Thinking outside the box on social care, instead of people selling up could a trained nurse live with said people inside their home - be paid a wage from the state - which can then be reclaimed from the estate at IHT time ? A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Plus you have to factor in the ground game and the algorithms.
A ground game involves getting off your arse and delivering leaflets/canvassing. All the indications are that the new Corbyn members are lazy sods who aren't willing to put in the hard yards.
The new members do absolutely nothing practical.
Almost as if they are embarrassed to be seen out actually supporting the Glorious Leader.... I mean, heavens - they might bump into somebody they know who isn't in their social media leftie circle jerk....
Any of those alternative Labour leaders would be a bigger challenge for May - mostly because they'd be competent - but they would still need to address Labour's pressing strategic problems that have no easy answers.
FWIW, different PMs have different strengths. Cameron was crap at debates, May is crap at PMQs.
Cameron was good at the slick set-pieces and tactical positioning; May is good at detail and strategic positioning.
Both are/were well-respected amongst floating voters,albeit they appeal to slightly different sorts.
Yup, Dave, especially after mid 2013 when Sir Lynton took the reins, decided to appeal to the Lib Dem floating voters, Mrs May has decided to target Lab floating voters.
I think she's decided she might lose 20 seats to the Lib Dems but win 50 from Labour.
Agreed.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Could some of that investment property be used for care ?
Only if you want to people requiring special care in shopping centres, cinemas and office blocks.
I would imagine Surrey embarked on this strategy to provide an alternative source of income to reliance on central Government largesse (or smallesse if you prefer) and it's actually a very good idea since local authorities have the ability to borrow at very good rates at present and the rental yields from commercial property (especially outside London) are very good.
Exactly: the income derived from the capital spend is essential to maintaining services that can only be funded from recurring revenue. So it's bizarre, bordering on the grotesque, for Hazel Watson to demand divestment of this commercial property.
Mr. Pulpstar, it'd cost a fortune, and probably be unaffordable.
It'd also annoy the middle class, who pay IHT because they have the assets but not so much they hire people to help them avoid it.
Unfortunately, the electoral considerations have to be borne in mind. I do think there's a general political will to try and address the problem, though.
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Scotland is about a tenth of the electorate. That 8/9% from Labour represents 0.8% nationally. The Tories are up 3-4% from 2015, Labour down 5-6% nationally. You say it's not Wales, and it certainly isn't Northern Ireland - so I'm thinking Labour's English marginals are at great peril...
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Plus you have to factor in the ground game and the algorithms.
A ground game involves getting off your arse and delivering leaflets/canvassing. All the indications are that the new Corbyn members are lazy sods who aren't willing to put in the hard yards.
Surely a bit of retweeting in your lunch break, and then dinner at Nando's with your mates telling everyone how terrible the Tories are and how JC4PM, followed by a bit of Facebook liking in the evening will do the job ?
Any of those alternative Labour leaders would be a bigger challenge for May - mostly because they'd be competent - but they would still need to address Labour's pressing strategic problems that have no easy answers.
FWIW, different PMs have different strengths. Cameron was crap at debates, May is crap at PMQs.
Cameron was good at the slick set-pieces and tactical positioning; May is good at detail and strategic positioning.
Both are/were well-respected amongst floating voters,albeit they appeal to slightly different sorts.
Yup, Dave, especially after mid 2013 when Sir Lynton took the reins, decided to appeal to the Lib Dem floating voters, Mrs May has decided to target Lab floating voters.
I think she's decided she might lose 20 seats to the Lib Dems but win 50 from Labour.
Agreed.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
Mr. Pulpstar, it'd cost a fortune, and probably be unaffordable.
It'd also annoy the middle class, who pay IHT because they have the assets but not so much they hire people to help them avoid it.
Unfortunately, the electoral considerations have to be borne in mind. I do think there's a general political will to try and address the problem, though.
Home fees are more eye watering than my solution I think. The mortgage on the care home needs to come out of somewhere... Could appeal to single nurses in particular who obviously have to rent or own somewhere else to live if they work at a home.
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Plus you have to factor in the ground game and the algorithms.
Yeah, the IT guys can be sneaky with stuff like that. Friend of mine found a couple of bitcoin miners hiding at the back of the server room, 3 13A plugs going into each one!
I think stuff like this is par for the course with any smart developers or IT people. "What can we do?" is rarely followed by "Should we do it?"
Any of those alternative Labour leaders would be a bigger challenge for May - mostly because they'd be competent - but they would still need to address Labour's pressing strategic problems that have no easy answers.
FWIW, different PMs have different strengths. Cameron was crap at debates, May is crap at PMQs.
Cameron was good at the slick set-pieces and tactical positioning; May is good at detail and strategic positioning.
Both are/were well-respected amongst floating voters,albeit they appeal to slightly different sorts.
Yup, Dave, especially after mid 2013 when Sir Lynton took the reins, decided to appeal to the Lib Dem floating voters, Mrs May has decided to target Lab floating voters.
I think she's decided she might lose 20 seats to the Lib Dems but win 50 from Labour.
Agreed.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
It also assumes that there'll be no further swing. At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was about 2% ahead (and would be about 12% ahead by the middle of the year). They're underperforming the 2010-15 trendline by at least 16%, probably 20% or more (given that the Flounce Bounce was still puffing up the Tory vote share in Feb 2012).
Paul Kirkby 'Goldman Sachs has replaced 6OO traders with 200 computer engineers. Engineers now 1/3 of the Goldman's workforce' https://t.co/emTKHjo2Uu
That's what happens when you lose so many people to the White House, I guess.
Kudos to Trump, he was right, when he said if Hillary won, Goldman Sachs would be running the government.
He was right on both counts.
The French regulator has been hiring engineers to work in its enforcement division for a number of years now. You have been warned.
I've been speaking to a few people both in the legal and financial services industry, plus accountants too, it is striking how many engineering graduates are looking to work in these fields.
