declared UDI. What if, say, the Court of Session (or the Supreme Court) ruled that UDI was illegal?
There are all sorts of things like that. Who is the legitimate authority for any number of areas?
For that matter, who or what, for example, would be underpinning the financial system? Where would a Scottish government get it's money from, immediately post-UDI? To what extent are Scottish public sector computer sysytems reliant on the UK?
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
We are well passed peak-Corbyn, hence all the rumours. It's worth remembering that the 40% or so who voted against him last September were mainly long-term members, the ones least likely to leave. When he stands down, Corbyn will take a lot of keyboard members with him.
My best guess right now is that the next leadership battle will be a relatively polite one between Lisa Nandy and Clive Lewis.
I can see how the left might swoon over such crap but people generally are smarter than that. Corbyn has a terrific back story to appeal to the left but how are the polls going? Labour as a pretty far left organisation is going nowhere. It has to become more centrist. Even Corbyn seems to have an inkling about this but cannot stop himself from behaving like Dr Strangelove's hand.
I'm sure Lewis would move to the centre. This is the other thing about him: He's the only person who can move to the centre and take the left with him.
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
We are well passed peak-Corbyn, hence all the rumours. It's worth remembering that the 40% or so who voted against him last September were mainly long-term members, the ones least likely to leave. When he stands down, Corbyn will take a lot of keyboard members with him.
My best guess right now is that the next leadership battle will be a relatively polite one between Lisa Nandy and Clive Lewis.
The keyboard Corbynista have hit a blockage in their adulation: his lukewarm efforts on Brexit. Most are Remainers I would guess.
Any general membership numbers from Labour recently? Other than the 8,000 who left last week over the 3-line whip.
PMQs again showing why the politics needs to be taken out of healthcare - this petty point-scoring on both sides isn't doing anything to address the issues.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Unless there is an up-front deal to get a 'better' lefty on the ballot
(Like I've been advocating for a year and a half!)
The only figure who fits that bill is Clive Lewis. Given that the two men have fallen out it doesn't look likely. Nandy is an outside option, but she quit under him so hard to envisage.
PMQs again showing why the politics needs to be taken out of healthcare - this petty point-scoring on both sides isn't doing anything to address the issues.
The only way to take politics out of healthcare is to have a private system with no public involvement - and not even America does that. Otherwise we will always have public involvement and therefore political involvement.
I get don't this belief that Clive Lewis is the answer for labour. Yes he is a good back story, but he was sacked by local bbc for being thick as two short planks. Labours current labour is equally thick and it shows.
Thanks to all for your comments/birthday wishes etc.
And to darling Roger: I wrote those paragraphs for free. Even lawyers have a heart.
Re civil rights in the US this PBS documentary is very well worth seeing - Eyes on the Prize - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092999/. It uses a lot of film from the time and is both shocking (in the violence it shows) and uplifting in showing how the campaigners kept on going.
Catching up on the thread. What is this stuff about Jezza quitting? There's no chance currently as the Left won't let him – the second he quits, they lose control of the party as left wing candidates won't be able to get the requisite number of nominations. The PLP won't make the same mistake twice.
Unless there is an up-front deal to get a 'better' lefty on the ballot
(Like I've been advocating for a year and a half!)
The only figure who fits that bill is Clive Lewis. Given that the two men have fallen out it doesn't look likely. Nandy is an outside option, but she qmunder him so hard to envisage.
Lewis backs Trident, Nandy backed Owen Smith. Why would current Labour members vote for them now?
Comments
I thought next of kin was as follows:
Spouse -> Kids -> Parents -> Grandkids-> Grandparents -> Siblings -> Niblings -> Aunts/Uncles ?
And once they've all gone, cousins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_hunting
For all that the ill informed hot heads in both the Brexit and the Scots Independence movements might like the idea, unilateral declarations are no way to ensure the success of independence unless under the threat of violence and oppression from the existing state. Something that does not apply in the case of either Brexit or Scottish Independence.