I find that very worrying. The UK is already desperately short of engineers of all types and I remember reading a little while ago that some ridiculous percentage of those that we do have are due to retire over the next decade. Given that the future economic well-being of this country depends on innovation and big improvements in productivity, losing engineering graduates to other professions is not going to be helpful.
One can understand the reasons behind the graduate's decisions (they will have seen friends from uni going into to comparatively very high paying jobs) but it is not good for the Country. Just another twist in the UK's spiral of decline that has been going on for a couple of centuries. Here manipulating money is seen as more important, and so better rewarded, than actually creating the stuff. Contrast the status of engineers here with, say, Germany.
I quite agree.
BTW I was sorry to hear that your cat, Thomas, had shuffled off this mortal coil.
Thank you, Mrs Free and you Mr. Dancer. Being without at least one moggie lolling around the household is odd and there is cat work that needs to be done. There is already something lurking at the back of the garden shed which worries Herself, and I do not want those bloody elves coming round here. So one working cat, preferably a pair, have to be acquired quickly. Certainly I need them in place before she gets too far ahead on this ghastly cruise idea she has come up with.
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Plus you have to factor in the ground game and the algorithms.
A ground game involves getting off your arse and delivering leaflets/canvassing. All the indications are that the new Corbyn members are lazy sods who aren't willing to put in the hard yards.
The new members do absolutely nothing practical.
...except win elections to the CLP Executive (in our case).
Yeah, the IT guys can be sneaky with stuff like that. Friend of mine found a couple of bitcoin miners hiding at the back of the server room, 3 13A plugs going into each one!
I think stuff like this is par for the course with any smart developers or IT people. "What can we do?" is rarely followed by "Should we do it?"
You'd have thought that geeks would be into Jurassic Park.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
One would hope that motorways, rail links, hospitals etc are not vanity projects and will be for the long term. It makes sense for oil rich nations to use their wealth to develop for the long term as we will before very long now in the grand scheme of things be in a post oil world. Certainly more sensible than using the wealth to bribe the populace to accept your dictatorial rule without any investments like in Saudi or Russia etc
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
Any of those alternative Labour leaders would be a bigger challenge for May - mostly because they'd be competent - but they would still need to address Labour's pressing strategic problems that have no easy answers.
Both are/wQs. FWIWere well-respected amongst floating voters,albeit they appeal to slightly different sorts.
Yup, Dave, especially after mid 2013 when Sir Lynton took the reins, decided to appeal to the Lib Dem floating voters, Mrs May has decided to target Lab floating voters.
I think she's decided she might lose 20 seats to the Lib Dems but win 50 from Labour.
Agreed.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
It also assumes that there'll be no further swing. At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was about 2% ahead (and would be about 12% ahead by the middle of the year). They're underperforming the 2010-15 trendline by at least 16%, probably 20% or more (given that the Flounce Bounce was still puffing up the Tory vote share in Feb 2012).
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
The New Yorker has a neat summary of the original proceedings in the case against the Trump ban: http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-ninth-circuit-and-president-trumps-lies Should the court ruling against the ban hold, what will be particularly satisfying will be the way in which Trump's own words have been used in evidence against him. Purcell said, especially given that the discussion was just about a temporary restraining order, and that there hadn’t been any real substantive legal proceedings yet. Indeed, he said, “It’s remarkable to have this much evidence of intent without any discovery.”
Exactly: the income derived from the capital spend is essential to maintaining services that can only be funded from recurring revenue. So it's bizarre, bordering on the grotesque, for Hazel Watson to demand divestment of this commercial property.
To a point, yes, but commercial investment property relies on a steady stream of tenant income without which it's just another freehold liability. I wouldn't argue against disposal if the price was right - if you buy an office block for £10 million and someone offers you £20 million three years later, you might as well take the money and look for another investment.
Thinking outside the box on social care, instead of people selling up could a trained nurse live with said people inside their home - be paid a wage from the state - which can then be reclaimed from the estate at IHT time ? A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
Absolutely, we need to try new ideas and see what works.
For your idea I'd go to Manila and pick up 1,000 nurses and carers, bring them here on a one year visa and pay them £500 a month (plus their accommodation, food, transport etc). If it works then expand the project, but the only way we can do it quickly is going to be with immigrant labour.
From there we could move to small-scale care homes, say an adapted four bedroom house with three residents/couples and two carers/nurses. Not everyone who's too poorly to look after themselves needs round-the-clock care.
From the NHS discussion the other day, I think the long term solution is to have both health and social care delivered at the local level, ideally from local taxes and with local political accountability.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
It also assumes that there'll be no further swing. At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was about 2% ahead (and would be about 12% ahead by the middle of the year). They're underperforming the 2010-15 trendline by at least 16%, probably 20% or more (given that the Flounce Bounce was still puffing up the Tory vote share in Feb 2012).
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
If you were to judge this straw on the Justin124StrawClutcher-o-tron, what does it reach on a magnitude scale?
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
One would hope that motorways, rail links, hospitals etc are not vanity projects and will be for the long term. It makes sense for oil rich nations to use their wealth to develop for the long term as we will before very long now in the grand scheme of things be in a post oil world. Certainly more sensible than using the wealth to bribe the populace to accept your dictatorial rule without any investments like in Saudi or Russia etc
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
You release that the UK has 30-35x the population of Qater, so any comparison to UK spending is nonsense....And if the experience of most Olympics and World Cup in places like Brazil, Greece, etc there will be stadia that are totally unused a year after the tournament with highways and other infrastructure required to get you there that are equally pointless.
Not particularly. GB polls have recently been showing a pro-Tory swing in Scotland of 8/9% from Labour. In England the swing is 1/2% and sometimes negative.The strong recovery in Scotland is giving a rather distorted impression of how well the Tories are doing elsewhere.
Plus you have to factor in the ground game and the algorithms.
A ground game involves getting off your arse and delivering leaflets/canvassing. All the indications are that the new Corbyn members are lazy sods who aren't willing to put in the hard yards.