On the other hand May would be absolutely mad to deny the Scots a referendum if they apply for one. No one can deny the situation has materially changed quite dramatically since the last one.
"Every country has a province or state that takes lots of money/grants, are opposed to almost everything, almost bankrupt, the bed of socialism, morally correct on all issues (in their own minds), special treatment, the universe of special interest groups, and so and so on. We have our Quebec and the U.S. has their California."
I guess in the UK we have London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_of_kin
Our legal system, not so much. Whoever can afford the most lawyer fees I assume.
Is it 67p in the pound or just 67p
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/829078857022070784
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/829286458800369664
http://www.lesechos.fr/elections/presidentielle-2017/0211778028033-sondage-jour-j-pour-presitrack-notre-suivi-quotidien-de-la-presidentielle-2062958.php
Point 5 about holding Westernised democracies, including the US and - dare I say - Israel, to different, often higher, standards is a good one (although we perhaps sometimes excuse each other on military interventionism), and is the only prism through which one could argue, at this stage, for the exclusion of Trump.
I like in point 6 how, having previously made strong points on the value of women, you feel able to use the 'playground full of teenage girls' analogy. I approve heartily - true political correctness should focussed on real human dignity, not the denial of difference or the eschewal of any piece of truth that might be gleaned from stereotype.
Personally, I'm relaxed on Trump's visit and his addressing of parliament - it's a distraction from the bigger concern about the sort of faustian deals we might do with him over the coming years. And a state visit, to sit him down and have a nonagenarian lady who lived through the blitz explain to him chapter and verse the ills of that age, sits well with my liberal liking for restorative justice
The analogy being the likely disruption that any kind of Brexit will cause over the next 2-10 years. Thereafter we will be free and the ruining of this generation's economic well-being, should that transpire, will be seen as a necessary stage on our road to freedom.
There are some exceptions to this, but they mostly involve jobs that were done by a dog or a rabbit in a Richard Scarry book.
If you have a house worth £0.5M plus in SE England, that's worth a lot...
Johnny Mercer
Theresa Villiers
Sarah Wollaston
Graham Brady
Any hint that he might do that and the membership would not vote for him.
I suspect Labour is stuffed until the membership die off or leave.
Paul Joseph Watson
Another one bites the dust. 1.3 million followers and now gone. Thou shalt not offend feminists. https://t.co/O518UAf7cg
Have I ever mentioned by humongous man crush on Mr Mercer?
I can't believe I'm actually defending Bercow and the Iraq war decision here as I beleive both are/were wrong, but one has to show they are wrong with proper evidence. The link between Bercow's Iraq debate voting and his comments on Trump is non existant.
My best guess right now is that the next leadership battle will be a relatively polite one between Lisa Nandy and Clive Lewis.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.120629015
Didn't see that coming.
For that matter, who or what, for example, would be underpinning the financial system? Where would a Scottish government get it's money from, immediately post-UDI? To what extent are Scottish public sector computer sysytems reliant on the UK?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/02/next-labour-leader-lets-do-the-time-warp-again/
No need for jokes.
Much mirth in the chamber....
Any general membership numbers from Labour recently? Other than the 8,000 who left last week over the 3-line whip.
"My best guess right now is that the next leadership battle will be a relatively polite one between Lisa Nandy and Clive Lewis."
That would doom Ukip in the North.
Jezza has a whiff of "What Macclesfield desperately needs in more transgender toilets."
Other Northern towns are available.
Honestly, I expect much better from the sensible PBers - my definition being those who refrain from playground bullying as a default position.
And to darling Roger: I wrote those paragraphs for free. Even lawyers have a heart.
Re civil rights in the US this PBS documentary is very well worth seeing - Eyes on the Prize - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092999/. It uses a lot of film from the time and is both shocking (in the violence it shows) and uplifting in showing how the campaigners kept on going.
https://order-order.com/2017/02/08/read-leaked-surrey-text-messages-full/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-steve-bannon-nsc-national-security-council-order-a7565191.html