Surely a bit of retweeting in your lunch break, and then dinner at Nando's with your mates telling everyone how terrible the Tories are and how JC4PM, followed by a bit of Facebook liking in the evening will do the job ?
Paul Kirkby 'Goldman Sachs has replaced 6OO traders with 200 computer engineers. Engineers now 1/3 of the Goldman's workforce' https://t.co/emTKHjo2Uu
That's what happens when you lose so many people to the White House, I guess.
Kudos to Trump, he was right, when he said if Hillary won, Goldman Sachs would be running the government.
He was right on both counts.
The French regulator has been hiring engineers to work in its enforcement division for a number of years now. You have been warned.
I've been speaking to a few people both in the legal and financial services industry, plus accountants too, it is striking how many engineering graduates are looking to work in these fields.
I find that very worrying. The UK is already desperately short of engineers of all types and I remember reading a little while ago that some ridiculous percentage of those that we do have are due to retire over the next decade. Given that the future economic well-being of this country depends on innovation and big improvements in productivity, losing engineering graduates to other professions is not going to be helpful.
One can understand the reasons behind the graduate's decisions (they will have seen friends from uni going into to comparatively very high paying jobs) but it is not good for the Country. Just another twist in the UK's spiral of decline that has been going on for a couple of centuries. Here manipulating money is seen as more important, and so better rewarded, than actually creating the stuff. Contrast the status of engineers here with, say, Germany.
I worked for a year as an engineer in a factory before reading production engineering at university.
When I came out of university the salaries offered to me as an engineer were poor so joined a management consultancy. Other colleagues did the same. I never returned to engineering although I have worked on many projects to improve productivity in various businesses using what I learned at university.
One student on our course seems to have done well in industry in the far East but he is of Chinese background, sponsored by their government.
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
The "adjustment" is there for a reason.
Prediction: if Labour goes into a General Election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, it will suffer a massive swing to the Can't Be Arsed Party. They won't vote for other parties. They just won't vote.
Thinking outside the box on social care, instead of people selling up could a trained nurse live with said people inside their home - be paid a wage from the state - which can then be reclaimed from the estate at IHT time ? A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
A disabled chum of mine has set up just such an arrangement. He has three ladies, who work two weeks on and four weeks off, taking it in turns to look after him, drive him to the pub at lunchtime, get the shopping, etc.. It works brilliantly, but it is very, very expensive and set up through and agency, which no doubt adds to the cost by at least 30%. We do not talk actual numbers but I doubt it costs him less than a grand a week (about the same as a care home around here).
Incidentally, all of his three ladies actually live in Spain, though two are Brits, and commute back and forth, which enables him to offset some of the costs by flogging the duty-free fags they bring over for him.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
One would hope that motorways, rail links, hospitals etc are not vanity projects and will be for the long term. It makes sense for oil rich nations to use their wealth to develop for the long term as we will before very long now in the grand scheme of things be in a post oil world. Certainly more sensible than using the wealth to bribe the populace to accept your dictatorial rule without any investments like in Saudi or Russia etc
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
You release that the UK has 30-35x the population of Qater, so any comparison to UK spending is nonsense....And if the experience of most Olympics and World Cup in places like Brazil, Greece, etc there will be stadia that are totally unused a year after the tournament with highways and other infrastructure required to get you there that are equally pointless.
Its a staggering amount of money, the return on investment will be utterly negligible. This isn't about building a sustainable post oil economy - once the oil is gone, Qatar will be bankrupt within a few years; this can only hasten the process and I don't feel particularly sad about it.
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
The "adjustment" is there for a reason.
Prediction: if Labour goes into a General Election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, it will suffer a massive swing to the Can't Be Arsed Party. They won't vote for other parties. They just won't vote.
But the pollsters have taken different views as to the adjustments required. Quite a few commentaors question whether ICM may have overcompensated. I am certainly dubious having read the details of their methodology.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
It also assumes that there'll be no further swing. At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was about 2% ahead (and would be about 12% ahead by the middle of the year). They're underperforming the 2010-15 trendline by at least 16%, probably 20% or more (given that the Flounce Bounce was still puffing up the Tory vote share in Feb 2012).
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
If you were to judge this straw on the Justin124StrawClutcher-o-tron, what does it reach on a magnitude scale?
I am not a committed Labour voter - having supported them at only one of the last five general elections. But you can make your own judgement.
I'd say "par" for May in a GE at the moment (on current boundaries) would be about 350 seats.
That is not what current polls are suggesting. Even ICM would imply just 35 gains from Labour. Opinium would suggest 12 -15 losses to Labour in England and Wales.
'Just' 35 gains would give Theresa May a majority of 82 (less a few to the Lib Dems, plus a handful from the SNP). Call it 70 in round numbers. Not landslide territory but very comfortable all the same.
Indeed - but that relies on the most optimistic of current polling and assumes that ICM's pro-Tory adjustments prove justified.
It also assumes that there'll be no further swing. At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was about 2% ahead (and would be about 12% ahead by the middle of the year). They're underperforming the 2010-15 trendline by at least 16%, probably 20% or more (given that the Flounce Bounce was still puffing up the Tory vote share in Feb 2012).
Yes - but if the 'adjustments' were to be removed the difference would be a fair bit smaller.To make a like for like comparison we would to be looking at an unchanged methodology. Last year ICM moved to Online from Phone polling, and there was evidence that the effect of that alone increased the Tory lead with this pollster by 2/3 points , and it is woth recalling that even on the basis of its old Phone polling ICM had a tendency - going back to 1997 - to give Labour lower ratings than other pollsters and the LDs somewhat higher. ICM are also making assumptions about 'Don't knows' and 'Refusers' which some commentators find dubious - and which strike me as suspect. The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
If you were to judge this straw on the Justin124StrawClutcher-o-tron, what does it reach on a magnitude scale?
I am not a committed Labour voter - having supported them at only one of the last five general elections. But you can make your own judgement.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
The whole region is preparing for the day the oil and gas runs out. Doha is massively expanding in the way Dubai did a decade ago, they're investing the money they have in infrastructure in the hope that after the tournament there will be something of a legacy for Qatar and for football.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
Justin...the man who has never seen a bad poll for Labour.
Oh yes I have - all the polls are bad for Labour at present ranging from poor to disastrous. I am just trying to make out where we really are in the face of conflicting evidence.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
One would hope that motorways, rail links, hospitals etc are not vanity projects and will be for the long term. It makes sense for oil rich nations to use their wealth to develop for the long term as we will before very long now in the grand scheme of things be in a post oil world. Certainly more sensible than using the wealth to bribe the populace to accept your dictatorial rule without any investments like in Saudi or Russia etc
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
You release that the UK has 30-35x the population of Qater, so any comparison to UK spending is nonsense....And if the experience of most Olympics and World Cup in places like Brazil, Greece, etc there will be stadia that are totally unused a year after the tournament with highways and other infrastructure required to get you there that are equally pointless.
Its a staggering amount of money, the return on investment will be utterly negligible. This isn't about building a sustainable post oil economy - once the oil is gone, Qatar will be bankrupt within a few years; this can only hasten the process and I don't feel particularly sad about it.
Qatar isn't oil. It's the North Dome/South Pars natural gas condensate field, shared with Iran. About 1.8 quadrilion feet of natural gas and fifty billion barrels of condensate to exploit before that beast runs out.
It will quite possibly be the last hydrocarbon resource producing on the planet, when the rest have been exhausted.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
One would hope that motorways, rail links, hospitals etc are not vanity projects and will be for the long term. It makes sense for oil rich nations to use their wealth to develop for the long term as we will before very long now in the grand scheme of things be in a post oil world. Certainly more sensible than using the wealth to bribe the populace to accept your dictatorial rule without any investments like in Saudi or Russia etc
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
You release that the UK has 30-35x the population of Qater, so any comparison to UK spending is nonsense....And if the experience of most Olympics and World Cup in places like Brazil, Greece, etc there will be stadia that are totally unused a year after the tournament with highways and other infrastructure required to get you there that are equally pointless.
Its a staggering amount of money, the return on investment will be utterly negligible. This isn't about building a sustainable post oil economy - once the oil is gone, Qatar will be bankrupt within a few years; this can only hasten the process and I don't feel particularly sad about it.
Qatar isn't oil. It's the North Dome/South Pars natural gas condensate field, shared with Iran. About 1.8 quadrilion feet of natural gas and fifty billion barrels of condensate to exploit before that beast runs out.
It will quite possibly be the last hydrocarbon resource producing on the planet, when the rest have been exhausted.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
The whole region is preparing for the day the oil and gas runs out. Doha is massively expanding in the way Dubai did a decade ago, they're investing the money they have in infrastructure in the hope that after the tournament there will be something of a legacy for Qatar and for football.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
Chinese style internet restrictions doesn't the most sensible way of embracing the post-oil/gas modern era.
Mr. Llama, whilst one shares your distrust of the ghastly cruise, I thought you were acquiring a hound?
Indeed, Mr. D, we shall be. However, we are still in negotiation as to size, rules of living (e.g. dog not allowed on bed) etc. Also she says we must get the moggies first so that the hound will be subservient to them.
However, nothing in our married life has ever gone according to plan so I wouldn't be surprised to come home one day and find a German Shepherd or something equally unsuitable sitting on the mat.
After thirty-odd years of married life in which very little, homes, cats, son, has ever happened with my consent after careful thought, planning and discussion I am used to riding the crest of the wave and coping with what comes up next. However, I am not going on a bloody cruise.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
The whole region is preparing for the day the oil and gas runs out. Doha is massively expanding in the way Dubai did a decade ago, they're investing the money they have in infrastructure in the hope that after the tournament there will be something of a legacy for Qatar and for football.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
Chinese style internet restrictions doesn't the most sensible way of embracing the post-oil/gas modern era.
Which arab state runs out of gas/oil first out of interest ?
More interesting to ask which runs out of money first. 'The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone'. Or to ask which are most profoundly dependent on oil/gas and have nothing else to offer the world. All of the middle east oil theocracies / kleptocracies are going to be wiped out by renewable energy at some point. They have no culture or manufactures to export. Their wealthy will end up in Belgravia or the Lower East Side. The masses will end up deeply fucked with hot sand and camel shit to enjoy. It's going to be ugly. And you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
The whole region is preparing for the day the oil and gas runs out. Doha is massively expanding in the way Dubai did a decade ago, they're investing the money they have in infrastructure in the hope that after the tournament there will be something of a legacy for Qatar and for football.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
Chinese style internet restrictions doesn't the most sensible way of embracing the post-oil/gas modern era.
"Somali lawmakers voted for the country's president on Wednesday, gathering in the safety of Mogadishu's heavily fortified airport after months of delays and following threats from Islamist insurgents bent on derailing the elections."
Qatar is spending almost $500m (£400m) a week on major infrastructure projects as it prepares for the 2022 Fifa World Cup, its finance minister has said.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
The whole region is preparing for the day the oil and gas runs out. Doha is massively expanding in the way Dubai did a decade ago, they're investing the money they have in infrastructure in the hope that after the tournament there will be something of a legacy for Qatar and for football.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
Chinese style internet restrictions doesn't the most sensible way of embracing the post-oil/gas modern era.
Most of the traditional bookies' websites are blocked - but mobile apps for some still work though. Betfair is apparently seen slightly differently as an exchange rather than a bookmaker. I'm not complaining.
Saudi and Qatar are more strict than UAE, Oman and Bahrain less so.
@Pulpstar. Bahrain. It exists as a relaxed weekend destination from Saudi.
Indeed, it's a very small island with a causeway linking to the Saudi mainland. A few years ago they closed all the bars in 2* and 3* hotels to try and stop half of Riyadh and Dammam turning up there every Thursday afternoon.
I've not been there for a while but am going to the F1 next month, will report back!
Which arab state runs out of gas/oil first out of interest ?
More interesting to ask which runs out of money first. 'The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone'. Or to ask which are most profoundly dependent on oil/gas and have nothing else to offer the world. All of the middle east oil theocracies / kleptocracies are going to be wiped out by renewable energy at some point. They have no culture or manufactures to export. Their wealthy will end up in Belgravia or the Lower East Side. The masses will end up deeply fucked with hot sand and camel shit to enjoy. It's going to be ugly. And you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
And vast amounts of nearly free solar power; no reason why they couldn't be fine.
Mr. Llama, a German shepherd probably wouldn't be bad. They're intelligent and easy to train..
They are gorgeous (I have wanted one since I was about eight years old) and far too large and need far too much exercise (I am not getting any younger you know).
Mr. Patrick, if that occurs, they may well collapse into extremist failed states. That won't help anyone.
They will. But also the flow of money to madrassas and wahhabist nutjobs will evaporate too. They'll revert to what they were before the oil - destitute empty quarters, a footnote in history.
Look at Egypt. Large population. Can't feed itself. Totally inadequate exports to cover its costs. Reserves plunging. Kept alive by co-religionists. Fucked. Expect trouble.
The gross over-reliance on one ephemeral export product combined with the adherence to a religion of %^&* amounts to a pan-regional failure to think ahead. They have behaved disgustingly for generations. They'll reap what they've sowed.
Our national interest is best served by steering well clear.
Which arab state runs out of gas/oil first out of interest ?
More interesting to ask which runs out of money first. 'The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone'. Or to ask which are most profoundly dependent on oil/gas and have nothing else to offer the world. All of the middle east oil theocracies / kleptocracies are going to be wiped out by renewable energy at some point. They have no culture or manufactures to export. Their wealthy will end up in Belgravia or the Lower East Side. The masses will end up deeply fucked with hot sand and camel shit to enjoy. It's going to be ugly. And you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
And vast amounts of nearly free solar power; no reason why they couldn't be fine.
Which will benefit the 0.001% of the population who own or maintain the panels. What about the mob? 'We have sunshine' is no national business model.
Mr. Patrick, if that occurs, they may well collapse into extremist failed states. That won't help anyone.
They will. But also the flow of money to madrassas and wahhabist nutjobs will evaporate too. They'll revert to what they were before the oil - destitute empty quarters, a footnote in history.
Look at Egypt. Large population. Can't feed itself. Totally inadequate exports to cover its costs. Reserves plunging. Kept alive by co-religionists. Fucked. Expect trouble.
The gross over-reliance on one ephemeral export product combined with the adherence to a religion of %^&* amounts to a pan-regional failure to think ahead. They have behaved disgustingly for generations. They'll reap what they've sowed.
Our national interest is best served by steering well clear.
Also, I am not sure you are going to attract innovative diverse start-ups etc if the state says you aren't allowed to own and run your own company and have to have a local place-man in charge.
Mr. Patrick, if that occurs, they may well collapse into extremist failed states. That won't help anyone.
They will. But also the flow of money to madrassas and wahhabist nutjobs will evaporate too. They'll revert to what they were before the oil - destitute empty quarters, a footnote in history.
Look at Egypt. Large population. Can't feed itself. Totally inadequate exports to cover its costs. Reserves plunging. Kept alive by co-religionists. Fucked. Expect trouble.
The gross over-reliance on one ephemeral export product combined with the adherence to a religion of %^&* amounts to a pan-regional failure to think ahead. They have behaved disgustingly for generations. They'll reap what they've sowed.
Our national interest is best served by steering well clear.
Also, I am not sure you are going to attract innovative diverse start-ups etc if the state says you aren't allowed to own and run your own company and have to have a local place-man in charge.
The more entrepreneurial states in the region have free zones where foreign-owned business can set up e.g. service companies. Local partners are generally required for trading companies though - although they can be bought off relatively cheaply these days.
Also the GCC countries have agreed for 5% VAT to come into effect a year from now, fuel subsidies are also being removed (although petrol is still $0.50 a litre!)
The busiest regional growth sectors are travel and tourism, driven by huge investment into airlines and hotels. Convenient location for Europe to Asia and Australia traffic, pax and cargo.
Mr. Llama, whilst one shares your distrust of the ghastly cruise, I thought you were acquiring a hound?
Indeed, Mr. D, we shall be. However, we are still in negotiation as to size, rules of living (e.g. dog not allowed on bed) etc. Also she says we must get the moggies first so that the hound will be subservient to them.
However, nothing in our married life has ever gone according to plan so I wouldn't be surprised to come home one day and find a German Shepherd or something equally unsuitable sitting on the mat.
After thirty-odd years of married life in which very little, homes, cats, son, has ever happened with my consent after careful thought, planning and discussion I am used to riding the crest of the wave and coping with what comes up next. However, I am not going on a bloody cruise.
I can reccomend a border terrier. Compact and stoical and tolerant of cats. They like a long walk but not demanding if the weather is inclement. A walk tends to be slow as they dawdle over bushesand lampposts.
Small poodles are good too, though a bit more bouncy. popular with the ladies because they do not moult.
Is a river cruise a fair compromise? less garish and all consuming and multiple bits of sightseeing.
"Somali lawmakers voted for the country's president on Wednesday, gathering in the safety of Mogadishu's heavily fortified airport after months of delays and following threats from Islamist insurgents bent on derailing the elections."
It's outrageous that any Western country should wish to temporarily halt visa applications from such a country for 90 days whilst they reassess the process.
Mr. D, it will. There will be a few blues who'll side with the Speaker come what may, and many will feel the moment's passed or that it'll just aggravate someone they need to at least not be antagonistic over the prolonged EU debates/voting.
The wretched and shameless Bercow should be forced out. But he won't be.
Thinking outside the box on social care, instead of people selling up could a trained nurse live with said people inside their home - be paid a wage from the state - which can then be reclaimed from the estate at IHT time ? A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
Absolutely, we need to try new ideas and see what works.
For your idea I'd go to Manila and pick up 1,000 nurses and carers, bring them here on a one year visa and pay them £500 a month (plus their accommodation, food, transport etc). If it works then expand the project, but the only way we can do it quickly is going to be with immigrant labour.
From there we could move to small-scale care homes, say an adapted four bedroom house with three residents/couples and two carers/nurses. Not everyone who's too poorly to look after themselves needs round-the-clock care.
From the NHS discussion the other day, I think the long term solution is to have both health and social care delivered at the local level, ideally from local taxes and with local political accountability.
Sure I read about students in France getting free accommodation to live in with frail elderly who didn't need specialist medical care, but just a little help.
Having watched PMQs for the last month or two, I cannot remember a single Labour, Liberal or SNP MP asking one question regarding the economy. Can anyone else recall? All they seem to do is ask for more and more money. Are there no grown ups on the Opposition benches left? Or did they all disappear when Brown was booted out?
Mr. Patrick, if that occurs, they may well collapse into extremist failed states. That won't help anyone.
They will. But also the flow of money to madrassas and wahhabist nutjobs will evaporate too. They'll revert to what they were before the oil - destitute empty quarters, a footnote in history.
Look at Egypt. Large population. Can't feed itself. Totally inadequate exports to cover its costs. Reserves plunging. Kept alive by co-religionists. Fucked. Expect trouble.
The gross over-reliance on one ephemeral export product combined with the adherence to a religion of %^&* amounts to a pan-regional failure to think ahead. They have behaved disgustingly for generations. They'll reap what they've sowed.
Our national interest is best served by steering well clear.
Also, I am not sure you are going to attract innovative diverse start-ups etc if the state says you aren't allowed to own and run your own company and have to have a local place-man in charge.
The more entrepreneurial states in the region have free zones where foreign-owned business can set up e.g. service companies. Local partners are generally required for trading companies though - although they can be bought off relatively cheaply these days.
Also the GCC countries have agreed for 5% VAT to come into effect a year from now, fuel subsidies are also being removed (although petrol is still $0.50 a litre!)
The busiest regional growth sectors are travel and tourism, driven by huge investment into airlines and hotels. Convenient location for Europe to Asia and Australia traffic, pax and cargo.
I am sure we have discussed this on here before. Estonia is really the model that a lot of small countries looking to secure future diverse investment should follow. Fantastic high speed open internet, highly educated youngsters who speak great English, ability to become a "virtual citizen", piece of cake to setup your business, banking, pay your taxes (which are very reasonable) etc all online. It is extremely easy to have a business there.
If Corbyn won both seats why would he step down any time soon? Of course the latest approval rating polling still shows May with a clear lead over Starmer too and if anything the most likely replacement for Corbyn at the moment is his ideological soulmate John McDonnell
Your "insights" into what Labour Party and its members will or won't do are, frankly, pointless. You have no idea what Labour-minded folk are thinking, your pronouncements are basically wishful thinking about what you hope they will do to best serve the interests of the Tories.
Thinking outside the box on social care, instead of people selling up could a trained nurse live with said people inside their home - be paid a wage from the state - which can then be reclaimed from the estate at IHT time ? A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
Absolutely, we need to try new ideas and see what works.
For your idea I'd go to Manila and pick up 1,000 nurses and carers, bring them here on a one year visa and pay them £500 a month (plus their accommodation, food, transport etc). If it works then expand the project, but the only way we can do it quickly is going to be with immigrant labour.
From there we could move to small-scale care homes, say an adapted four bedroom house with three residents/couples and two carers/nurses. Not everyone who's too poorly to look after themselves needs round-the-clock care.
From the NHS discussion the other day, I think the long term solution is to have both health and social care delivered at the local level, ideally from local taxes and with local political accountability.
Sure I read about students in France getting free accommodation to live in with frail elderly who didn't need specialist medical care, but just a little help.
That's a good idea too. Often all the old and frail need is a young 'buddy' rather than a carer, someone who can help them with shopping and transport rather than medical care.
The important thing is that we try all these ideas out, and make sure that information about how and why things work or don't is made available to the whole country.
Having watched PMQs for the last month or two, I cannot remember a single Labour, Liberal or SNP MP asking one question regarding the economy. Can anyone else recall? All they seem to do is ask for more and more money. Are there no grown ups on the Opposition benches left? Or did they all disappear when Brown was booted out?
The "grown up" Tories cut capital gains tax in one of their more recent budgets. At the time of the coalition government Osborne told the people that the 28% rate would optimise revenue whilst not discouraging risk. If money could be later found for that tax cut then why not more money for the NHS or even uprating social security benefits with inflation for the disabled? Pensioners get the triple lock guarantee but those who are disabled get no increase.
The Tories are not a One Nation party of government anymore, they are just the party of the rich. The new post Brexit framework should be more redistributive not less. The nasty party is back and firing on all cylinders.
Mr. Llama, a German shepherd probably wouldn't be bad. They're intelligent and easy to train..
They are gorgeous (I have wanted one since I was about eight years old) and far too large and need far too much exercise (I am not getting any younger you know).
Have you considered miniature long-haired dachshunds? They're pretty, affectionate little dogs (but not yappy; nor are they neurotic like their smooth haired cousins); very little exercise required (short legs), and get on just fine with cats (not least because they're not as tall). Not particularly bright, but wonderful companions, and not demanding.
If Corbyn won both seats why would he step down any time soon? Of course the latest approval rating polling still shows May with a clear lead over Starmer too and if anything the most likely replacement for Corbyn at the moment is his ideological soulmate John McDonnell
Your "insights" into what Labour Party and its members will or won't do are, frankly, pointless. You have no idea what Labour-minded folk are thinking, your pronouncements are basically wishful thinking about what you hope they will do to best serve the interests of the Tories.
To be fair, that is what Labour has been doing for the last 10 years or so. I would not blame Tories for believing that such a state of affairs will continue. If there is a wrong decision to be made, you can usually count on Labour to make it. That said, a decent leader with a united PLP could be making a lot of hay, so if a miracle does occur the Tories could quite quickly find themselves in trouble.
Mr. Llama, a German shepherd probably wouldn't be bad. They're intelligent and easy to train..
They are gorgeous (I have wanted one since I was about eight years old) and far too large and need far too much exercise (I am not getting any younger you know).
Have you considered miniature long-haired dachshunds? They're pretty, affectionate little dogs (but not yappy; nor are they neurotic like their smooth haired cousins); very little exercise required (short legs), and get on just fine with cats (not least because they're not as tall). Not particularly bright, but wonderful companions, and not demanding.
Try an Irish (black and tan, shorty) Jack Russell. They are bred as pets not terriers, are ridiculously affectionate, not yappy, AND short-haired.
Mr. Llama, a German shepherd probably wouldn't be bad. They're intelligent and easy to train..
They are gorgeous (I have wanted one since I was about eight years old) and far too large and need far too much exercise (I am not getting any younger you know).
Have you considered miniature long-haired dachshunds? They're pretty, affectionate little dogs (but not yappy; nor are they neurotic like their smooth haired cousins); very little exercise required (short legs), and get on just fine with cats (not least because they're not as tall). Not particularly bright, but wonderful companions, and not demanding.
Try an Irish (black and tan, shorty) Jack Russell. They are bred as pets not terriers, are ridiculously affectionate, not yappy, AND short-haired.
Wire-haired fox terriers - brilliant family dogs, deep bark when they do, whip-smart - plus they don't shed....
Mr. Llama, a German shepherd probably wouldn't be bad. They're intelligent and easy to train..
They are gorgeous (I have wanted one since I was about eight years old) and far too large and need far too much exercise (I am not getting any younger you know).
Have you considered miniature long-haired dachshunds? They're pretty, affectionate little dogs (but not yappy; nor are they neurotic like their smooth haired cousins); very little exercise required (short legs), and get on just fine with cats (not least because they're not as tall). Not particularly bright, but wonderful companions, and not demanding.
Try an Irish (black and tan, shorty) Jack Russell. They are bred as pets not terriers, are ridiculously affectionate, not yappy, AND short-haired.
They have trouble getting a room in a 1950s British boarding house though
Having watched PMQs for the last month or two, I cannot remember a single Labour, Liberal or SNP MP asking one question regarding the economy. Can anyone else recall? All they seem to do is ask for more and more money. Are there no grown ups on the Opposition benches left? Or did they all disappear when Brown was booted out?
The "grown up" Tories cut capital gains tax in one of their more recent budgets. At the time of the coalition government Osborne told the people that the 28% rate would optimise revenue whilst not discouraging risk. If money could be later found for that tax cut then why not more money for the NHS or even uprating social security benefits with inflation for the disabled? Pensioners get the triple lock guarantee but those who are disabled get no increase.
The Tories are not a One Nation party of government anymore, they are just the party of the rich. The new post Brexit framework should be more redistributive not less. The nasty party is back and firing on all cylinders.
Yawn....
The current Govt. takes a greater proportion as tax - 37% - than the Govts. of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or the Coalition.
Having watched PMQs for the last month or two, I cannot remember a single Labour, Liberal or SNP MP asking one question regarding the economy. Can anyone else recall? All they seem to do is ask for more and more money. Are there no grown ups on the Opposition benches left? Or did they all disappear when Brown was booted out?
The "grown up" Tories cut capital gains tax in one of their more recent budgets. At the time of the coalition government Osborne told the people that the 28% rate would optimise revenue whilst not discouraging risk. If money could be later found for that tax cut then why not more money for the NHS or even uprating social security benefits with inflation for the disabled? Pensioners get the triple lock guarantee but those who are disabled get no increase.
The Tories are not a One Nation party of government anymore, they are just the party of the rich. The new post Brexit framework should be more redistributive not less. The nasty party is back and firing on all cylinders.
Yawn....
The current Govt. takes a greater proportion as tax - 37% - than the Govts. of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or the Coalition.
And yet thanks to the structural deficit Gordon Brown created by offering overly generous tax credits to those willing to work a mere 16 hours a week the Government still needs to borrow money....
Pensioners get the triple lock guarantee but those who are disabled get no increase.
Really? Do you ever bother to look up facts before you post nonsense like that?
What are the facts then? Please enlighten me. The disabled get no increase. Does the triple lock no longer apply to pensions? Please show me the links that say this is not so.
A lot of you on this site seem to believe all the nonsense spouted by the Tories about being One Nation. They are not One Nation.
If Corbyn won both seats why would he step down any time soon? Of course the latest approval rating polling still shows May with a clear lead over Starmer too and if anything the most likely replacement for Corbyn at the moment is his ideological soulmate John McDonnell
Your "insights" into what Labour Party and its members will or won't do are, frankly, pointless. You have no idea what Labour-minded folk are thinking, your pronouncements are basically wishful thinking about what you hope they will do to best serve the interests of the Tories.
To be fair, that is what Labour has been doing for the last 10 years or so. I would not blame Tories for believing that such a state of affairs will continue. If there is a wrong decision to be made, you can usually count on Labour to make it. That said, a decent leader with a united PLP could be making a lot of hay, so if a miracle does occur the Tories could quite quickly find themselves in trouble.
You know when Labour are making a mistake in their choice of Leader: McCluskey supports the candidate.
Comments
A notional rent could be reflected as a salary deduction - might be more cost effective for those who need care and lead to a nice financial bonus for those prepared to 'live in' (What could be quite a nice house) compared to a home...
It'd also annoy the middle class, who pay IHT because they have the assets but not so much they hire people to help them avoid it.
Unfortunately, the electoral considerations have to be borne in mind. I do think there's a general political will to try and address the problem, though.
Could appeal to single nurses in particular who obviously have to rent or own somewhere else to live if they work at a home.
Ali al-Emadi expected spending to continue at that level for three to four years as new stadiums, motorways, rail links and hospitals are built.
More than $200bn (£160bn) will be spent in total by the gas-rich emirate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38905510
That is some vanity project.
Incidentally while $200bn sounds like (and is) a lot that is over a very long period. Interestingly at £400mn a week it is only a bit more than Boris's £350mn a week. Funny how playing with numbers and time can result in dramatically different figures.
The reference to 2010 -2015 is fair enough - but against that there was Labour recovery in the 1987 -1992 and 1959 -64 Parliaments - as well as the Tory recovery in the 2001 -05 Parliament.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-ninth-circuit-and-president-trumps-lies
Should the court ruling against the ban hold, what will be particularly satisfying will be the way in which Trump's own words have been used in evidence against him.
Purcell said, especially given that the discussion was just about a temporary restraining order, and that there hadn’t been any real substantive legal proceedings yet. Indeed, he said, “It’s remarkable to have this much evidence of intent without any discovery.”
Campaigning is easy; governing is harder.
And don't red-line that, Chrome, you Latin illiterate baboon that thinks 'stadiums' is correct!
For your idea I'd go to Manila and pick up 1,000 nurses and carers, bring them here on a one year visa and pay them £500 a month (plus their accommodation, food, transport etc). If it works then expand the project, but the only way we can do it quickly is going to be with immigrant labour.
From there we could move to small-scale care homes, say an adapted four bedroom house with three residents/couples and two carers/nurses. Not everyone who's too poorly to look after themselves needs round-the-clock care.
From the NHS discussion the other day, I think the long term solution is to have both health and social care delivered at the local level, ideally from local taxes and with local political accountability.
When I came out of university the salaries offered to me as an engineer were poor so joined a management consultancy. Other colleagues did the same. I never returned to engineering although I have worked on many projects to improve productivity in various businesses using what I learned at university.
One student on our course seems to have done well in industry in the far East but he is of Chinese background, sponsored by their government.
Prediction: if Labour goes into a General Election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, it will suffer a massive swing to the Can't Be Arsed Party. They won't vote for other parties. They just won't vote.
Incidentally, all of his three ladies actually live in Spain, though two are Brits, and commute back and forth, which enables him to offset some of the costs by flogging the duty-free fags they bring over for him.
Yeah, I have just made my own judgment.
Whether or not that happens is of course unknown at this point, but they're certainly trying. Not sure how many Brits will go there to watch though, with restricted alcohol sales and expensive hotels.
It will quite possibly be the last hydrocarbon resource producing on the planet, when the rest have been exhausted.
However, nothing in our married life has ever gone according to plan so I wouldn't be surprised to come home one day and find a German Shepherd or something equally unsuitable sitting on the mat.
After thirty-odd years of married life in which very little, homes, cats, son, has ever happened with my consent after careful thought, planning and discussion I am used to riding the crest of the wave and coping with what comes up next. However, I am not going on a bloody cruise.
All of the middle east oil theocracies / kleptocracies are going to be wiped out by renewable energy at some point. They have no culture or manufactures to export. Their wealthy will end up in Belgravia or the Lower East Side. The masses will end up deeply fucked with hot sand and camel shit to enjoy. It's going to be ugly. And you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.
http://www.dubaifaqs.com/censorship-uae-internet.php
"Somali lawmakers voted for the country's president on Wednesday, gathering in the safety of Mogadishu's heavily fortified airport after months of delays and following threats from Islamist insurgents bent on derailing the elections."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/somali-lawmakers-gather-airport-vote-president-080004759.html
Saudi and Qatar are more strict than UAE, Oman and Bahrain less so.
I've not been there for a while but am going to the F1 next month, will report back!
Look at Egypt. Large population. Can't feed itself. Totally inadequate exports to cover its costs. Reserves plunging. Kept alive by co-religionists. Fucked. Expect trouble.
The gross over-reliance on one ephemeral export product combined with the adherence to a religion of %^&* amounts to a pan-regional failure to think ahead. They have behaved disgustingly for generations. They'll reap what they've sowed.
Our national interest is best served by steering well clear.
Mr. Llama, greyhound? Not had one myself, but they're notoriously lazy.
Also the GCC countries have agreed for 5% VAT to come into effect a year from now, fuel subsidies are also being removed (although petrol is still $0.50 a litre!)
The busiest regional growth sectors are travel and tourism, driven by huge investment into airlines and hotels. Convenient location for Europe to Asia and Australia traffic, pax and cargo.
Small poodles are good too, though a bit more bouncy. popular with the ladies because they do not moult.
Is a river cruise a fair compromise? less garish and all consuming and multiple bits of sightseeing.
The wretched and shameless Bercow should be forced out. But he won't be.
The important thing is that we try all these ideas out, and make sure that information about how and why things work or don't is made available to the whole country.
The Tories are not a One Nation party of government anymore, they are just the party of the rich. The new post Brexit framework should be more redistributive not less. The nasty party is back and firing on all cylinders.
First hound may have been part poodle, and she was the best of dogs.
http://hobbithilljackrussells.homestead.com/SweetPea3-9.jpg
The current Govt. takes a greater proportion as tax - 37% - than the Govts. of John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or the Coalition.
They are 11/10 Labour, and someone wants that for a grand on BF
Can now be laid at 17 on Betfair, for those who got on at much longer odds or just think along with @Jobabob that the rumour is rubbish.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.120629096
An earlier Rebecca Long-Bailey interview.
A lot of you on this site seem to believe all the nonsense spouted by the Tories about being One Nation. They are not One Nation.
BTW I noticed a colleague of yours got a quote in the Telegraph article on the pensions court case from this morning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/unmarried-woman-wins-automatic-right-late-partners-pension/